,

A Third Sector Plan to Instiutionalise Food Poverty

We sit within the third sector. We do so because for 11 years we have worked tirelessly to offer good food solutions in deprived areas. In 11 years we have taught over 14,000 people to cook, delivered fresh food services into schools, nurseries and care homes and, importantly in the context of this blog, we have given away 35,000 free, fresh meals to people going hungry in 2017. This is all frontline stuff. Working with children, parents, grandparents, in short; everyone in and working around food poverty.

It is the work that has given us vast experience into people’s eating habits and choices. It is the work that drives our good food model, it is also the work that drives our campaigning. We have campaigned for years to stop the poor food model that is currently the only offer available to most in food poverty. In the first couple of years, we campaigned quietly – getting people around tables, agreeing, disagreeing, producing position papers, arranging conferences all in the hope that we would agree that good food was a better option for hungry people. At the time everyone who attended the conferences (165 organisations) agreed (including the Trussell/ Fareshare reps), but when it came to doing something about it, they all backed off. 3 years on and our campaigning has become that much more targeted, naming organisations who frankly have only their own agenda, trying to get an alternative dialogue going against to the poor food dialogue that dominates the food poverty agenda right across England and Wales. We see campaigning as the cornerstone of all that we do. As campaigners it is so important to tell the truth as we see it, as we have researched it, as we have worked it. Truth that is based on fact and drawn from feeding thousands of people who are both hungry and in need of support. Our campaigns therefore are about representation; representing those who are stuck in austerity with too few options to take them anywhere else. Last week this role to represent took on real focus; a focus that initially generated anger, a focus that gave us further impetus to push harder against those who are hell-bent on making sure that we will always have a food aid system that they can push their poor food into – food that is cast off by a system that has no commercial use for it, food that is so random and processed that skilled chefs could not dig out a series of good meals from it. Ours is not to chirp from the side-lines, criticising. Our campaigning is about facts and the negative impact of poor food on poorer people. Our campaigning is about already having a sustainable solution to food poverty; a solution that positively brings institutions together and only supplies good food to the people who need it.

Anyway, scene set, now onto what made us angry and onto what should make everyone angry if your aim is social justice for those who are blighted by the stress of hunger.

Food poverty is a very emotive subject full of faith, hope, charity and the acts of volunteers who work so hard to make a difference. Because of this you should never criticise the efforts of those involved…after all, lives are being saved and people have found purpose in their volunteering activities – activities that have been the savour of many a church/community group or even big charity. We note this upfront as not to denigrate the efforts of volunteers who are working hard (we know of lots who do) but to lay bare the complexity now in-built into the whole food poverty movement. Careers depend on it, community groups are thriving because of it and all manner of others are spending their time trying to get in on the act. It is activity that is bound together by the regular and sweeping statements from all the actors and all the players involved; statements such as ‘we should not have to be here, we are here to stop food poverty, put ourselves out of business, that’s the plan.’ It’s a decent plan to have under the circumstances. However, the evidence of the last 8 years or so points in a different direction? We have seen poor waste food being recycled as if it was good, rolling out on a larger scale, feeding people badly as it goes along. Then last week, maybe the final nail in the coffin of the ‘we should not have to be here plan’, came the announcement that Trussell Trust and Fareshare have struck a £20m deal to expand their poor food models to anywhere that will take them.

Three years ago, we raised the topic of food poverty becoming institutionalised in the UK with the Trussell Trust becoming the key actor in an ‘institutionalised-plan’. At the time, our thinking was swayed after hearing the former CEO of Trussell declare that he wanted to see the organisation become the ‘McDonalds-of-food-poverty’. Around the same time, the CEO of Fareshare was saying something quite different in front of public audiences. His position was ‘Fareshare was not a food poverty organisation but a food waste organisation’. At first glance there is something of a conflict going on within the two statements with no immediate match up. But then take a step back and dig a little deeper – what you’ll find is a meeting of organisational minds. One wanted growth and needed more supply. The other also wanted growth and needed somewhere to deposit all of its food waste – a good marriage all of a sudden – more of this later.

