To think if you rely on a food bank you may need to compromise your vegan principles?

[LondonUnited]

I’m a supporter of our local food bank and am on their mailing list. I received an email earlier to say that they were supporting a vegan family and were therefore asking for specific food donations, including Oatly oat milk, various nuts and seeds, specific types of beans, etc etc.

I may get flamed for this but I couldn’t help thinking that - allergies aside (and I have a milk allergic child so I do get it) - if you need a food bank to feed your family, you might need to compromise on diet slightly? For a start, Oatly Barista is lovely and all that, but Aldi or Asda oat milk is also ok and half the price. And that the odd bit of tinned fish may be easier to access from a food bank than Brazil nuts and chia seeds...

@IlanaWexler it take a lot of effort to actually be on a strictly gluten free diet (as opposed to fashionably not eating bread). Its rare to find that level of perseverance in the absence of any medical necessity, diagnosis or not.

FWIW my "diagnosis " after 8 years under the gastroenterologist unit at our local hospital is:coeliac? Crohns disease? Gluten intolerant. I dont fit neatly in any one box but I do have IBD and become horrifically unwell if I even eat a crumb or two of gluten.

Support the food bank or don't. Maybe they're specifying certain bean types so they don't end op with 50 tins of kidney beans.
Poor people can have choices too. And if they're vegan then they won't eat fish will they? Starving people will eat anything, as wars have shown, but they aren't starving, they're asking for help from a food bank.

Some of those poor people who need old bank help are the same people who you all clapped for during lockdown.

I hate this mindset that people who are, through no fault of their own and absolutely the fault of the Tory bastards people keep voting in, castigated for daring to have a low paid job or losing their job.

I also hate the mindset that they should be grateful for the scraps from their betters tables and not dare to want something tasty, healthy and nutritious to eat. Ffs it is 2020 and many of us are just a few pay checks away from the food bank anyway, thanks to covid.

Xenia If what you post is true, you have done really well in life and I am genuinely glad for you. Over the years I have read about your island, and your children's private education, and your lovely home, without any rancor. You are rich, and genuinely good luck to you and your family.
But, have you never heard of Noblesse Oblige? I don't mean in giving anything to others, I mean in not giving what you don't need to. Recognizing your fortune and knowing what you don't do to those without your privileges.

It's working my way from a very difficult past and a terror of being seen to be asking for help or as begging that's left me afraid and ashamed to seek benefits or register with a food bank. It's my own personal difficulty not any judgement call on others, and I consider myself amazingly lucky, or for that matter privileged, that right at the time I needed it most, up opened a different kind of option near me, allowing the opportunity of discretely buying for whatever I have, what shops can't sell, instead.
It is so sad to see someone who perfectly reasonably values having so much comfort, wealth and opportunity, unable to value the most basic humanity and decency.
Pray that if it ever all falls apart for you, you're not surrounded by people like yourself.

@WaltzfortheMars

I don't think requesting specific bland is unreasonable. If you buy them yourself and if you can afford it, then why need to choose cheaper one to donate? But if you buy the non branded ones yourself, then there's nothing wrong in not buying more expensive one to donate, just give the ones you are happy with. But suggesting vegan people to eat fish is very disrespectful of other people's beliefs.

Late to this thread so only just read as far as this. I have an answer to this ^ question. When I go shopping, I have a budget. I choose one or two things to buy for the foodbank. The way I keep to my budget is this ;for that one week, I buy two cheaper versions of that product, keep one and donate one. So where I might normally buy branded beans (for example) I will buy two own brand instead. Or I will buy a different brand on offer. My mum, a pensioner who is on pension credit does the same. Though, for her, it's more that she buys the two for one offers as she buys mostly own brand stuff anyway. I don't have an issue with people requesting specific items, I would have a problem if they expected me to spend more on their family than I do on my own. I don't think that makes me a bad person. When I was a child and my mum was a single parent, at a time when people really looked down on single parents, we would have been the family using the food bank if they had existed.

