Too much and too little? Debates on surplus food redistribution

Surplus food redistribution: the current debate
food was being wasted; since then it has worked to
reduce it, <strong>and</strong> in 1997 the figure s<strong>too</strong>d at 9%. In the
future it hopes this percentage will fall to 2-3%. 155
But does the existence of surplus food <strong>and</strong> costs of
disposal justify its redistribution? Or does redistribution
perpetuate the underlying causes of food waste? Is it
more effective as a means of waste disposal <strong>and</strong>
improving public relations than as a way of solving the
problem of food poverty? These debates are discussed
in the next two sections.
5.3.2 Just another retailing opportunity?
Food retailers do benefit from redistributing their
surplus. The 1998 Provision (now Grocery Aid)
publicity brochure encourages contributions by
pointing out that donating: 156
l Improves the environment by minimising l<strong>and</strong>fill.
l Reduces industry's disposal costs.
l Will provide an alternative solution to the problem
of surplus food when disposing of it in l<strong>and</strong>fill sites
is banned.
l Saves money on long-term food storage.
l Demonstrates the community focus of the food <strong>and</strong>
grocery industry
l Provides valuable support for a wide-range of
worthwhile UK causes.
l Provides management of what might be large
numbers of requests from charities for food.
Foodbank Australia presents a similar list, <strong>and</strong>
emphasises that donations earn organisations
"recognition by governments <strong>and</strong> the public as good
corporate citizens." 157 Moreover, there are also other
financial considerations:
l Tax relief on donations (notin the UK, but in the
U.S., as described in section 4.1, <strong>and</strong> some
European countries).
l Food wastage is an operating cost, already reflected
in food prices.
Financial gain - the real advantage?
Food redistribution schemes advertise these
advantages to encourage donations. For example, the
South <strong>and</strong> West Lancashire Food Bank points out that
donating "is an environmentally friendly (<strong>and</strong> free)
way for food manufacturers to dispose of surplus
products." 158 A food corporation in Canada reckons
that donating unsaleables is "a good deed, but it's also
a very fiscally responsible thing to do. If you're trying
to lower the costs of doing business, this is the way to
do it." 159 Interviews with donors carried out by Second
Harvest revealed that "the tax benefits for donating,
reduction of disposal costs, <strong>and</strong> ease of the system
were cited by nine out of the ten donors as primary
factors influencing their decision to donate." 160 And
according to the chairperson of the Victoria Foodbank
Management Committee, Australia: "Corporations
take very readily to the food bank concept. They can
underst<strong>and</strong> it, because it is pragmatic, extremely costeffective
from a business point of view, <strong>and</strong> because
they underst<strong>and</strong> the problems associated with waste
<strong>and</strong> production error <strong>and</strong> disposal of excess product."
161 So such incentives, outside of the UK at least, have
encouraged donations. Now, particularly in the U.S.,
donation is embedded into corporate food culture.
Analysts of food banking, however, do not see these
corporate advantages as beneficial to the problem of
feeding those in need. Writes Professor Tim Lang of the
Centre of Food Policy at Thames Valley University, "The
giver of surplus food benefits far more in the longterm,
than does the recipient in the short-term. The
givers almost always claim tax deduction, or charity
status. So the poor have the added indignity of
receiving h<strong>and</strong> outs via a mechanism which even helps
retain the superior purchasing power of the
affluent." 162 Others argue that the patronage of food
retailers results in a dependency on retailers, <strong>and</strong>
28 Published by Sustain: The alliance for better food <strong>and</strong> farming - 2000 28