Canada and the USA have been playing this food waste for poor people game for decades with mountains of proof that it does not work and lets the state off in its responsibility to care for people. It is a deeply flawed model. A model Fareshare and Trussell have followed with real purpose, culminating last week in announcing their news to partner with Walmart to maximise their growth plans. Walmart – the very company known to exploit their employees, many of whom are paid so poorly that they too rely on food handouts. The company that has done more than most to institutionalise food poverty in the USA. It’s immoral, but hey – clearly to some this is just business as usual, so why does this really matter?

It matters because the model is proven to keep people in poverty and it matters because it is proven that such models become little more than an industrial supply chain that pushes its waste and costs onto others, pretending to do otherwise. And it matters because all this is ably abetted by charity.

The intellectual Cornel West once said “Justice is what love looks like in public.” To achieve love in a food context surely it is about health and choice. Yet the exact opposite is on offer by the Trussell and Fareshare. So how can anyone be okay with randomised, mostly unhealthy, food as the only offer to people who are already having their self worth stripped by an evil benefits system or crap pay for a hard days work? Of course, there is an argument that at least some of the food they supply is fine for use and whilst there is lots of waste that is equally fine because at least the some food will feed some people. Well, sorry the argument doesn’t stack up. To back up this point lets inform you, as the reader, of what we found after paying for the Fareshare service for 6 months.

We have a full audit of all foods delivered to us. Of the foodstuff delivered, the parcel
ranged from kinder eggs and chocolate/biscuit items of all kinds (that we refused but they still turned up), loads of bread items onto useful items such as prawns and gammon joints that we could use because we are food producer. But here are the stark figures, for every delivery we received over the period we worked with Fareshare, the average value of the items delivered was £102.21 but the average waste cost (food we could not use and we needed to dispose of) was £62.40. Remember that we have a team of trained chefs on staff, with a combined kitchen experience of over 100 years between them. Yet we still had to dispose of 60% of all goods delivered. We can only estimate from our experience how much food the average Fareshare recipient must waste each and every time they receive their random delivery as most don’t have chefs. Fareshare brands itself as a charity having the objectives of ‘fighting hunger and food waste’, but figures say they are mostly passing that waste on to community centres or to be wasted by households going hungry, therefore accomplishing neither of its aforementioned objectives – so what have Walmart bought into and why?

As already noted, it’s a North American model and across the Atlantic there is real expertise in these poor-food-corporate-buy-in-approaches.

One expert who set up the STOP in Canada (look it up if you don’t know it) said last week…

“Let’s not conflate a food waste strategy with a poverty reduction strategy. It’s destructive to do so. Are we saying the poor among us are only worthy of the castoffs of the industrial food system – the majority of which is unhealthy food, laden with fat, sugar and salt which increases the risk of diet related diseases? There is no question we can and must do better than this as a society.”

Wise words. Words worthy of major consideration, unless you are wanting to get as close as you can to the food industrial complex, unless your intentions are about growth over poverty; unless you are Trussell or Fareshare.

10 days ago, we wrote a blog about changing the story of food poverty, ending that blog with its not too late to change – if the intention was to create a good food system for people who are hungry. Last week changed everything. Last week’s Walmart love-in said to everyone who cares about these matters – food poverty in the UK will become as it is in North America. A service done at pace and all on the back of volunteers, except for those jobs in the management tiers of Fareshare/Trussell, who of course are needed to co-ordinate the logistics of this deeply flawed and deeply immoral model.

A good company is measured not by how it behaves in public when things are going good but how it behaves when things are not so good, and they are in the glare of scrutiny. So here is our experience of both organisations about things that have not gone well.

After carrying our own practice-based research (partly noted above) into their operational models, we approached them both, sometimes meeting with management teams raising our concerns about their poor food models, providing strong evidence. In response, both steadfastly defended their poor food model (offering the most bizarre reasons for their offer of poor food), both reacted with disdain, and this is important, simply ignored all feedback. Now what is interesting here is that we have a food expertise that both Fareshare and Trussell don’t have, we are a food organisation first, with a significant track record in feeding people well in deprived areas. They cared not one bit. For them it was all about logistics and the movement of as much poor food as they could muster. This paragraph is worth noting because it lets you into the psyche of the charities in play here. For them, it’s always been about growth over product and there is no evidence to declare anything to the contrary.

