It's much more than just hunger.

Janet Poppendieck’s “Sweet Charity” helps provide the reader with a better understanding of “emergency foods.” When does our nation classify it as an emergency to have food? Poppendieck describes how these emergency needs were first addressed as a response to the early 1980s economic recession. First, she describes what types of people qualify for this emergency food. Some people are at higher risk for needed this assistance such as females, minorities, single parents and the elderly. But the way that people get this food assistance is determined by our government’s definition of poverty. The government’s outdated definition does not take into account the “new poor.” These are people who used to be employed and could afford dinner for their family, but no longer cannot. With people losing their jobs as well as the standard of living costs increasing, more people do not have enough money to provide food for their family. Where we used to see “derelicts and alcoholics” at food pantries, now we are typically seeing “mothers and small children.” More people need assistance but our government, especially during the Reagan presidency, is reducing the rate of growth of these programs that our country needs. But with economic problems, there are many more issues that just hunger. What about shelter, health coverage or employment? Poppendeick describes the “social constructionist” perspective of defining these problems as solely hunger. The social constructionists believe that our society labels the problem, instead of fixing the underlying conditions. So why did we define the economic problems with hunger? First, even though there are other needs, “the need for food arises sooner.” Another reason is people are more willing to ask for food than other needs. For example, someone will ask you for money to get dinner, but they aren’t going to ask you to stay in your guest bedroom. One positive result from identifying the problem as hunger has been the abundant amount of food drives and pantries, increasing the attention for anti-hunger support. But is this enough? We are trying to feed the people, but are we taking any policy changes to prevent this hunger? What changes need to be taken in our society?

It is hard to say that food drives and pantries aren’t a good thing. They focus on the now problem, but I do agree with the readings that they aren’t looking to make permanent changes. This is something that requires a broader definition of what the problem is. It isn’t just hunger; it is much more than that. If the government is going to implement policy change, they need to look at all aspects of this problem in order to correctly address it.