What's worse? No food or some with fat and salt?

parvati

Thats absolutely unbelievable!!! Wow!

alpha_andy

Turning away carrot stew is an extreme example. Why not provide the other extreme and see if you still have an issue with regulations.

Lets say you have a wealthy community of people who donate their collection of Halloween candy or Cheetos / soda to the poor because they know it is unhealthy but the poor people have no choice. Should that be acceptable? Of course not.

We need policies and those need to be enforced by looking at the nutrition facts on each package. If not, it is just arbitrary decisions based on opinion.

silvergirl24

It's pretty clear in this case the policy is totally misguided. Really, when will common sense finally prevail?

weathergirl320

Turning away carrot stew is an extreme example. Why not provide the other extreme and see if you still have an issue with regulations.

Lets say you have a wealthy community of people who donate their collection of Halloween candy or Cheetos / soda to the poor because they know it is unhealthy but the poor people have no choice. Should that be acceptable? Of course not.

We need policies and those need to be enforced by looking at the nutrition facts on each package. If not, it is just arbitrary decisions based on opinion.

More policies Thats always the answer isn't it? This is outrageos. If your choice is cheetoes or nothing you would take the cheetos. How about be grateful for the donations people give and keep the obviously inept goverment out of it.

bcattoes

The reasoning there is silly, but food banks and homeless shelters in my area haven't accepted anything that wasn't prepackaged and unopened for years. Not because of nutrient content but because they are afraid of getting tainted food. They can't even accept raw food donations from individuals. It's a sad world we live in today.

weathergirl320

And who are you to say that person can't eat cheetoes. What if that person likes cheetoe? Because they aren't an upper class elitist they don't deserve the right to choose what they eat? Who are you or the government to tell anyone what they can and can't eat? On but if you aren't poor and can afford cheetos than Thats fine. But if you are on hard times financially you don't deserve to choose what you eat. Big brother does that for you.

Meg177

I think the nutrient tracking is an excuse. I read, from what you posted, that it’s a safety issue. They want to make sure people aren’t deliberately causing harm to people. They probably don’t say so they don’t put the idea out there.

I had a similar issue at my church. We have a day periodically when we bring in food donations to Sunday mass. They want cans. I got in “trouble” for bringing in dried beans which are far more cost effective and more healthful than canned so could feed more people better. You’d think. We were told not to bring “ingredients” please. I can understand that for the homeless who don’t have a kitchen but for the food bank, people who are trying to make ends meet and/or feed children, I would think they could do an awful lot with dried beans. I guess not.

I compromise by bringing in low sodium, canned beans.

ETA I've found it hard to donate fresh, surplus garden produce too:(

natachan

I think its a great idea.

It should really help cut down the homeless population.

honestly this is the only motive I could come up with.

I have seen many homeless people (ESPECIALLY in NYC) eating out of garbage cans due to extreme hunger. I've actually known some who hung out behind bakeries for the day-old bagels. How can you justify turning down donations of baked goods or carrot stew? "We can't assess the nutritional value." Bull. These people are willing to eat refuse in order to get something to eat, you think that's better than bagels that are clean and safe?

What I'm also interested in is if this applies to both public homeless shelters (ones run by the city) and private ones (run by churches and such), because if it's only ones run by the city I can KIND of understand for liability purposes. If it's all then that's blatant over-regulation.

bcattoes

Lets say you have a wealthy community of people who donate their collection of Halloween candy or Cheetos / soda to the poor because they know it is unhealthy but the poor people have no choice. Should that be acceptable? Of course not.

Why not? While these are not ideal foods, to the truly hungry they are much needed calories. And to the children of the very poor candy is luxury they probably rarely get. And of course the poor people do a have a choice, they just simply wouldn't choose hunger over Cheetos and candy. Who would?