Panel Response to Food Insecurity Policy Options
To:Elaine Kyi, Anuradha Singh and Frederico Zanatta
By: Lorina Fraser, Jennifer Joseph, Joseph Maruca, Chris Tagoe and Shareny Diaz Saldana
The prevalent threat of food insecurity in America is severe and necessitates action. In America one of out five adults, or about 14 percent of households are considered “food insecure” and it affects mostly poor and working class families. Moreover, food insecurity is linked to increased hospitalization, chronic diseases and development issues. These concerning realities led us to agree that this policy topic should be taken up by the government because it has the ability to improve the lives of the food insecure.
Although the proposed policy options can be impactful in resolving the issue of food insecurity, they need more development for a persuasive argument. Each of the policy options could have benefitted from a geographic lens that highlights the areas where food insecurity is most dire. The report did not analyze the scope of the issue in terms of location, an aspect that would help policymakers recognize if this issue is a concern for their constituency, district, or state. That is to say, an analysis of both urban and rural food insecurity levels would be valuable in the sense that it could provide an understanding of how to combat this growing issue. Food insecurity in rural areas of the United States seems to be concerning as these areas are less dense. Impoverished individuals have to travel longer distances, which makes healthier options less viable and therefore more of an issue. As for food insecure people in urban areas, they seemingly have more opportunities to obtain food because there are more businesses in their vicinity. So that begs the questions: Are the food establishments that are local to food insecure people providing these individuals with suitable options? Asking and answering questions like these can direct resources where they are most needed.
Farming subsidies option
This is an acceptable program that can significantly alter how food production takes place. A clearer argument needs to be made as to the harm of government incentivizing production of commodity crops and its impact on food choices for low-income Americans. They can outline the domino effect and correlation with healthcare costs (Medicaid) and poor educational achievement for young adults and children. Furthermore, this option could increase the availability of raw vegetables and fruits rather than just processed food injected with high fructose corn syrup simply by shifting commodity crop subsidies to fruits and vegetables. This seems like a simple solution, but there are reasons why healthy subsidizes don’t exist on the scale of commodity crop subsidies, notably Big Food lobbying, that aren’t discussed at length in this report. More information regarding the power of food lobbying could help policymakers go after the source more directly.The proposed policy should also promote community gardening, home gardening, and urban farming. This sustainably grown local food can be used to improve community food security and to increase participant intake of fruits and vegetables. Policy changes should also include increased incentives for local farmers and for markets where fresh, healthful food is available.
SNAP Option
We believe that the following suggestions would benefit the SNAP program in combating food insecurity within the United States. The Health Incentive Pilot (HIP) can be incorporated as part of the SNAP program to encourage families to purchase healthier foods. The availability of local public health educators could educate/engage families on good nutrition and meal preparation. This can occur through workshops at food pantries, churches, and other local community organizations. Participation in these workshops should be a requirement to receive supplemental food. It’s not enough to give away the food and not try to educate individuals to make the right food choices. A coordination between the NYC Department of Human Resources Administration (HRA), who administer the SNAP program, and food pantries and supermarkets should develop. This link would allow for the distribution of food to pantries and other community organizations by volunteers. It would also be beneficial to research the impact of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s initiative that encouraged local bodegas to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to SNAP recipients to see if it is worth revamping . Another improvement would be to expand the income eligibility so that more families who might be slightly above the eligibility guideline, but still cannot afford enough food due to inflation, would qualify for SNAP. An adjustment to the SNAP program must be made to accommodate for today’s lifestyle. The formula used for the SNAP program should take into consideration the local standard for a nutritious diet rather than a national standard at a minimal cost. It should be proposed that benefits should be available to more families and allow for a greater variety of food choices. It would also be wise to limit the amount of processed and non-nutritious food that can be purchased with SNAP. By decreasing the amount of unhealthy food that can be purchased, we are also addressing the double subsidies issue.
Good Samaritan Laws and Food Waste Option
This option is very smart and has the potential to reimagine food waste as sustenance for individuals in need and a product for businesses. Further defining the incentives could better substantiate this policy. The report contains great data about how much food is wasted but it could provide more information about how to enact the incentives; what sort of grocery stores would qualify; and how the food would be transported. Perhaps proposing that food stores have to register for programs of this sort before the city/site gives them permission to open their business would educate the businesses and make customers and community members more aware of this opportunity. Rather than relying on nonprofits and community groups to inform the public, the government should enforce the contents of legislation they put into law.
Moreover, when it comes to necessary commodities like food, businesses should be held accountable. That being the case, they should suffer financial if they do not distribute their soon to be wasted food. The continued risk of losing revenue should develop food stores that are considerate of their community and the world at large. More outreach should be conducted to raise awareness of this law to decrease the amount of food that is wasted everyday. At a local level, the outreach can be done via the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Health inspectors can provide an informational brochure or flyer on the law to increase awareness of it during their inspection. As an incentive, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene can offer a discount in the licensing or permit procedure to restaurants who agree to enroll in a food donation program. Thrifts stores are a good alternative to have, specially in low-income neighborhoods which are prone to also be food desert areas. The availability of healthy inexpensive food will stretch the buck of those in need while cutting down on the waste of food.
Increase Minimum Wage Option
This is arguably the least strong policy option. Raising the minimum wage makes sense to reflect the cost of living expenses, but it doesn’t necessarily allow for more consumption of healthy food. We need more statistics outlining the correlation between a raise in the minimum wage and the decline in food insecurity. Increase minimum wage is feasible but we are not sure about yearly minimum wage. Also, there should be some type of job training and skills development to encourage higher earning power.
Thank you for presenting this policy issues and for providing great options for our consideration.