There is ongoing campaign End Hunger that has gathered all of the national players around one table looking to create a model that, as the title suggests, ends hunger. Around that table Trussel and Fareshare sit as the proud supply chain of most of the infrastructure of poor food that gives the campaign the oxygen to exist. It is a campaign that has made some decent recommendations about policy change and has routes to government that can influence. There is no doubt that some around the table care. Now though, the dynamics of that table have changed and there is a big new corporate elephant in the room. An elephant so big that it could distort the whole picture quickly and forever. Moreover, if we look across again to North America, this elephant will do all it can to foist its poor-food options so deep that in just a few years’ time it will be impossible to extract it even if there was a want to do so. Let’s be clear here, if anyone thinks Walmart are going to invest £20million without influence they should not be anywhere near any sort of decision making.

So rounding all this up, and back to the marriage of Trussell and Fareshare, and not forgetting the role of the wider third sector:-

We believe there was unrest in the staff camps of Trussell and Farshare about the Walmart deal, but it still went ahead. In doing the deal, Trussel and Fareshare have declared their hand. Walmart are their partners and they are wedded to growth and poor-food just as their contemporaries working with Walmart are doing are across the Atlantic. Now they may have sold this to their UK food poverty partners (End Hunger and others) as this is a good deal for all involved. After all, more food banks, more poor food, more volunteers, what’s there not to like? We can imagine them saying…’Yes there is going to be a bit of noise about Walmart, but that will die down and then let’s think about all those poor people we can help and those new initiatives we can all create off the back of the big new supply chain of poor food.’ If this, or something like this, has/is being said and this sort of thing is allowed, bought into if you like, then everyone in the supply chain of this Walmart deal will be complicit and no amount of reworking or dressing this up will suffice. Get into bed with Walmart and you will be part of institutionalising food poverty in the UK – no doubt, no further discussion. Take a quick look at twitter to read how the complicity has started with some already starting to distort the argument by claiming food aid has always been institutionalised and what happened last week is merely part of what is already in place. It is an outrageous claim, unless of course you believe in the deal.

To finish, the third sector should seek to hold and operate to the highest standards, after all the safeguard is the health and wellbeing of vulnerable people. Given the involvement of Walmart and how both Fareshare and Trussell trust have done everything they can to spread their poor food model nationwide – it is fair that those standards have been compromised. Trying to remain somewhat fair, if the £20m the two organisations have now secured is used to;-

1. Make sure people have access to good fresh food by choice
2. Make sure no waste is passed on to community groups at their cost. Taking in only the food that can be used, leaving ASDA with costs of the rest and holding them to account and;
3. Make sure that volunteers get jobs, rather than just create more volunteer roles to roll out more food banks or distribution units

Then maybe, just maybe, there will be some good reason for this deal. But our experience of working with and watching Trussell and Fareshare operate is that the opposite will roll out – lets all wait and see eh?

It was useful to see IFAN stand their ground and raise their concerns. Now the door is open for others to follow. More importantly, it will be very interesting to see who over time buys in with the offer of some of the benefits of the £20m. In the long run, if many of the current food poverty entities do, the integrity of the sector will be threatened and the big losers will be the people hungry and still forced to take poor food handouts.

As we said in our last blog, there are already options and stronger routes to stopping hunger, let’s see what happens next?

, ,

The Food Poverty Story Needs To Change…

The story goes; no matter the quality – food-aid food is better than no food at all. A story told by those who will never have to eat it.

In the 7 or so years since the Conservative/Lib Dem took hold of the governmental reigns and decided that it was fair to make working class people pay for the wilful acts of bankers, two storylines have dominated the UK social policy landscape. The first is austerity. The second is poverty.

The mind that creates austerity and sells it as fair is an evil mind, and the collective minds that agree and create policy and foist it upon millions of people are both callous and evil in equal measure.

The Conservative right, who are now the dominant political force, care not for suffering or the plight of others, their interests will always lay elsewhere protecting neo-liberal/ capitalist, small government, low taxation ways – the place evil-like austerity is dreamed up.

Back in the 18th century, Thomas Malthus and Joseph Townsend (both clerics) said ‘It is only hunger which can spur and goad them onto labour.’ Disinterred, precarity and desperation are recast as the necessary incentives to encourage the poor to work harder¹. A century later and this was the thinking of George Osbourne, Nick Clegg and Iain Duncan Smith when they, and others, agreed to slash benefits and push people desperately into low-paid or no-paid jobs and towards and into hunger. It was a story of bankers bankrupting a nation recast as working class scroungers and skivers – lazy benefit cheats that need to be forced to work like the rest of us – it’s been a story well told.

