On the “When is a Free Lunch a Good Idea?: How to Address Global Hunger” seminar:

   I learned last Sunday that some food organizations are shifting towards cash-based programs. One of the benefits of the cash programs is that they secure the “purchasing power” of low-income individuals and families with food insecurity, which food assistance programming hasn’t always done. As I learned last semester, SNAP (formerly known as the food stamps program), for instance, was instituted to address the concurrent issues of rural surplus and urban food insecurity. The first program restricted purchasing power by establishing that one-third of food stamps, AKA blue stamps, could only be used towards foods in surplus. The extent to which recipients should have food choice remains debated today.

   I really appreciated the emphasis House Fellow Chris Barrett put on purchasing power, and agree it is important. I think my biggest takeaway from the purchasing power discussion was that recipients deserve to have influence over and enjoy what they eat.

   One other part of this seminar that stood out to me was the usage of black children for powerpoint imagery. Although I think it is important that we make deliberate efforts to include black families given (1) black marginalization and (2) a history of discriminatory practices in assistance based programs. I think it’s also very important that we avoid the implications that come with making black children the face of hunger… I won’t go into depth on this topic, but want to note that these pictures of black children are nearly always void of black parents, which I hadn’t really processed before now. If we’re constantly seeing hungry, helpless black children who—in our depictions of them—are lacking parents then what implication are we making about the reliability of black adult care… what relationship are we creating between the donors and those children?…

   Being a donor does not make us the missing link in the lives of food insecure children, families, and individuals. It makes us a medium between people and resources, which before our intervention should have otherwise been connected… We must be cognizant of words and imagery that suggests otherwise. We must be careful to avoid paternalism in food assistance.

   Overall it was an interesting lecture, and I think my biggest takeaway is that the donor-recipient relationships must continue to be reshaped. I appreciate the opportunity to think about these topics, and hopefully will make time for more in the future.