Community | October 09, 2009 | 50 comments

Stop Sending Junk Food to Disaster Victims

source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/08/let_them_eat_plumpynut

Image
atomiclegion
The recent disastrous earthquake in Indonesia has prompted a quick humanitarian response from Western countries, raising some key questions: Who decides what kind of emergency food aid is delivered, and should it be healthier? This argument is not new -- nutritionists and development workers have been debating it for years -- but improved food options are causing it to heat up again.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Health,   FOODIES: UNITE,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Food,  Earthquake,  Disaster,  Disaster Relief,  3 more
  3.     
    |

50 comments // Stop Sending Junk Food to Disaster Victims

  • dudefromtherock
  • quanta
    • 0
      quanta  

    • Never mind foreign relief, stop feeding the people that live in this country junk food at your food banks. What isn't consumed here is sent there. Do you think, there goes the Bank of America to buy food for the Disaster Victims. Food pantrys in this country are turning away people whenever there is a natual disaster. Junk food donated by people who wouldn't eat it themselves.

    • 2 years ago
  • The_Final_Chapter
  • bailey78
  • Valence
    • 0
      Valence  

    • If your not starving please Shut The F*&%k Up.

      Their starving and their getting food to eat thats all that matters, if it was food that fucked with their DNA or would kill them :/ then their would be a problem, stop trying to make a problem out of ever little thing.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • They push GMOs on them. This government loves disasters. It gives them a chance to force GMOS down their throats. They won't be happy until the entire planet is POISONED.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • emilio
    • 0
      emilio  
    • JanforGore:

      No, that's pretty legit. The government buys goods from Monsanto to "keep the money in the family." All these pesticide packed soy and corn meals go to people who desperately need good nutrients, i.e. living fruits and vegetables, nuts or seeds, to heal and repair their bodies--but instead they receive some unregulated starches that have been genetically modified. These chemicals are the very culprits that cause so many illnesses and diseases in America and we're just pawning them off on people who can't refuse our "generosity."

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • CarlosIsDown
    • 0
      CarlosIsDown  

    • @Follow_me:

      If there's a disaster and or a food shortage and you don't get nutritious food, you might die of malnutrition, especially kids.

      The issue isn't food. It's nutrition.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • CarlosIsDown:

      there's nothing particularly non nutritious about regular food aid food. It's just not hyper concentrated, that's all. These special supplements like f-100 and plump nut are meant for the already vastly malnourished. People who haven't seen food in so long that their body may reject anything in large amounts.

      The majority of people to whom food aid is given simply don't need that kind of thing. The stuff is still needed, but not in place of regular food.

    • 2 years ago
  • lordsbassman
    • 0
      lordsbassman  

    • When I was in Louisiana for ad-relief I live off a weird purple powerade that never made it to shelves and anheuser-busch caned water... I'd hate to see what else made it down there.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  

    • The food sent to disaster areas should be food that the local cultures are accustomed to. Some foods, however nourishing they may be, can provoke diarrhea and negative body reactions in people not accustomed to them. I mean - how many Americans, victims of disasters, would tolerate dog meat or hot curries if that is what other countries sent them?

    • 2 years ago
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
  • Vierotchka
  • lordsbassman
  • Vierotchka
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • Vierotchka:

      vierotchka,

      correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure wheat, corn, and flour have been staples of every culture for as long as we've been on this earth - and at least as long as countries have started providing aid in case of disasters. your curry and dog meat analogies are ridiculous when compared to staples for hundreds of years for everyone. you can actually trace entire civilizations based on the fall and rise of those crops over thousands of years. so to say we're giving them something they aren't used to is just nuts.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • 0
      2helenahandbasket  
    • Vierotchka:

      No, Vierotchka, YOU'RE the one who is mistaken. In an emergency when people are starving, ANYTHING is OK. While it may be food they're not use to, it is certainly better than nothing at all. Maybe some folks would have a not so pleasant reaction but having a few folks with the stomach ache is way better than having thousands of folks who have starved to death.

      An emergency is an emergency. You send what you have until you're able to send something else. Kinda like giving people clothes that are too big for them after a fire.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • Vierotchka:

      I suspect the chance of other countries sending aid to the U.S. is small. I am also certain that flour, rice, beans, and corn will sustain human life for quite awhile. If they need a special dish, go to a restaurant. Of course having "local foods", shipped in opens the door to corruption by local gangs or politicians.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • Vierotchka:

      2helenahandbasket, no, I am not wrong. Give hungry or starving people food that their bodies are not accustomed to leads to vomiting and diarrhea. You obviously have never worked in the field with ngos and relief teams in such situations.

    • 2 years ago
  • rossisle
    • 0
      rossisle  

    • Cattle feed quality flour isn't enough to keep anyone healthy.

      It's a slower death like rabbit starvation or drinking seawater when thirsty. No amount of lean meat or seawater will keep you from dying.