Alongside, the second storyline has been concurrent and a story equally well told. It’s one of poverty and in particular food poverty and how millions of people are relying on food handouts without which they would never cope. The difference here though is that the story is not pushed by Government but by the charity/third sector. It is a story so well told that the food poverty response led by big charities is now almost inseparable from the problem although the story told by those same charities is somewhat different, claiming they are indeed feeding people as well as can be expected, after what else would they say? They get away with this largely because of the desperation of those who are hungry and because often working-class people are regarded as culturally unsophisticated and parochial in their concerns. They are assumed too preoccupied with everything being working class entails to think beyond where their next crispy pancake is coming from.²

And it is those assumptions in part that drive the charity food aid storyline.

After nourishment, shelter and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world.³ They capture our imagination and inspire and galvanise us to act.⁴ As both the government/third sector stories are being played out, it’s all about telling the same story over and over again and blocking out any objection in order to hold onto a moral high ground they both require for their stories to hold true.

Interestingly, both stories are politically/socially right-wing; believing they know best, pretending they have people’s best interests to heart and as much as they can, stopping/ignoring any counter argument. You have got to ask, as you watch those who hold the influence in the third sector food poverty debate, whether they recognise the hypocrisy of this element of their work; pressing the Government for policy change by claiming all that they do but never being able to accommodate any alternative discussion about the poor-food-for-poor-people model they hold so dear. A model that amounts to nothing more than ‘nutritional-austerity’.

Last week, an article appeared online and was retweeted widely by the food aid fraternity and academics alike. One paragraph was quite telling, it read;

‘People affected by food poverty face severe threats to their health and wellbeing. As well as stress, depression and anxiety that can result from not having enough money to feed their families, people experiencing food poverty also face a higher risk of obesity, because the only foods they can afford tend to be cheap, sugary, processed and fattening.’ ₅

It’s a paragraph that tells readers that a problem those with no or low incomes face is dealing with a life-threatening condition because of the food that they eat. Yet it is the very same food that the food aid model pushes out as its only offer. And 8 years on from when the current food aid food parcel was created, it remains its only offer – but sadly the story/claims are to the contrary.

In this blog space, as we write to raise these issues, we get academics contacting us asking for the evidence about why the food bank parcel is damaging to people’s health or cannot be eaten due to its poor processed quality. Our response starts with…how about the last 15 years of public health studies that have declared ultra-processed food wholly damaging to people’s health – the very same food that is in a food bank parcel. What we get back is silence – is it simply intelligent people unable make the connection? We don’t think so.

It is more likely that academics have become too close to organisations like Trussell (who hold a lot of the food poverty data) and need them for their research support to propagate their own stories.

It is also apparent that there are a group of Northern based academics who have written books and numerous papers on the subject, discussing every topic in detail but not once ever (to our knowledge) discussing the topic of poor-food-for-poor-people. The closest reference we have found (whilst hardly definitive), does indicate some sort of ‘progress’…

‘It’s going to be essential that our thinking is broad and ambitious and that it challenges contemporary minimalist tendencies in both understanding and responding to poverty and hunger. In particular, conceptualisations of the problem of food insecurity of not only dietary intake, but also the experience of acquiring food and the sustainability of those acquisition sources in the future.’₆

With the wealth of research/information available about crap food and the serious health problems it causes, it is fair to ask the question…why have most academics, and certainly those in the North of England chosen to avoid the subject? The question is important, because until those who can raise/write about the issue, the poor-food storyline will continue, promoted by influential storytellers who have so far proven themselves wedded to feeding people badly.

Creating a New Storyline

The need for a new story to be told that pushes back austerity is now being taken up by the Labour Party and with luck we may see a Labour Government soon. However, changing the damage austerity has done will take a parliament or two, so poverty will be with us at the level it is for maybe the next decade. It is therefore massively important that the second storyline of poverty, and in particular food poverty, being all the fault of this Government, undergoes a change. A change that is honest about the problem and honest about the solutions to the problem, and here we are talking about the problem being poor food being the only option available – it’s not – but the storyline is so wedded to the survival of certain charities that any change is going to be oh so difficult to achieve.

