Too much and too little? Debates on surplus food redistribution

Surplus food redistribution: the current debate
ambiguities of definition, than an
abstraction like inequality.... Once they
[Americans] begin, <strong>and</strong> get caught up
in the engrossing practical challenges
of transferring food to the hungry <strong>and</strong>
the substantial emotional gratifications
of doing so, they lose sight of the larger
issue of inequality...It is time to find
ways to shift the discourse from
undernutrition to unfairness, from
hunger to inequality." 193 And Riches suggests that
defining the food access debate around food insecurity
is better than hunger because "it raises the debate
about the right to food, <strong>and</strong> because food is an
excellent metaphor <strong>and</strong> <strong>too</strong>l for engaging the debate
about the many manifestations of poverty, inequality
<strong>and</strong> powerlessness in society, <strong>and</strong> thereby it brings
together different institutions <strong>and</strong> sectors who together
are capable of addressing the underlying structural
causes (from health, agriculture, food policy,
education, social policy, employment, anti-poverty
groups, <strong>and</strong> so on)." 194
Some surplus food redistribution schemes would
broadly accept this position, <strong>and</strong> thus declare
themselves for political advocacy. The CAFB "makes
representations to the federal government…voicing
concerns about policies affecting low income, <strong>and</strong>
supporting national st<strong>and</strong>ards for health <strong>and</strong> welfare
in Canada." 195 Graham Riches is supportive of such
action. "I would not argue against [food recovery
programmes]," he says, "if these institutions played a
key role in terms of public education <strong>and</strong> policy
advocacy concerning people's basic human rights." 196
In the UK, the programme manager of Crisis FareShare,
Karen Bradford, <strong>and</strong> her colleagues, are aware of these
wider issues, but recognise that the
practicalities of the system may push
these real issues off the agenda. 197 But
as Janet Poppendieck points out,
advocacy becomes more difficult in
practice when schemes are unwilling to
take political positions which might
offend donors. It also becomes difficult
when funding is stretched, <strong>and</strong>
""DDuurriinngg oouurr ggrroowwtthh II
hhaavvee nnootteedd tthhaatt
aaddvvooccaaccyy ggrroouuppss aarree
mmeerreellyy ffeellllooww
ttrraavveelllleerrss aanndd wwhhiillee
tthheeyy wwaassttee mmuucchh ttiimmee
aanndd mmoonneeyy,, wwee eenndd uupp
ffeeeeddiinngg tthhee ppoooorr.."" John
van Hengel
““IItt iiss ttiimmee t<strong>too</strong> ffiinndd wwaayyss
t<strong>too</strong> sshhiifftt tthhee ddiissccoouurrssee
ffrroomm uunnddeerrnnuuttrriittiioonn t<strong>too</strong>
uunnffaaiirrnneessss,, ffrroomm
hhuunnggeerr t<strong>too</strong> iinneeqquuaalliittyy..""
Professor Janet Poppendieck
provided for day-to-day management,
not political campaigns. 198
The argument against this dialogue,
from those whose daily work is to try
<strong>and</strong> ease some of the problems of
deprivation, is that in the meantime,
we have to feed people, <strong>and</strong> surplus
food redistribution is one way to do it.
John van Hengel, who has worked for
over thirty years in the food banking movement, puts
it like this: "During our growth I have noted that
advocacy groups are merely fellow travellers <strong>and</strong> while
they waste <strong>much</strong> time <strong>and</strong> money, we end up feeding
the poor…We are very practical in our usage of food
<strong>and</strong> money while they continue to have meetings
without solutions." 199 But what this argument ignores,
according to Valerie Tarasuk, is the "simple fact that
what we do in the present shapes future responses.
Moving all this surplus food around takes a lot of work,
effectively detracting from advocacy activities. As for
people being fed in the meantime, well, I am not that
convinced that there is really all that <strong>much</strong> feeding
going on. So I would say that the bigger impact of
surplus food redistribution schemes is not what they
do in terms of feeding people, but what they do in
terms of redefining food problems as matters of charity
rather than social justice." 200
34 Published by Sustain: The alliance for better food <strong>and</strong> farming - 2000 34