Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


6 Comments

Why I’m not down with #SUBWAYSandwish Day

20161102_192741

Bonus post this week because it’s National Sandwich Day and I’m ranty. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against sandwiches, or a day to celebrate them. I love a good sandwich. It’s something else that’s co-opting the celebration of bread and fillings that’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

I feel like a super-grinch for writing this but I think that it needs to be said, if only to give people pause for thought. You see, this National Sandwich Day, Subway restaurants across Canada will be making a donation of a sandwich to Food Banks of Canada for every sandwich and drink sold. All I’m seeing in response to this is jubilation. It’s a “win-win”. Sandwiches for everyone, even the poor!

Why do I have to go and rain on this parade? Well, there’s the same issue that I raised when talking about fast food fundraisers for health organizations. This is just a marketing ploy for Subway. They come out looking like heroes for donating sandwiches to food banks while we all give them great press on social media and flood their stores with business for the day.

Because the beneficiary of this day of charity is Food Banks Canada, and the fast food company is Subway, I have some different concerns than I do with the fast food for health charitable model. Okay, Subway is not quite as “bad” as many fast food chains. That being said, processed meat and cheese are not foods that I would consider particularly healthful. The food banks also aren’t (technically) health organizations. Not in the same sense that hospitals and the MS Society are. This means that my objection is not so much with the issue of benefiting the health of some at the cost of others.

My issue here is the model of food charity. While food banks play an essential role in our country the truth is, they shouldn’t. When they first appeared on the scene in the 80s their mandate was to put themselves out of business. They’re a bandaid that’s being used to reattach a limb. Encouraging days like this Sandwish Day only serves to perpetuate the belief that food banks are solving the problem of hunger, food insecurity, and poverty. They are not.

If Subway truly wanted to help “fight hunger” they would pledge to pay all of their employees a living wage. They would offer more full-time positions and provide benefits to all their employees. One day of charity is not even a drop in the bucket. If we want reduce food insecurity then we need a Basic Income Guarantee and Living Wages across the country. Forget the subs.


7 Comments

An open letter to grocery stores

imgres

Dear Grocery Stores,

I’ve noticed that over the past few years many of you (especially those that are affiliated with national chains) have moved toward discounts that are only applied to the purchase of multiple units. For example, buy two get one half price or buy four to receive a discount otherwise pay regular price. I implore you to reconsider this promotional model as it only serves to hurt your customers who need the discounts the most.

There are many reasons why these types of promotions are ill-suited to people living on limited incomes. The obvious reason is that of budget. In order to get the discount, more money must be paid up-front. Thus, more money is needed in order to save money. For someone with a tight grocery budget it may not be possible to afford to buy multiple units of a product in order to get the discount.

There are a couple of other reasons why this practice discriminates against people living on limited incomes. For many people living on limited incomes transportation is an issue. If you don’t have access to your own vehicle and have to walk, bike, or bus to the store, it’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to manage to lug three extra cans of beans home with you just to get the discount. Many people living on limited incomes don’t have stable living situations and may not have anywhere to store more food than is immediately needed.

Offering discounts on the purchase of multiple units only benefits those of us who are fortunate enough to have flexibility in our budgets, access to a car, and space in our kitchens. As much as most of us love getting deals, we are not the ones who truly need them. Please reconsider your promotions model. Work with the companies whose products you sell to develop promotions that don’t necessitate the purchase of multiple units to receive a discount. Do your bit to help those who need discounts the most.

 


4 Comments

Guys, we had it all wrong. This man has solved food insecurity!

Image from Pixabay

Image from Pixabay

You would think that I’d have had my fill of ranting about food insecurity and food bank-type “challenges”. Apparently not.

I came across another article last week in which the author bragged about how easy it was for them to follow the SNAP challenge. You know, the one that Gwyneth Paltrow made waves with her purchase of 7 limes on her meagre budget.

The author of the current article took exception to a couple of the rules; i.e. not using food purchased prior to the start of the challenge and not accepting free food. He complained that because of this rule he wasted three eggs and half a pound of spinach. I understand the frustration with wasting food but surely those could have been given to someone, consumed before beginning the challenge, or the spinach could have been frozen for use after the challenge. As for not accepting free food, I assume that’s to make it a level playing field as participants could have friends buy them lunch or have access to free food at meetings and events that people living in poverty would not have the opportunity to take advantage of. Yes, there is free food available to people in poverty through meal programs and food banks but how wrong would it be for someone playing poor for a month to use these services, thereby literally taking food from the people who need it the most.

Okay, to the point. Our author brags about how easy it was to make inexpensive nutritious meals. While he does make a good point that fast food isn’t as cheap as many people believe, he also fails to note that for someone who has a small amount of time and money (and perhaps limited cooking facilities and cooking skills) bulk purchases of nutritious foods may not be possible and quick and easy calories from McDonald’s might be the solution.

What really got my blood boiling was this:

“It’s about mindset, not money

I believe food insecurity is due to a combination of issues, but after living a month on such a strict budget I don’t believe money is one of them…

SNAP provides more than enough for a month’s worth of food, and that food insecurity is more of an education issue than a money issue.”

Such willful ignorance. To have the gall to accuse people who are living in poverty that it’s their “mindset” turns my stomach. Such an unfortunate conclusion to reach at the end of a challenge which is intended to help a person better relate to others, not proselytize to them. While there are many factors that contribute to food insecurity, income is number one. There’s also: time, knowledge, skill, confidence, access to food, access to cooking tools and facilities, space to store food, having a stove or a refrigerator, having recipes… Certainly, education can be a factor in helping people who are experiencing food insecurity but if it were the true problem then we’d see a lot more people with all incomes suffering from food insecurity. You can teach people how to cook and that soup is a great nutritious meal to make all you want but if they can’t read recipes, don’t have a large pot, a decent knife, ability to get to a store with affordable produce then they’re not going to be making soup.


7 Comments

Gwyneth Paltrow and the Seven Limes

8086094864_7b90bb8021_z

Photo (7) Seven limes by Wikioticslan on Flickr. Used under a Creative Commons Licence.

A few weeks ago everyone was mocking Gwyneth Paltrow’s food choices for a week-long food stamp challenge. Admittedly, they were a little ridiculous. I mean, it was nice to see that she chose things like dried beans, frozen peas, eggs, and some fresh vegetables. However, along with everyone else, I thought “seven limes??!“. Unless she got an amazing deal on those limes they seem like a nutritionally foolish expense. I saw some people posting their superior $29 selections. When Gwyneth failed to last more than four days on the challenge it seemed like everyone was more than a little gleeful. I saw others bragging about their success.

As much as we all like to take pleasure in Gwyn’s failures, I think that we may have lost the point. The point of this food stamp challenge is to show people how difficult it is to survive on such a limited food budget. To that end, it’s a good thing that Gwyneth failed. If she had happily lived on that little food budget then that would mean that all people living on food stamps should be able to contentedly survive on $29 of food a week.

Regardless of the choices that Gwyneth made, there’s little room for pleasure or flavour in such a meagre food budget. Note that there was no money for cooking oil, condiments, spices, or staples like flour and sugar. No coffee, tea, no chocolate! It’s nigh on impossible for someone to feed a family a basic nutritious diet when they are forced to rely on food stamps. More important here than Gwyneth’s failure to do so is the failure of the government to provide its citizens with the means to afford healthy, palatable food.