This past week's classes were eye-opening. Not sure how much I wanted my eyes opened but nonetheless its hard to think about food the same way after reading the first section of Michael Pollan's book Omnivore's Dilemma and then learning about processed foods and dumpster diving. Lot to think about! After class on Tuesday 2/10 I freaked out about processed foods, went to Safeway, bought organic cereal and an organic frozen meal for work the next day, the cost for the two items, $10! Yikes, it's going to be expensive buying organic. I went to Trader Joes the next day and found the selection much more affordable.
I've heard that there are certain food items that should be purchased organic but then others that it doesn't matter if you buy organic or not. I'm not sure how much truth there is in that so I did some research and found this list by Delicious Organics. This list is helpful but I wouldn't trust it completely considering whoever put it together did a poor editing job. So my research continued and I found a more credible source. Consumer reports ran an article in February 2006 titled When it Pays to Buy Organic. The article gives tips and tricks to the everyday consumer on which items should absolutely be purchased organic and which non-organic items are safe. It also gives some recommendations on buying organic inexpensively.
More to come on this blog entry, still need to discuss dumpster diving!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Pros and Cons of Food Banks - Portfolio
When I was 9 years old my Dad insisted on my brother and I working at our church, serving homeless people, a Christmas meal. The only problem was we would have to do that before we could open gifts on Christmas day. Absolute torture for a 9 year old who has waited so patiently since the last Christmas. I remember being truly upset and well a brat over the whole ordeal. But, as my father knew, it was one of the memorable Christmases. We talked with homeless people, served them, and felt truly rewarded. We went home and felt pretty happy with ourselves that we could bless someone else on Christmas. That year turned out to be the only year we did this. As rewarding as it was for us, we honestly didn't give them much thought after Christmas. I was too young really to understand what it meant to be homeless especially during the winter, and was certainly too young to think about what caused them to be in their predicament.
What does this have to do with food banks, you ask? Food banks are a wonderful way for people who might not be able to afford going to the grocery store to acquire food for themselves and usually for their families. But wouldn't it be better to solve the problem of poverty rather than just enabling it? Okay that statement was a little cruel but wouldn't it be better to donate time and money to solve the root of the problem rather than a symptom? (Just read the article for class by Janet Poppendieck, she mentions hunger as a symptom). In Poppendiecks article Want Amid Plenty: From Hunger to Inequality she discusses the need for food banks instead of government food assistance, at least that's how I understand the article. She states that food stamps can be traded for something else and that cash is the main objective. The cash can then be spent on something else. Instead it would be better if the government set up programs that addressed the disease rather than the symptom. Food banks would then come in to play, if people could just be given food that was donated privately then government money could be spent somewhere else. it would still help the homeless and poor but would also help them get back on their feet instead of always playing catchup. This makes sense and is overall a good solution for everyone. People who are not poor often want to give back mostly because it makes us feel good about ourselves, we pat ourselves on the back and think we've done our good deed for the day. While I don't agree with that entirely (we should want to give to just give and help someone instead of the warm fuzzies we know we are going to feel after we've done something good) it still means that food is being donated and handed out to those who need it. So the consequences of this win win solution is, those who are not poor feel good that they can help and feel good about themselves, those who are poor are simply given the food, the money that would have gone to food assistance programs can now go to other areas like healthcare for those that cannot afford it, perhaps job training, and other programs that help solve poverty.
To tie this into the first paragraph, no I didn't want to help poor people on Christmas day because it kept me from opening my presents, yes I ended up really enjoying volunteering, and sadly no, I didn't go back the following year. Even though I felt great about what I did, it didn't change enough of me to want to do it again. Now that I'm older and perhaps wiser I realize that we should give because we genuinely want to, and its okay to do it because it also makes us feel better, the end result is still the same, someone who didn't have food before, now does.
What does this have to do with food banks, you ask? Food banks are a wonderful way for people who might not be able to afford going to the grocery store to acquire food for themselves and usually for their families. But wouldn't it be better to solve the problem of poverty rather than just enabling it? Okay that statement was a little cruel but wouldn't it be better to donate time and money to solve the root of the problem rather than a symptom? (Just read the article for class by Janet Poppendieck, she mentions hunger as a symptom). In Poppendiecks article Want Amid Plenty: From Hunger to Inequality she discusses the need for food banks instead of government food assistance, at least that's how I understand the article. She states that food stamps can be traded for something else and that cash is the main objective. The cash can then be spent on something else. Instead it would be better if the government set up programs that addressed the disease rather than the symptom. Food banks would then come in to play, if people could just be given food that was donated privately then government money could be spent somewhere else. it would still help the homeless and poor but would also help them get back on their feet instead of always playing catchup. This makes sense and is overall a good solution for everyone. People who are not poor often want to give back mostly because it makes us feel good about ourselves, we pat ourselves on the back and think we've done our good deed for the day. While I don't agree with that entirely (we should want to give to just give and help someone instead of the warm fuzzies we know we are going to feel after we've done something good) it still means that food is being donated and handed out to those who need it. So the consequences of this win win solution is, those who are not poor feel good that they can help and feel good about themselves, those who are poor are simply given the food, the money that would have gone to food assistance programs can now go to other areas like healthcare for those that cannot afford it, perhaps job training, and other programs that help solve poverty.
To tie this into the first paragraph, no I didn't want to help poor people on Christmas day because it kept me from opening my presents, yes I ended up really enjoying volunteering, and sadly no, I didn't go back the following year. Even though I felt great about what I did, it didn't change enough of me to want to do it again. Now that I'm older and perhaps wiser I realize that we should give because we genuinely want to, and its okay to do it because it also makes us feel better, the end result is still the same, someone who didn't have food before, now does.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
