to think well done to Gwyneth for doing the food bank challenge

[nettlewine]

mobile.twitter.com/GwynethPaltrow/status/586168041576116224

Not sure why she's getting so much hate for trying to live on a budget. If anything it raises awareness how difficult it is to live from food banks.

Re limes

They would of been very cheap as local and in season and they have lots of important vitamins and minerals and help make food less blande. So not a bad choice.

She was obviously not going to eat shit for a week as that would prove nothing and her looks are vital for her life.

Agree jack.

So because she's only addressing part of the issue with poverty she should be criticised ?

I suppose. Plus she would have had to do a double vaginal steam afterwards (vaginal steaming was her advice from last month).

Agree with that Nettle.

Anyone could eat three rounds of toast and jam a day for a week. Even Gwynnie.

Of course fearandloathing . A wise celebrity should really steer clear of this kind of thing ,unless they really know what they're doing. It just looks like they're playing at being poor. There are plenty of other ways celebrities can support social causes, which Gwyneth may well do.

I feel a bit sorry for GP. She isn't stupid, she knows that she would have been opening herself up for criticism by doing this.

I bet her management team discussed and planned exactly how she was going to do it and had already decided that she was going to fail because the message she wanted to get across was that it wasn't enough money.

If she wanted to succeed and prove she could do it then her team would have made that happen. But what message would that have sent? That if she could live on it then anyone could?

I also don't agree that the answer would have been for her to give up her 'healthy' diet and beliefs and fill up on cheap carbs and junk foods. I bet that most of us could fill ourselves up on $29 of pasta for a week as that would be an insane amount in volume, but that's not the answer either.

I think it's nonsense anyway. £1 a day reflects what people in the 3rd world have to spend. But prices are so much lower there and people much more likely to produce their own food rather than buy, it doesn't really reflect accurately what the diet in the 3rd world is like. It would probably more accurately translate to a fiver but that wouldn't make a point.

nettlewine they were a bad choice in this situation because they don't contain any calories (or barely any). The challenge is to eat the required calories (supposedly 2000/day for women). For someone on that budget the immediate challenge is to eat enough calories per day in order to function. That in itself could be difficult.The fact that she bought limes (as nutritious as they may be) showed she doesn't really understand about food poverty (and why would she?).

Aermingers, the £ a day is adjusted to account for relative cost of living.

Gwyneth has been hospitalized in the past due to her detoxing diets, so her trying to rebrand herself falls flat for most people.

Also, she thinks you shouldn't drink negative water. Seriously.

"I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter. I have long had Dr. Emoto's coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it."

And mistakes woo-doo for science.

Of course she doesn't understand about food poverty, or any poverty, and neither do I TBH. I have a food budget that I need to loosely stick to but I have no idea what it would be like to genuinely have to sustain myself on £1 a day and I wouldn't know where to start.

Of course I have the advantage over Gwenyth of living in the real world (and I don't mean that to be as insulting as it sounds) but I imagine id fail this challenge too, although I wouldn't be buying limes as I hate them unless they are in a gin and tonic.

But we can only try based on what we already know and do. Filling up in the cheapest way possible would be cheating IMO. Trying to have a bit of variety and balance would be the goal for me. Now you might say that makes me very naïve about food poverty but by trying and failing the challenge, that might give me a bit more insight no?

So she's a lady bountiful type, but that shouldn't exclude her from trying to draw attention to the plight of so many people who are less fortunate than her should it? If so, Lady B who sits on her regal arse and does absolutely zilch to help others is OK. But she who does something positive is automatically a complete smug, holier-than-thou tosser for trying?

In that case, Polly Toynbee's, Naomi Klein's, Dame Shirley Williams' (all from well off backgrounds) works and achievements can be brushed aside as pure 'egotism' as well?

It kind of gives the impression that she walked into the supermarket, chose a number of things, then sat down and tried to figure out what she could make with it. Surely the more intelligent course of action would be to meal plan, and then go buy things.

Yes, certain foods will be cheaper in different areas. When I lived in AZ, there was a "ranch market" that sold veg and fruit at insanely cheap prices - I always bought fruit and veg there, rather than in the supermarket. When I lived in other parts of the country (NE, midwest) that option wasn't available and fresh fruit and veg were more expensive. It did have an impact on what I could buy overall.

Are you really comparing her to Polly Toynbee who put in months of actual graft when researching her book? Personally I see her as more of a Marie Antoinette playing at being a shepherdess.

And yet, I bet more people have thought about food stamps and poverty through Gwyneth than Polly Toynbee.

Exactly Tedand she's much more high profile that PT and therefore reaches a far bigger audience.

Yes sqoosh I do. The other 3 may be in a different intellectual/politically important league but the principle does apply.

Personally I think there are 2 ways in which this challenge can be done and she has done it one way, when many others would have preferred her to do it the other way.

She took the money, bought what she bought, and realised that it wasn't possible to eat anything like the way that she wants to for that amount, or easy to make that amount last the week full stop.

The alternative would have been for someone to choose the food for her, and make her live on the amount and type of food that she could get for her money, therefore demonstrating what its really like to actually survive on food stamps.

Well we'll have just to disagree sour as I don't think the principle is the same at all.

I just don't see how a rich person playing at being poor for a couple of days and then using that experience to promote their blog is all that praiseworthy.

Well didn't PT do that in her own way? I noticed no one was invited to go live in her spacious Victorian house in one of London's most desirable neighbourhood and write all about it, while she slummed it in a tower block on min' wage for a short while! In fact I found her book ever so slightly troubling. But that's another story!

The fact is both of these women make an issue apparent to many people who wouldn't otherwise have given it a 2nd thought, probably.

It is of course tragic that GP and PT, both well-meaning people have to take on their respective, peculiar social pretences (for the best of reasons), to highlight wide social chasms that are getting wider by the day..

GP ate crap and couldn't hack it. PT swapped her gold-plated life of big house, meals out, taxis, etc, with having to deal with social security, loan sharks and shitty furniture.

Alright let's disagree.. But perhaps we agree that both women can try out being poor, but they can't try out being working class; their middle-classness is built into the very fact that they feel their activities and what they has to say matter. Still, all that said, 'better they didn't do what they did?' No I don't think so.

Terrible actress, very irritating pontificator and a total wimp to not even last a week.
However she was correct in buying limes as they are excellent for avoiding scurvy caused by a lack of fresh veg and fruit. It would have worked better if she had bought a family pack of noodles/pasta instead of black beans which take about an hour to cook. Nobody living on that budget is wasting money on a ring on for an hour and another ring on for another 25 mins to saute sweet potato. totally deluded.
As pp said why not get somebody who lives on 29 a week to buy the groceries with her. Agree with Squoosh, she is far more Marie Antoinette than Polly Toynbee. As somebody who has been poor and hungry in the past I find her "experiment" nauseating.

Black beans take about 4-5 mins to cook in a pressure cooker. You can cook enough protein for a few days dinners and store it in tjr fridge. They are one of the quicker cooking beans so good choice IMO.

I love her

If you have a pressure cooker nettle, I doubt somebody living in the projects on a $29 budget for an adult and 2 kids will have one knocking around.

Well I knew someone would say that! Mine cost 15 from lidl years ago.

Seeing as governments waste 2-3k a pop giving landlords free boilers or 1k a pop on CWI insulation that just causes damp I think wholesale 10 pounds on a pressure cooker to those on benefits is small change and saves money in food costs and NHS costs.

I think perhaps people should be given adequate benefits and/or a living wage.