What does this mean? @louella this doesn't make sense to me?

If a child is young enough to need milks as an integral part of their diet, then I’d question any parent who decided that a vegan diet was suitable - and I say that as a lifelong vegetarian who is bringing up vegetarian children.

TheHappyHerbivore

You make a lot of good points re the use of the word 'beggar'. I don't think we're actually coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum at all. No, I would not sanction the use of clearly offensive, outdated words like cripple or the N-word, but I personally would never class beggar/begging in the same way. Yes, it's on the negative side, as words go, but then not being able to afford to buy food for your family is a negative situation to find yourself in.

I still stick by the idea that, sometimes, falling over yourself to find a less stark word can have the effect of detracting from a vulnerable person's needs and impede their receiving the help they need. What if we said 'struggling'? Some people describe themselves like that if finding money for private school fees is a bit tight. Plenty use it to mean 'we need to be careful and not buy any luxuries this week/month'. Of course, somebody needing to use a FB is also seriously struggling, but they would need to qualify the extent of their struggling in order to obtain the necessary assistance.

Nobody ever wants to be in the position of having to say "I cannot afford to feed my kids at the moment", but unless they do clearly communicate the fact, the extent of their need won't be fully appreciated and they may well end up not being given anywhere near enough help, if any at all.

I'm not saying that the word beggar isn't potentially loaded in a negative way, nor that a better alternative shouldn't be found. I do take issue a little with your saying that being a 'beggar' doesn't define somebody's life, as that (unintentionally, I'm certain) sounds a little bit of a privileged statement to make. Of course, nobody should be defined purely by their lack of money, but I very much doubt that those who find themselves at rock bottom manage to compartmentalise their basic existence from what they have to do continually to sustain it. We can describe them as freelance entrepreneur crowdfunders if we like, but it doesn't change anything for those actually living that life.

It is a bit confusing with the brand-names, as many will use them to refer to the generic product, and wouldn't care less what brand/version of it you brought them; whereas others might feel upset or insulted, as they clearly told you - and there's no easy way of knowing which way any particular person would interpret that.

If you're asked for Weetabix and get some Aldi Bixaweet (or whatever it's called), the person you got it for might be 100% happy, as you got them the basic product they meant and they don't care which, or they might be annoyed and say "I DID specify Weetabix, not this cheap rubbish." Equally, you might get them the branded Weetabix and they say "Ooh, you got ACTUAL Weetabix - we normally just get the cheap Aldi stuff."

I've never quite got the idea of FBs giving people only three days' worth of food and I'd be genuinely grateful to learn the reasoning behind this. How can somebody be so desperate that they need food for three days, but then suddenly be OK, especially as wages/benefits are never paid more frequently than once a week; or is it the case for many that the next payday is still two or three days away and they've already run out of food? Even if so, how is the next week magically a load different?

If so, how does a 'snapshot' of three days' food actually help people much? It sounds very much like 'giving a man a fish' rather than 'teaching a man to fish'. Or is it often people whose sudden new circumstances mean they will qualify for financial assistance, but it will take a couple of days for their claim to be processed (highly unlikely that quick, I would have thought)?

Well somebody could have run out of money till their next payday or payment so an emergency 3 day pack would do them over a weekend

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll
The one I work at we do a weeks ‘shop’ as such, I’ve said in a pp what we give/ deliver.

No, I would not sanction the use of clearly offensive, outdated words like cripple or the N-word, but I personally would never class beggar/begging in the same way.

It’s not really about how you class them though, is it? Many homeless people and organisations which work with homeless people have spoken about why it’s a poor and offensive choice of word. It’s not for those of us not in that situation to tell them they’re wrong.

Yes, it's on the negative side, as words go, but then not being able to afford to buy food for your family is a negative situation to find yourself in.

Find yourself in a negative situation doesn’t mean you deserve to be referred to in a degrading or dehumanising way.

