Is your local food bank accidentally keeping your community hungry?

Why does Big Food love charity more than it loves paying a living wage?

Discover the uncomfortable truth about America’s emergency food system in Andrew Fisher’s Big Hunger. Learn how the “hunger industrial complex” benefits corporations at the expense of the poor and why true food security requires political reform, not just more canned goods.

Ready to stop applying band-aids to a broken system? Read the full review below to learn how we can shift from charity to justice and finally address the root causes of hunger in America.

Recommendation

America’s emergency food system was meant to be a temporary fix to food insecurity. Over time, however, this “Band-Aid” approach to hunger has become entrenched — and exacerbated the very issue it aims to help, says food security expert Andrew Fisher. Fighting the root causes of hunger often goes against the interests of those in power within anti-hunger organizations, many of whom have affiliations to Fortune 500 companies, he explains. Fisher calls on anti-hunger groups to challenge the broken status quo and push for radical economic and political reform and local, sustainable food systems.

Take-Aways

• Anti-hunger agencies are neglecting hunger’s root causes and failing to make systemic change.
• The experience of patronizing food banks can be damaging and undignified.
• Four key constraints limit America’s charitable food system’s ability to reduce hunger.
• Emergency food organizations should embrace five strategic recommendations.
• Federal spending should support local businesses and small farmers.
• People living in poverty deserve a voice in shaping the programs designed for them.
• Anti-hunger organizations have an opportunity to replace outdated structures and ineffective leaders.
• Create a new anti-hunger narrative that calls for economic and political reform.

Summary

Anti-hunger agencies are neglecting hunger’s root causes and failing to make systemic change.

The United States faces more income equality today than it has since the late 1800s, and those living in poverty face food insecurity. Anti-hunger groups tend to focus primarily on raising funds to increase the amount of food available to give to those in need — and, thus, on growing the “hunger industrial complex.” Rather than empowering people to feed themselves and tackling systemic issues, such as pushing for a livable minimum wage, these groups assume those suffering from food insecurity lack the capacity for self-sufficiency and praise the very corporate entities who lobby against worker rights for their charitable donations. It’s time for the anti-hunger movement to start tackling the root causes of hunger, including income inequality; misogyny; high costs of living; domestic violence; racism; and broader sociopolitical issues, such as a lack of democratic processes and human rights protections.

“The Band-Aid approach of the charitable food sector largely fails to address the root causes of hunger, and thus, the sector perpetuates its own continuation and growth.”

Truly combating hunger requires a thorough remaking of the social movement to end hunger. Anti-hunger groups should work to safeguard the “right to food”: ensuring people living in the United States have unrestricted, permanent, and regular access to nutrition. People deserve access to food that aligns with their cultural traditions, is nutritionally adequate, and in sufficient quantities to live a “dignified life free of fear.” It’s time to pressure governments to respect, protect, and take steps to fulfill this right — by establishing a livable minimum wage, for instance — while continuing to provide food for the most vulnerable demographics. Few social organizations are currently using a human rights framework to end hunger in the United States because many believe the private sector should tackle hunger, not the public. Yet the private sector is not tackling this problem effectively, nor is it equipped to do so alone.

The experience of patronizing food banks can be damaging and undignified.

The US emergency food system became an established part of American life starting in the early 1980s — though individual charities have been feeding impoverished people living in the United States for far longer. The development of this system demonstrates an extraordinary commitment on a civil society level toward tackling the problem of hunger in partnership with the private sector and government. But the food bank system is not equipped to handle the sheer numbers of people facing food scarcity in America today — a trend that will only increase if income inequality continues to grow. Relying on food banks can also perpetuate feelings of helplessness. People who find themselves forced to use food banks report negative feelings about the experience, describing it as “undignified,” “stigmatizing,” and even “toxic.”

“As a society, we will need to overcome very real and entrenched interests that benefit from maintaining the current system.”

Food quality can be low at charitable food pantries. Food banks don’t have standardized nutrition policies and often face constraints when trying to serve healthy food. Some food banks feel pressure to accept junk foods from donors who simply want good PR and a tax break. Corporate donors may also pressure pantries to accept other low-quality items. Thus, food pantries often distribute expired dairy products, canned goods with dents in them, “failed manufacturing experiments,” moldy fruits, stale bread, and wilting vegetables.