A sting of facts, however well attested, have no power in correcting or dislodging a powerful story. The only response it is likely to provoke is indignation: people often deny facts that clash with the narrative ‘truth’ established in their own minds. It’s not enough to challenge an old narrative no matter how discredited it may be. Change only happens when you replace it with another. ₇

We naively thought that by gathering the facts about how poor the quality food bank produce is, and how damaging it is to people’s heath, that politicians and decision makers would sit up and take notice. In fact, 4 years ago when we presented this as a problem to food banks and Trussell et al, together with a solution or two, we believed they would want to take notice too. Instead, the politicians all said they wanted/want rid of food banks and they knew/know the food is poor quality but hope for big policy change and as for Trussell et al; in short they took/take no notice – 4 years on, the same problem exists and hungry people remain poorly fed because of the decisions of those in government and the third sector.

So how does the story change? There are a number of possible storylines.

Remain true to the current story and watch food poverty/ food banks become the feature they are in North America – here forever with the state grateful for the work they do – easing the pressure of real policy change. Or, start a new story of a third sector working together with the intelligence it has to create good-food-banks and a wider good-food-movement, feeding people well and still pressuring Government for change.

The solutions are here already and what a story it would be for the UK to be the first country to roll out a good food poverty model. We remain confused why others in the food poverty industry do not want this story to take hold and we remain frustrated also that they choose to ignore good food options and hold onto feeding people food they would never choose to eat themselves.

It’s not yet too late to change.

¹ George Monbiot

² Darren McGarvey

³ Phillip Pullman

⁴ Fiona Shaw

₅ The Conversation – 2018

₆ Hannah Lambie-Munford

₇ George Monbiot

 

 

,

Charity Will Never Solve The Problem But May Make It Worse

Robert Egger, American food campaigner and entrepreneur, has two pertinent quotes that are relevant to the ongoing roll out of food poverty services here in the UK.

“Too often, charity is about the redemption of the giver, not the liberation of the receiver.” And; “Pity isn’t a plan.”

At Can Cook we passionately believe in the need for charity, it helps people out of immediate risk and it can, an often does, fill gaps mobilising local people to generate local responses. Charity has the ability to move much quicker than more established statutory services and can therefore stem a local problem quicker. It is, however, only ever meant to be a temporary measure, filling in those short-term gaps, alerting others who can take on the bigger challenge of solving the problem.

Charity and food poverty is a good case study. In the UK, the charity response to food poverty was strong, putting a service in place as the public sector struggled to cope. Setting up food banks in the case of the Trussell Trust or producing reports such as those published by Oxfam – it was all activity that laid the foundations for the food poverty movement we have now. It has created a movement that parts of the UK the public has bought into via donations of all sorts and it has done so via a frenzy of activity and emotion; highlighting struggle, lobbying those with influence, and all the time looking to secure more resources to respond to increased demand – this is classic charity but classic charitable models have real limitations and those limitations ultimately restrict the value and scope of the response as the problem gets worse or as is the case the Government ignores the problem altogether.

Moreover, charity cannot really campaign; it can object and subtly lobby, but start to cast influence and step too far into a political campaigning role and the Government can step in with threats of closure. Charity is also restricted by the donations it receives either from a public appeal it may administer or directly from a grants system it will apply to for whatever project it has in mind. It means that charity becomes quickly boxed in as the problem gets worse, needing more resources but finding those resources are finite and increasingly competitive, needing to say more but being careful not to say too much. It becomes a revolving door of lots of projects all wanting to do similar things, dreaming up the next new idea to keep potential funders happy, hardly ever joined up (because of competition) and ultimately leading to what we have now regarding food poverty here in the UK – thousands of little projects, all well intentioned, relying on volunteers and recycled (mostly processed) food, digging in for the long haul. It is unsustainable, it tires good people out and whilst it generates local services and awareness amongst those who (it could be argued) would support poverty initiatives anyway – it’s never able to move the problem into the mainstream of society and therefore will never offer a solution to the problem.