I still stick by the idea that, sometimes, falling over yourself to find a less stark word can have the effect of detracting from a vulnerable person's needs and impede their receiving the help they need.

It’s not a ‘stark’ word; it’s an offensive word, akin to a slur. You can try to frame it as a positive attempt to acknowledge the reality of a person’s life, but that won’t change the fact that people don’t like to be referred to this way and find it has a negative impact on their life when they are.

What if we said 'struggling'? Some people describe themselves like that if finding money for private school fees is a bit tight. Plenty use it to mean 'we need to be careful and not buy any luxuries this week/month'. Of course, somebody needing to use a FB is also seriously struggling, but they would need to qualify the extent of their struggling in order to obtain the necessary assistance.

I’m finding it hard to imagine a single scenario where the only way you could convey the seriousness of a person’s situation is by calling them a beggar. Why do words and phrases like ‘homeless person’, ‘person in need of assistance’, ‘person supported by a food bank’ etc not suffice? What possible context could only be conveyed by the use of a derogatory term?

Nobody ever wants to be in the position of having to say "I cannot afford to feed my kids at the moment", but unless they do clearly communicate the fact, the extent of their need won't be fully appreciated and they may well end up not being given anywhere near enough help, if any at all.

I don’t really understand this point. Are you suggesting people are less likely to be able to access food banks if we don’t call them beggars?

I'm not saying that the word beggar isn't potentially loaded in a negative way, nor that a better alternative shouldn't be found.

There’s no ‘potentially’ about it. It is loaded in a negative way.

I do take issue a little with your saying that being a 'beggar' doesn't define somebody's life, as that (unintentionally, I'm certain) sounds a little bit of a privileged statement to make. Of course, nobody should be defined purely by their lack of money, but I very much doubt that those who find themselves at rock bottom manage to compartmentalise their basic existence from what they have to do continually to sustain it. We can describe them as freelance entrepreneur crowdfunders if we like, but it doesn't change anything for those actually living that life.

We could, and here is a totally revolutionary concept, just call them people.

A person who has to beg to survive is still a fully formed individual with their own dignity, worthy of respect and worthy of having their humanity acknowledged. Calling someone a beggar indicates that you believe that is all there is to them, all they’re capable of, and all they deserve to be viewed as. It’s a horrible way of considering them less than human, and therefore not entitled to the same consideration one would give to others not in that situation.

Using person-centred language is not new and is not an expression of privilege. It’s a widely accepted concept which centres the personhood of all people, regardless of their particular circumstances. It’s used by charities and organisations supporting all kids of people from all walks of life. For example, when I volunteered for an HIV charity we would refer to the people we supported as ‘people with HIV / AIDS’ rather than as ‘AIDS victims’, as was once common, because the most important thing about them is that they’re people, even if much of their experience is affected by the fact that they have HIV.

@TheHappyHerbivore

Give over - you know fine well its a just saying, figure of speech, when someone looks down their nose on something that is being offered for free!

The only people looking down their noses are those posters calling people who rely on food banks ‘beggars’ and deciding they don’t have a right to moral beliefs because they’re poor.

how does veganism work with a food bank in terms of how do they get enough nutrients and vitamins? Do the foodbank ask for donations of vitamins as well and how do they make sure its a balanced diet?

Food banks tend to provide food for three days in an emergency, rather than long term support, so it’s unlikely that a short period of time like that would require nutritional supplements; vitamin deficiencies generally take a long time to develop. But it’s worth noting that Oatly is fortified with B12 and iron, and this may be a reason why it has specifically been requested. I don’t know if that’s the case, however; other brands may have the same fortifications and therefore offer the same nutritional profile.

No one said they don’t have a right to moral beliefs. Asking for expensive brands however.... is taking the piss.