Four key constraints limit America’s charitable food system’s ability to reduce hunger.

There are four constraints preventing food bank organizations from tackling the root causes of hunger:

• Organizational culture and leadership — Staff tend to feel pressure to maintain the status quo. Board members frequently have affiliations with large corporations like Kroger and Walmart and therefore lack the incentive to embrace policies that contradict those corporate interests — even if they tackle the root causes of hunger.
• Accountability — Food banks tend to lack formal accountability mechanisms, aside from basic nonprofit legal requirements. Formal authority tends to reside with their boards of directors.
• Corporate culture — Over time, food banks have embraced policies and practices that mirror those of their corporate donors and board members. This has resulted in astonishingly high food bank CEO salaries (exceeding $300,000 in some cases), and hierarchical, fear-based cultures in which staffers don’t feel comfortable suggesting new approaches to tackling hunger.
• Donors — Food industry manufacturers enjoy enhanced tax deductions when they donate food to charitable outlets. They can deduct more than twice the actual cost of the item, which gives the agri-food industry a financial incentive to perpetuate America’s dependence on the charitable food system.

Emergency food organizations should embrace five strategic recommendations.

There are several ways emergency food organizations can begin tackling the root causes of hunger:

1. Transform food distribution — When food banks respond to cuts to federal food assistance programs by increasing their food distribution efforts, they inadvertently lend credence to the notion that the charitable model is an adequate substitute for governmental resources — which is not the case. Food banks should, therefore, slowly shift their primary focus from food distribution to pushing for policy changes that would reduce the need for their services.
2. Eradicate incentives that don’t prioritize reducing hunger — When food banks set growth targets, such as increasing the pounds of food they feed to Americans, they’re actually creating a disincentive to eradicate hunger.
3. Increase public policy advocacy — Food banks should dedicate at least 10% of their overall organizational budgets to advocating for policy initiatives that will not only boost social safety-net programs like SNAP but also address problems that lead to food insecurity like high health care costs and a dearth of affordable housing.
4. Redefine food industry partnerships — Food banks should stop accepting poor quality or unhealthy food from industry partners, adopting stricter guidelines.
5. Communicate the new plan and vision — Charitable food providers should share their new strategic direction via fundraising letters, new messaging, and educational campaigns.

Federal spending should support local businesses and small farmers.

The federal government prioritizes partnerships with industrial players within the food system, to the detriment of the health of rural communities, the public and workers, as well as the environment. For example, when the federal government’s USDA food assistance program buys chicken from Tyson — the 93rd biggest US company — it’s supporting a corporation whose farmers lack job security and tend to go into debt purchasing “high tech chicken houses,” increasing their dependency on Tyson to renew their contracts. Poultry farmers at companies such as Tyson are some of the most exploited and vulnerable workers in the nation. The counties Tyson operates in experience lower than average per-capita income growth, and suffer more economically than neighboring counties.

“We need a new vision and new coalitions to remove federal food programs from supporting special interests and resituate them fully in the public interest.”

Federal food programs lack transparency: The government spends $100 billion per year on federal programs but is only publicly transparent about how it spends $2 billion. Looking at that $2 billion, it’s clear that the government’s USDA program is leveraging “massive economies of scale,” purchasing poultry from Tyson, for example, at lower prices for US school lunch programs. However these “savings” don’t take into account the externalized costs of the harm “Big Chicken” causes with its abusive practices. If government spending prioritized supporting local farmers and businesses, they’d actually get more value for their money. Research from the Harvard Business Review shows that investing in more small and mid-sized local businesses tends to correlate with more job creation than attracting big business does. Domestic food program spending should reflect the kind of food systems Americans want to support with their tax dollars.

People living in poverty deserve a voice in shaping the programs designed for them.