Right now, the food poverty problem is a charity problem. As a backdrop to services too much of the charitable activity is about the redemption of the giver and contains a strong thread of pity being part of the plan. Having generated lots of activity and local mini-projects, after roughly 8 years of concerted effort; still using the same methods of delivery and mostly relying on volunteers to deliver some sort of change – the model is tired and in need of a complete overhaul. But will those with a vested interest in the status quo be brave enough or will they cling onto what they have? It is likely the same-old will prevail. The current model is sustainable because its low cost (free food, free labour) and the alternative require new thinking and a shift of resources and that’s all about change. Let’s hope some are brave enough; the Feeding Britain initiative appears to be ready to break the mould and time will tell if it is able to do so.

We hope to see if the food poverty movement can offer solutions that are about good food, are about job chances and are able, through local enterprise, to generate solutions that can financially sustain themselves – it can be done but we need to be quick.

Next week – our food poverty track record…

, ,

5 Years in Food Poverty: Most Involved in Food Poverty Know Nothing About Food/For the Record

Most Involved in Food Poverty Know Nothing About Food

Think about this for a moment; you are hungry and you are trusting organisations to feed you when you are most in need. You would hope that those organisations know something about food – yet most don’t, and it’s dangerous.

Can Cook was initially set up in 2007 to teach people how to cook. A decade later and we’ve taught over 15,000 people to cook and have, in addition, established a good food enterprise with our own range of chilled meals. We work with a dietician to continuously improve the health benefits and overall quality of the food we provide. We note this because we have maintained that if you work in food, you should know food – and working in food poverty should be no different.

For years, the Trussell Trust have defended their food bank parcel by claiming it had been designed by a nutritionist and that they had a report to support this claim. This report has never been produced and the nutritionist has never been identified, yet still the same poor food parcel, consisting mainly of tinned and processed goods, continues to dominate the food poverty supply chain.

Therefore, let’s be completely clear here, medium term use of a food bank parcel damages people’s health and any counter claims are emotive and have no basis in fact. We make this point because there are those who have criticised our fresh meal response as the wrong route to take, claiming that food poverty is more than just the supply of good food to those who are hungry. Again, let’s be clear here, it’s not – food poverty means people do not have any or enough food and as such need food to assist them when desperate – so the quality of the food means everything and again the counter claims are emotive and have no basis in fact.

The food poverty arena is dominated by charities who are good at logistics but do not understand food. In this space, Trussell Trust and Fareshare are the two main suppliers of those logistical services. These companies arrange the warehousing licensing and transport of donated foodstuffs. Once donated, the same food is then given out in its original state to people or organisations who in turn need that food to survive or then in the case of third sector groups, provide the food to their service users. These logistical services are an important conduit if the aim is to stop the landfill of re-usable food, however they were not ever designed to feed hungry people well. Moreover, it is now important to recognise and accept that these services do little more than churn a randomised supply of donated foodstuffs into a randomised offer of (mostly) processed food that has no basis to claim that it is nutritious or good for people to eat.

Knowing about food and the effects that good and bad food has on the individuals who will eat it should be a pre-requisite for any food business. Here at Can Cook we have to comply with a raft of regulations to ensure the food we produce is safe and healthy for people to eat it. We spend weeks, sometimes months, designing and refining recipes/ menus with the focus of people eating well whether they are paying customers of ours or people referred due to the struggle of having no money/no food.

Everyone who receives a food service should be safe in the knowledge that food service has been set up to protect their wellbeing. Unfortunately, in the private sector there have been numerous stories or unscrupulous companies dodging the rules and pretending they are not. The Third Sector still has a chance to change and adapt linking up those who are good at logistics with those who know food – creating a service that can merge the best of both.

Our guess is that this will not happen and the larger charities will still pursue an intention to go and grow alone or with other ‘big’ charities that can improve their ‘bid-ability’, focusing on income over solution. If this happens, and we return to something we wrote 4 years ago, the sector will be complicit in institutionalising food poverty – and if that happens there will be one big loser (or millions as the case will be) – those people who are hungry.

For The Record

It’s imperative that we tackle food poverty in a city like Liverpool; our region holds five of England’s ten poorest districts, one third of our children grow up in poverty; 20% of older people receiving a home care visit are in food poverty and a shocking 45% of families in the city region live below the poverty line. To be candid, poverty is blighting the wellbeing of individuals from every generation and touching too many people at each stage of their lives.