I've never quite got the idea of FBs giving people only three days' worth of food and I'd be genuinely grateful to learn the reasoning behind this. That's quite an easy one. There are a number of factors:

• We don't want to become the government's 'go to' solution.
• It's a minimum of 3 days, we can and often do provide more, amd there can be repeats, that depends on the organisation. You can see how the Trussells have changed their provision as the UK situation has changed (shamefully they, like many others, now offer more, more often)
• We are a stop gap, not a solution. The initial idea was to fill the gap between benefits, pay packets etc. To tide people over bank holiday weekends until permanent support could be accessed - that's another reason we are changing how much, how often!
• we can't stock enough to feed everybody in need all the time
• we want to help as many people as possible

But most of all THE WEIGHT OF IT!!! 3 days of food in cans weight 20 - 25kg and most people using us do not have a car!, parents with prams, younger kids tagging along.

I hope that helps understand that we are trying hard to both give someone a fish AND help them access the organsiation that can give them a fishing net!

shamefully they, like many others, now offer more, more often
Why is offering more shameful? we are in unprecedented times and people’s needs have hugely changed.

Thanks, TheHappyHerbivore for that very well-put, well thought-out contribution I'm not saying that I'm clamouring to use the word 'beggar' at all and I definitely agree on centring the person rather than any particular aspect of them (possibly not so much if they've wilfully committed a horrendous crime).

That's the point! A societal shame; a shame that in 2020 there are so many people in need of the service; a shame that even before Covid changes to benefits, UC etc, had made things much, much worse for very many people; a shame that despite all of the Covid response teams set up across the UK, the money the government made available for food parcels and all sorts of help, many people STILL needed to find a food bank; a shame that that need was not the stereotype (but rarely seen in my couple of decades working in a food bank) not the indigent, lazy, good for nothing dole scrounger some might like to think, but everyday people, your next door neighbours, people with jobs, home owners. So very many have found themselves in need.

And then there is this thread... and its bloody oat milk!

Thanks very much to those who've explained more about the three day issue. It makes a lot more sense if it's a minimum and/or standard initial supply whilst exploring all circumstances and potential helpful avenues - I thought it was a maximum of 'three days and don't come back for more'!

(possibly not so much if they've wilfully committed a horrendous crime).

Just to clarify: I meant any person there, however rich or poor, powerful or vulnerable. I just realised it might have sounded like I was suggesting that FB users in particular might somehow be more likely to commit heinous crimes than anybody else.

No one said they don’t have a right to moral beliefs. Asking for expensive brands however.... is taking the piss.

But the point had been made on this thread many times that there is actually no evidence whatsoever that any person relying on a food bank has demanded expensive brands. It could be that the food bank has used a brand name to refer to a generic product, as happens all the time with a variety of things. It could be that they’ve suggested Oatly but would be equally happy to accept any oat milk brand. It could be they’re asking for oatly specifically because the family they’re supporting mentioned that it’s what they usually use and they want to give people in need a touch of normality.

All perfectly reasonable explanations that some posters are wilfully ignoring because they don’t want to be deprived of the opportunity to froth about uppity food bank users getting ideas above their station.

Let’s not forget that the OP specifically mentioned that vegans should be grateful if what they get is tins of fish. This isn’t a reasonable query as to whether it’s fine to donate Sainsbury’s own brand oat milk if the food bank has requested Oatly. This is an attack on people in need daring to hold on to deeply held personal beliefs when in need, because OP seems to think that poor people should take what they’re given and be pleased about it even if it’s completely contrary to their morals.

@TheHappyHerbivore

No one said they don’t have a right to moral beliefs. Asking for expensive brands however.... is taking the piss.

But the point had been made on this thread many times that there is actually no evidence whatsoever that any person relying on a food bank has demanded expensive brands. It could be that the food bank has used a brand name to refer to a generic product, as happens all the time with a variety of things. It could be that they’ve suggested Oatly but would be equally happy to accept any oat milk brand. It could be they’re asking for oatly specifically because the family they’re supporting mentioned that it’s what they usually use and they want to give people in need a touch of normality.

