Saturday, November 27, 2010

Things They Should Invent: chose the healthiest cans possible for food bank donation packages

Metro has this thing where you give a small amount of money at the cash register to purchase a "food bank package" - a few cans and other nonperishable food items in a little bag, to go in the food bank donation box.

I noticed that all the items in the food bank package are store brand items, which has me wondering how healthy they are.

In the past few years, my body's been reacting negatively when my sodium intake is too high. Unfortunately, I still crave the taste of salt, so I've been looking for ways to cut back the amount of sodium I consume in foods that don't address my salt craving. So I started reading nutritional information on the non-salty processed foods that I do eat, and I noticed that cheaper brands systematically have more sodium. And the store brand is nearly always the cheapest one. For things like soup and tomato sauce, they'd often have 30%-40% of your recommended daily intake in just one serving! (And we know that the servings based on which nutritional information is calculated tend to be smaller than what one person would normally eat in one sitting.)

I haven't examined every single product in the food bank package, and I haven't done compared any nutritional information other than sodium content (although high sodium content is certainly a risk factor for heart disease in and of itself), but this makes me worried that we might be giving the unhealthiest food to food banks, when we could be making our food bank donations significantly less unhealthy by just going a couple of items over on the same shelf.

At this point, someone is likely to argue "But they shouldn't be eating processed foods anyway, they should be eating wholesome fresh foods!" I'll do you one better: we shouldn't need food banks at all - our social safety net should be strong enough that people should buy their own groceries. But the fact remains that there are people who are hungry, and they're hungry right this minute and can't wait until we revamp the whole infrastructure. The existing system for getting food to needy people is food banks, and the nature of existing food banks requires large-scale donations canned and other nonperishable (and therefore processed) foods. And human nature is such that you'll get more donations by asking people to pay a harmless amount for a preselected package of goods than by requiring them to take the initiative and choose items to donate on their own.

What we can do right now, without interrupting the flow of food to needy people, is get someone to read the labels, pick the healthiest items off the supermarket shelf, and put those in the food bank packages. Then people won't have to choose between increasing their risk of heart disease and going to bed hungry.

3 comments:

laura k said...

Very good! I had never thought of this before.

I also like your articulation of why it's important to give to food banks even if you believe in a robust social safety net. I get very frustrated by people who say "I don't believe it giving to food banks - you're doing the govt's job for them, making it easy for them to enact bad policy." I struggle for ways to respond, and now have more ammunition.

impudent strumpet said...

I wouldn't even have thought of it if my body hadn't been rejecting sodium, but based on my recent experience the idea of having only store-brand canned foods available to each makes me cringe. It would mean literally every meal results in discomfort.

There was recently talk in the news of limiting the amount of sodium in canned foods, and there were so many people in the comments threads saying "Well, you shouldn't be eating processed foods anyway!" As though they were actively offended by the idea of walking into a store, grabbing a can of tomato sauce, and not damaging your health in any way. So I figure those people would argue with my proposition that food bank cans should be as unharmful as possible.

laura k said...

"Well, you shouldn't be eating processed foods anyway!"

There's a huge pattern of answering issues this way. Fighting for equal rights for women in the military is bad because we shouldn't have war. Advocating for homeless animals is bad because we should have mandatory spay-neuter programs.

I find this SO frustrating!