Other way around. ISTM that the relevant principle is not “If I don’t consider a certain food acceptable for my own consumption, then it would be shitty to donate it to poor people”, but rather “If I’m acquiring food specifically to donate to poor people, then it would be shitty to limit my selection only to foods I consider not good enough for me.”
You rightly don’t want to be treating food donation recipients like an inferior class who aren’t entitled to receive any but the most basic mediocre food items. But that’s not what you’re doing here. You accidentally received some food items that you consider too basic and mediocre to be worth your consuming, but they’re still perfectly okay from a food-safety standpoint and lots of people like them just fine. So you’re not disrespecting poor people by donating the cans of what you consider to be crap tomatoes, which would otherwise go to waste.
If, on the other hand, you were shopping for the food pantry and you refused to buy anything but brands you consider crap because you don’t think those moochers deserve anything better, that would be kind of shitty behavior.
At the supermarket recently there was an elderly woman whose entire grocery purchase was 5 or 6 cans of Spam, nothing else. Stuff that I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot barge pole, but she appeared happy to have it and even to pay for it.
It’s all relative and a matter of perspective. Donate what you can, because someone can use it and will appreciate it.
On the other hand, if i decided to spend $50 buying food for the local pantry, and i could buy N cans of my favorite canned tomato sauce, or 2N cans of the store brand sauce, I’d probably buy the 2N cans for them. Even though it’s flavored with enough nasty nasty green pepper that i won’t eat it, and won’t eat food made out of it. The 2N cans will feed more people, and most people seem to think cooked green pepper is an acceptable flavor in tomato sauce, not a toxic contaminant.
Agreed. I might prefer a fancy organic chicken noodle soup but most people, regardless of wealth, are fine with the generic brand and aren’t snobs. The goal is to feed hungry people as efficiently as possible.
Sure, but that’s a perfectly reasonable utilitarian argument for buying the cheaper item, not a mere reflex of disdain. (Also, as you note, green pepper preferences are a matter of individual taste, not objective superiority of one food over another.)
Our building was collecting food and toiletry donations, with specific requests for things like cooking oil, rice and other necessities. We also threw in a sixpack of TP. We’ve participated in food drives in the past and it’s shocking what people will try to palm off on the poor in the way of expired foods, which will just end up in the trash. When we did our own backpack lunch program for elementary school kids in need, we bought everything in bulk from Costco.
At least with giving food, the person donating can be sure that the food won’t be used for something other than feeding the hungry. One reason people are hesitant to donate money to charities is that they spend it on things other than directly benefiting the needy. For instance, a food bank may have a campaign for donations to feed the hungry during the holiday, but then most of the money gets used for upgrading office space, new computers, raises for employees, etc. Certainly those things are needed, but the donation campaign made it seem that the donations would be directly used to feed people suffering from hunger. If the charity made it clear that cash donations would only be used to add to the food budget for feeding the needy, people would be more likely to give cash. And by that, I mean that the food budget is increased by the amount of the donations, not that they do a bunch of accounting tricks with fungible money to shift money out of the food budget and replace it with donation dollars. If people felt that a donation of $20 meant that there would be an extra $20 of food to feed the hungry, they’d be more likely to donate that $20 rather than buy $20 worth of food themselves or give some cans out of their pantry.
Ditto. Those little cups of Mandarin oranges if they’re available. It’s a sweet that actually nutritious and probably welcome after a meal of rice and beans (again).
Or perhaps there was a really good sale price on Spam, which is why she bought multiple cans of that and nothing else? There’s really no way to know why people buy what they buy, aside from asking them.
In our local store, the spam is now up behind the checkout stands. For a few weeks it was in customer service and you had to pay and then collect it. So someone likes it a lot.
It’s perceived as cheap and used in beans or in greens it’s tasty and the salt content isn’t so in your face. (Used to be greens were cheap, too, but not so much anymore.)
It’s shelf-stable.
You can buy it in small tins or single-serving pouches now, which has appeal to homeless folks who can’t refrigerate a whole ham.
It’s possible to slice it and use it as a sandwich meat.
I’m not criticizing, just making an observation. To me, Spam is the ultimate example of unhealthy over-processed mystery meat. The closest I’ll come to eating crap pseudo-meat is all-beef hot dogs, and I try to minimize that. But I admit it’s very tasty either as a hot dog or simmered in Bush’s Homestyle beans with sauteed onion and barbecue sauce.
Maybe so. If I’m going to have meat with breakfast, my choice is either precooked bacon (very convenient because it just needs to heat up on a hot frying pan for a few seconds) or breakfast sausage which I precook in the oven, wrap in pairs, and freeze. Just needs nuking for about 60 seconds.