All perfectly reasonable explanations that some posters are wilfully ignoring because they don’t want to be deprived of the opportunity to froth about uppity food bank users getting ideas above their station.

Let’s not forget that the OP specifically mentioned that vegans should be grateful if what they get is tins of fish. This isn’t a reasonable query as to whether it’s fine to donate Sainsbury’s own brand oat milk if the food bank has requested Oatly. This is an attack on people in need daring to hold on to deeply held personal beliefs when in need, because OP seems to think that poor people should take what they’re given and be pleased about it even if it’s completely contrary to their morals.

Well asking a vegan to eat fish isn’t reasonable and that’s certainly not what I was getting at.

Beans and pulses etc would be as cheap if not cheaper than a can of fish, so there’s no reason whatsoever to expect a vegan to change their eating habits.

What I do have issue with us people asking for branded items such as the example in a pp for example branded spaghetti vs non branded. Or beans, or yogurts or the like.

Perhaps you’re right and the brands were used as general term (for example I wouldn’t ask DC if they wanted wheat biscuits for breakfast, I’d call it weetabix) and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

If that’s the case then fair enough, but I have visions of people asking for delmonte orange juice, Heinz beans, city cathedral cheese etc...and not the own brand stuff.

Yoho, I don't think I said a single thing that was anti foodbank user though did I? You just seem to be assuming I did. I even said not to use the word beggars for those asking for food.

So I don't agree that I am "unable to value the most basic humanity and decency". My personal values which are essentially Roman Catholic are very much to value human decency. I essentially have nothing but my house and my career because of precisely that. However I do think the nation would do a lot better if we only drank tap water - in fact for babies beyond breastmilk it is sugary drinks that most damages children's health. Moving all children to drinking only tap water would really really help rich and poor children.

However I do think the nation would do a lot better if we only drank tap water - in fact for babies beyond breastmilk it is sugary drinks that most damages children's health. Moving all children to drinking only tap water would really really help rich and poor children.

The NHS recommends that children be given whole cow’s milk until they’re 2, because they benefit from the nutrients and calories. For children with allergies to cows milk or vegan children, non-dairy milks should obviously be substituted.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Like many have said it is a request not a demand

True, but it causes a lot of bad feeling amongst those who might be wanting to give what they can, but are left feeling that what they can afford to give is not good enough. It is liable to backfire and then harm the whole operation of the FB for all families - as mentioned by the PP with the local FB only wanting top branded items.

FreeCycle removes posts from dreamers/CFs as soon as they're reported. If a poster says "Does anybody happen to have an old laptop they no longer need - don't care how old, how battered or what OS as long as it just about works, anything greatly appreciated", that's fine; but it's the entitled "My DD needs a new MacBook Air - it's for her school course, so no more than one year old and still in warranty".

'Beggars' is an emotive word, but the meaning behind it is simple and neutral enough: people who need/want something that they can't afford asking wealthier/more privileged people to give it to them. Nobody would deny that homeless folk sleeping in shop doorways and asking passers-by for spare change are begging - does the fact that they're even further down on their luck mean that they fully deserve what is alleged to be a nasty term, whereas for those slightly further up the ladder of need, it's grossly offensive? You can change it to "Those in need and seeking basic assistance can't be fussy about what they acept", but it still boils down to the same thing.

Of course, dietary requirements need to be respected, but if you can't afford to pay even for someting basic, you can't expect to get something premium - that's exactly the same for all shoppers buying for their own families. If I don't have enough money to buy luxury brands for my own family, what makes anybody think that I should nevertheless buy those same dear items (and cut back on my own family shopping) in order to give them away to strangers?

Superb post. Very eloquently put

These people might have had well paid positions before c-19, now lost their jobs, but can't/wouldn't let their high standards slip
I totally agree with OP. Beggars can't be choosers.