      F-100 is affected by bacteria growth if it's not refrigerated. Why not just feed them cardboard while you're at it? Living on raw corn flour will cause pellagra, due to maize's lack of niacin and amino acids lysine and tryptophan. The bioavailability (absorbing) of soy protein is bottom of the barrel.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • rossisle:

      f-100 is a powder. It doesn't have that problem till mixed.
      It's not quite as convenient as candy bars but its easier to feed to babies. It's also about to go generic, which means when the US sends food aid it can mill it's own f-100 instead of having to buy it from France first. If France wants to ship plump nut power to them. It sounds like a good product.

      Who ever came up with that ridiculous sea water analogy anyway? It doesn't apply at all. sea water is dangerous because it's contaminated with salt. There is nothing contaminated about food aid food, and the concept that the flour is "cattle grade" is idiotic. Dent corn is what all corn meal is made of, and cow's don't even eat flour.
      The supporters of this seem to want to let thousands die so they can feed the remainder much more expensive and profitable preprocessed packets.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  
    • rossisle:

      also, this is for a temporary aid relief. the problems mentioned with diet have to do if this were your only source of food for a long time period. aid is just that - temporary help not a lifelong solution. it's like saying if i made mcdonalds my choice of meals for a month then i could become obese and have all sorts of lifelong malnutrition problems. unless you guys have the money, this is as good as it gets. again, you don't hear anyone receiving the aid complaining.

    • 2 years ago
  • Hallipa
    • 0
      Hallipa  

    • They either get the food–whatever food that might be–, or they're dying of hunger. What's not clear?

      Given the choice of saving 100 lives with junk food, or 50 with "highly nutritious, easily transportable paste," I think anyone would take the former. When the paste or other alternatives will become accessible and affordable, by all means. Meanwhile, why is this even a topic of discussion?

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • crazy_french
  • rossisle
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • crazy_french:

      It's not bad food. It's just not preprocessed food. The problem the writer has here is that the food distributed doesn not consistantly have enough sprayed on vitamins and chemicals. Wheat is still wheat.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • bombastinator
  • CarlosIsDown
  • bombastinator
  • outtheinside
    • 0
      outtheinside  

    • if it were as simple as purchasing surplus from within the same country and redistributing to save $600 million then it would've been done already. aid is not paid back as in it's totally free to whatever country we give it to. part of the reason we don't just give them money is because if we're going to pay for it, we might as well use the money to purchase U.S. goods and then send it. so that $600 million we could save is potentially $600 million back out of our economy. i don't hear anyone complaining that is actually receiving the aid. as far as the panel of nutritionists is concerned, maybe they can just fork over the difference themselves. also, imagine what would happen to the prices of the of the goods in these countries if we all of a sudden purchased all of their surplus for the disaster stricken people. prices would hike for everyone else that buys the good and the very few that are fortunate to own farms and produce these goods would profit. it would be a horrible policy to purchase surplus in the disaster stricken country. aid has ups and downs to an economy, but as far as aid goes - no one should be complaining about nutrition without a better alternative. it's not like we're sending chemically tarred foods. i'm curious to see what the review turns up.

    • 2 years ago
  • Agent_Alpha
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • you've got to be fricking kidding me.

      Did anyone read the damn article? They are complaining about "junk food", but read it more carefully.

      "Unfortunately, serious questions have been raised about the healthful properties of the fortified, blended wheat, corn, or soy flours that are the mainstay of many emergency food programs. Is using these foods when better alternatives are available ethical?"

      They are sending them wheat, corn, soy flours to make breads. For folks facing starvation, that is bad?

      I love the idea of the Plumpy-nut bars, but how much does that cost per bar?
      If you are trying to feed millions of people in the world, can we really afford to send them glorified snack bars?

      this is survival food, not a long term solution.

      great ideas, but until countries besides the US are ready to fork over the dough (no pun intended), forget it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tyr
  • EmperorThan
  • bailey78
  • Follow_me
  • veronaaa
    • 0
      veronaaa  
    • Follow_me:

      yeah but different cultures have different beliefs in what they put in their bodies, and it could have religious connotations.. or anything really. its just a variation of culture. if we had a disaster and they came and shared their bugs and fresh slaughtered animal blood, i think we'd feel the same.

    • 2 years ago
  • danitassin
    • 0
      danitassin  

    • That's what i say every canned food drive. I look in the bin and it's box Macaroni. Yuck! Empty Calories and Chemicals! We should be showing them how to grow seasonal veggies right in their homes. If that's not possible well then we make it so they can. There's is no reason why all people can't be healthy if they want to.

    • 2 years ago
  • fuscia
    • 0
      fuscia  
    • danitassin:

      "seasonal veggies"? that might be a bit premature for tsunami victims. for one thing, it may well be difficult to grow edible vegetation with all the ocean water still lingering. and, with storage facilities possibly being damaged, it may be more practical to supply them with canned goods that are more easily transported and stored. but, maybe we could teach them to meditate so they could be less nervous about their plight.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos