When Thanksgiving rolls around, food drives and food pantry donations soar. In the season of giving, we all begin to think about how much we have and offer the extra that we have to others. But sometimes, those offerings do more harm than good. So many times people reach into the cob-webbed recesses of their cupboards selecting the can of creamed corn that hasn’t seen the light of day since 2004, or the ramen noodles left behind years ago when kids went off to college.
NPR’s The Saltnails in on the head when it talks about donating nutrient dense food in place of castaway food items or expired cans of non-perishable food. Instead, by donating kidney beans, or lentils, or canned tuna, recipients are given more healthful food options that they can actually use. With so many people struggling with diabetes and other diet-related diseases, the push towards healthy eating is truly essential across social and economic spectrums. Eating healthy should be accessible to everyone, especially those who are hungry.
Ruth Solari, interviewed by The Salt and hunger advocate with Super Food Drive states it perfectly.
The goal, says Solari, is to make healthful eating approachable and “really debunking the idea that it’s an elitist thing.”
It is time to let go of the pervasive notion that those in need should “take what they can get.” We all have the right to food, and the right to access food in a dignified way. In my opinion, dignified does not include eating the leftover unwanted goods someone else wouldn’t eat. It is time to understand that collective health is of the utmost importance across political, social, economic, and environmental lines. And at the very least, we need to understand that hunger is a plight that no person should have to face, no matter what circumstances brought them there.
“It’s not enough to fill empty stomachs . . . The opposite of being hungry isn’t being full – it’s being healthy.”
So as you are looking to give back this season, let the aged goods in the back of your pantry be, and give the gift of health. For information on how to hold a healthy food drive, check out Super Food Drive, or check out their shopping list for great items to donate. Even a donation to your local food pantry can go a long way.
The midterm election yesterday represented much more than the age-old two-party contention. In a handful of states, propositions, measures, and candidates found on the ballot held major implications on a plethora of agriculture and food issues. Mother Jones outlined the various contests and their outcomes, copied below.
Personally, I was most anticipating San Francisco’s Measure E and Berkeley’s Measure D which proposed a two- and one-cent tax per ounce on sugary beverages, respectively. Given the fight that Big Soda put up against the measures, the contest was one to watch in relation to the future of the soda tax and the fight against big soda.
Another big-ticket item in Colorado, Oregon, and Hawaii were in relation to GMOs. Unsurprisingly, Monsanto, Pepsico, and Kraft raised over $36 million dollars collectively in these states to fight the initiatives and measures that would require GMO labeling and in Hawaii, a complete moratorium on GMO crops.
Read more about the different contests below, courtesy of Mother Jones.
Colorado Proposition 105: This statewide ballot initiative pushed for the labeling of genetically modified foods, requiring most GM foods to bear a label reading, “produced with genetic engineering.” Burrito chain Chipotle and Whole Foods came out in support of the measure, while agribusiness giants Monsanto, PepsiCo and Kraft came out against it. (Unsurprisingly, 105’s opponents raised more than $12 million—many times what supporters brought in.) Outcome: Colorado voters resoundingly rejected Prop 105, with nearly 70 percent of voters voting no.
Oregon Measure 92: This ballot measure was nearly identical to Colorado’s, requiring foods with GMO ingredients to be labeled. Like in Colorado, Big Ag mobilized big-time against Measure 92, raising more than $16 million. But 92’s supporters—including Dr. Bronner’sMagic Soaps—raised an impressive $8 million. Outcome: Undecided
San Francisco Measure E and Berkeley Measure D: These two Bay Area cities both considered levying taxes on sugary beverages. San Francisco’s Measure E proposed a two-cent per ounce tax, while Berkeley’s Measure D proposed one-cent per ounce. Both races were considered something of a last stand for the soda tax—if it couldn’t pass in these two bastions of liberalism and healthy living, it was essentially doomed everywhere else. No surprise, then, that Big Soda spent more than $7 million in San Francisco and over $1.7 million in Berkeley (population: 117,000) to defeat the measures. Outcome: Failing to gain the necessary two-thirds supermajority, the San Francisco soda tax failed. Berkeley’s passed overwhelmingly, with 75 percent voting yes.
Maui County, Hawaii, GMO Moratorium Bill: Hawaii’s Maui County—which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai and Molokai—considered one of the strongest anti-GMO bills ever: a complete moratorium on the cultivation of genetically engineered crops until studies conclusively prove they are safe. Agriculture is big business on Maui: the island is a major producer of sugarcane, coffee, and pineapple, among other things. Monsanto is among the companies operating farms in Maui County, and this bill would’ve effectively shut it down. (Under the law, farmers knowingly cultivating GMOs would get hit with a $50,000 per day fine.) Opponents raised nearly $8 million against the measure, making it the most expensive campaign in state history. Outcome: Maui citizens approved the temporary ban, with 50 percent voting yes.
Florida Second Congressional District: Rep. Steve Southerland, a tea party darling, faced Democrat Gwen Graham in his attempt to get re-elected in this Florida Panhandle district. Last year, Southerland attempted to pass legislation that would’ve cut $39 billion in food stamp funding, forcing millions out of the program. (He called the cuts “the defining moral issue of our time.”) Widely considered the most sweeping cuts in decades, they were not passed, and made Southerland an extremely vulnerable incumbent. Outcome: In a rare House flip for Democrats, Rep. Southerland was defeated by Democrat Gwen Graham.
Kansas Senate: Pat Roberts, the three-term Republican Senator from Kansas, faced independent challenger Greg Orman in a surprisingly tight race for this deep-red state. The race was considered a key indicator of the GOP’s Senate hopes, and important for agriculture too: Roberts had said that in the event of a Republican majority, he would be Senate Agriculture Committee Chair—given that he won his own contest, of course. Roberts, once considered a “savior” of food stamp programs, attempted to cut $36 billion from the program last year, and would certainly advocate for similar policy as chairman. Outcome: Roberts won re-election, and the GOP won the Senate majority. Look for Chairman Roberts in 2015.