The emergency food system in the United States, which provides resources to hunger-stricken regions, has been commended in the past for feeding millions of people in times of disaster. Some of these achievements are highlighted in the works of Poppendieck and Fisher. While the two authors recognize the remarkable efforts of the emergency food system to offer help to the needy, they assert that the system is characterized by various aspects, including insufficiency, indignity, and lack of protocol.
One of the seven things that Poppendieck calls “Seven Deadly Ins,” which characterizes the shortcomings of the emergency food system, is insufficiency. The author argues that soup kitchens and food pantries used in the system are often deficient (Poppendieck 213). The result of this insufficiency is a disappointment among people, especially when resources are not served uniformly and fairly. Poppendieck links this inadequacy to lack of real norms for quantity in the system (213). Although such insufficiency is a common setback in charity, the author believes that it can be overcome by having a competent team of trained staff to assess needs among food recipients.
Poppendieck also avers that indignity is embedded in the emergency food system. She believes that utilizing a shopping pantry rather than kitchen and soup pantries would contribute to more dignity in the system. In my opinion, this alternative course would be appropriate because it would help recipients become an active part of the initiative instead of being mere subjects. In addition, adults would have a chance to exercise autonomy, thus feel less monitored throughout the program.
Just like Poppendieck, Fisher also highlights multiple flaws in the system, especially the “feed the need” model. In his view, human service programs are “designed to solve a problem among certain population within a specific timeframe” (Fisher 68). Such initiatives have limited life cycles and are terminated after the intended outcome is achieved. Hence, employment in the sector ought to be temporal. However, Fisher finds it absurd that some initiatives last for many years, such that individuals attain their retirement age while still working on them (68). As a result of this skewness in the protocol, Fisher highly doubts the effectiveness and efficiency of human service programs that are already in place.
In his analysis, Fisher claims that food banks continue to operate in the “feed the need” model because they lack exit strategies as expected of all human service programs. For instance, the Greater Boston Food Bank (GBFB) was built in 2009 to feed the poor people in the United States, in regions such as eastern Massachusetts (Fisher 41). Despite the country going through economic cycles of recession and boom, plans have not been made to terminate its activities. In most scenarios, it would be expected that the facility’s demand would rise during an economic downturn and lower at the peak. However, GBFB has been in fulltime operation from one year to another, thus creating permanent employment in a temporary-designed initiative.
Overall, Poppendieck and Fisher regard the emergency food system as a highly flawed human service program. Based on their analysis, the system is insufficient and skewed. According to Poppendieck, insufficiency is one of the “seven deadly Ins,” which can be amended by developing a real norm of quantity. The author also believes that relief food initiatives lack dignity, which can be restored by implementing alternative methods of charity work, such as shopping pantries.
Works Cited
Fisher, Andrew. Big Hunger: The Unholy Alliance between Corporate America and Anti-hunger Groups. NY: Cambridge, MIT Press, 2017.
Poppendieck, Janet. Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. Penguin Books, 1999.