People experiencing food insecurity have no voice in shaping the programs and policies that serve them. It’s time for structural change that empowers those living in poverty to help drive the movement. Anti-hunger groups should consider broadening the scope of the “anti-hunger movement,” perhaps renaming it the “pro-income mobility movement.” Anti-hunger funders could enact meaningful change if they redirected donations and grants toward initiatives such as community organizing and grassroots leadership, ensuring the beneficiaries of their funding have representation. Anti-hunger groups should join forces with labor groups, pushing for minimum wage campaigns and the inclusion of labor standards at all food distribution centers, such as school cafeterias.

“Increasingly, the system is stacked against the poor. Living-wage employment with opportunities for advancement has been on the decline for a long time.”

Some anti-hunger groups are embracing innovation and taking steps to better serve those living in poverty in their communities. For example, the Pittsburgh nonprofit organization Just Harvest views “justice” as the key to solving the hunger problem — not food. Just Harvest has historic ties to labor unions and centers its work around three areas: advocacy, education, and service provision. The organization actively pushes for federal government support for nutrition and food programs while helping community members escape poverty, with free services such as tax preparation. It also educates the public about the state of hunger through tactics such as media outreach, working to bust misconceptions about poverty — such as the harmful notion that some impoverished people are “deserving” of help and others are not.

Anti-hunger organizations have an opportunity to replace outdated structures and ineffective leaders.

Slivers of hope are emerging, as people living in the United States begin organizing more around combating growing income inequality. Since 2013, 19 counties and cities and 15 states have increased their minimum wage. Workers in fast food chains are beginning to unionize, pressuring the food industry to increase hourly rates to $15. Many food bank CEOs are also “aging out.” As they retire, these organizations have an opportunity to hire leaders prepared to eschew the status quo for needed structural change. Feeding America, for example, is beginning to partner with community groups that offer services to help people escape poverty.

“Food is a human right, and all initiatives to promote food security should be grounded in the dignity of the individual.”

Still, more change is needed. To truly embrace a new vision and reframe food as a human right, anti-hunger groups should do the following:

• Elevate the voices of those at risk — Those particularly vulnerable to food insecurity, such as people of color and women, should have greater representation in the anti-hunger movement.
• Place the onus on government — Government, not the private sector, is responsible for creating the conditions necessary to safeguard human dignity and food security.
• Work toward broader goals — The long-term elimination of hunger requires embracing a holistic framework that combats inequality on numerous levels — for example, gender inequality as well as economic inequality. Federal food programs and charities should work toward increasing economic democracy.
• Prioritize relationships — Food banks should ground their services in human relationships, working to help individuals positively change their lives.
• Transform food supply chains — Federal food programs should source nutritious food in an economically and ecologically sustainable manner. If partnering with the corporate sector, anti-hunger groups must ensure they’re socially and environmentally responsible and transparent.

Create a new anti-hunger narrative that calls for economic and political reform.

National anti-hunger networks and the federal government must take responsibility for hunger, following these overarching recommendations:

• Increase funding to federal programs — The government has decreased food-related funding in recent years, including to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Budgetary increases to programs such as SNAP and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) are essential.
• Increase dialogue — Those working within the movement should engage in organizational self-reflection and dialogue, with the aim of developing new models for tackling hunger and systemic inequality. They should experiment with new approaches and methods and redefine the aim of their work. On a national level, the network Closing the Hunger Gap could facilitate this process.
• Codify corporate ethics — There’s a need for a unified “corporate code of philanthropic ethics” to ensure corporate social responsibility (CSR).
• Form alliances — Anti-hunger groups should form alliances with progressive organizations, collaborating to help push for change within movements such as labor and public health.
• Embrace innovation — Anti-hunger groups must innovate as they switch from a hunger treatment to a hunger prevention model. For example, SNAP could start playing more of a role in working to prevent chronic disease.
• Change communication strategies — Anti-hunger groups have misled the public into believing that donating their canned food can solve hunger. It’s time to replace emotionally manipulative “Band-Aid” approaches with initiatives that tackle hunger’s root causes.

About the Author

Andrew Fisher has been a leader in the sustainable food movement since the mid-1990s. He co-founded the Community Food Security Coalition, an organization working to create sustainable food systems on a local and regional level.