Poverty, and more specifically food poverty, is an epidemic that envelops our city, but it’s certainly not one that’s exclusive to Liverpool alone. In 2015/16, approximately 12.8 million UK individuals were reported to be living in absolute poverty (AHC), including 3.7 million children. Around 15% of all older people and 7 million individuals from working households are living in poverty. Britain’s biggest food bank provider, the Trussel Trust, reported to have given out 1.2 million food parcels in 2016-17, the ninth consecutive year in which demand for its service had risen. It’s a chilling indictment that hunger in the UK is significantly increasing, yet the blanket response to our nation’s food poverty remains as it was 8 years ago – saturated with poor food.

The current food bank offer can contain up to 24 tins and zero fresh produce; 45% of all food bank goods go unused by the recipient as they cannot be adequately combined to constitute a ‘proper’ meal. Graver still, the UK’s food system has made processed, unhealthy foodstuffs the cheaper (and therefore more attractive option), to the money-poor, time-poor parent who needs to feed their family. The 18% increase in the number of people living in persistent poverty only highlights the fact that the range of foodstuffs affordable and available to the absolutely and relatively ‘skint’ are, undoubtedly, failing to support individuals move on from their crisis. In this economy, we require a significant shift in government policy or a change of government, – improving benefits, improving wages or we need a good food poverty system. Anything short of one or the other or a mix of the two is a failure that makes people and society as a whole, poorer – it really is as simple as that.

 

 

 

, ,

5 Years in Food Poverty: Why Sandwiches are Dangerous

The whiter the bread the sooner you’ll be dead.” –  Michael Pollan

Time to discuss the value of a sandwich in working class communities right across the UK. Of course, not all sandwiches are the same but we are not talking about a Waldorf here – far from it. The sandwiches we come across, made to provide children with a meal, amount to not much more nutrition than a packet of crisps.

“You could take your eye out with one of those!” A friend of ours once said when discussing all that cardboard like white bread with cardboard like processed cheese – she was of course exaggerating, but not by much, and her point does set the context for why sandwiches are such a big problem when dealing with children’s diet and hunger.

We have found, via our Share-Holiday-Hunger-Campaign, that a lot of children we fed were wholly locked into the offer of a sandwich – it is their “food comfort blanket”, and when the sandwich wasn’t there for them, it took some coaxing to switch them into trying/eating a good meal. It is a learnt behaviour (a dependency) taken on from both the home and school environments; in both, the headteacher and the parent is making their sandwich decision based on saving time and money.

Let’s be clear, a sandwich should never be a meal and always a snack – a filler and not a meal replacement. Sandwiches are a cheap and easy fix and, because of this, they have become a mainstay – useful for getting people past that initial hunger pang. They are, though, only that; a quick and easy fix – and what comes next and just as quickly (particularly for the child who is playing or studying), is that return to hunger and the need for a good meal.

Most of us love a sandwich, we do because we can choose to eat that sandwich safe in the knowledge that a good hearty meal will soon follow. But for those who do not have the same choices, or for the children who are forced or continually tempted at home, in centres or at school by the offer of a sandwich alone – on their behalf, it’s time to discuss the consequences.

Most sandwiches served in working class communities consist of (with the odd scattering of lettuce, or maybe a slice of tomato or cucumber);-

  • Only processed products (cheese and ham being favourites) sat in-between white bread or worse still;-
  • Chocolate spread

It is a composition of foodstuffs analysed by experts to damage people’s health in the medium/long term. In the current poverty climate and given our insight into children’s food dependencies, it’s fair to estimate that up to a million children could be regular diners on just those poor food sandwiches. Becoming the go-to meal replacement for children who are also enduring many other struggles; it is no doubt a contributor to the ongoing public health crisis that is the blight of so many children nationwide.

It is therefore the responsibility of everyone involved in the food poverty movement to realise the deficiencies of the sandwich offer and to come up with viable option. It is a problem hidden within a bigger problem and going unrecognised. Processed ingredients between two slices of bread, intended as a meal, have no place whatsoever in feeding hungry children.

Now is the time to start the discussion about how good sandwiches (snacks made from fresh ingredients), can be part of the solution, and as we start the discussion, the ‘some food is better than no food’ argument has long gone and on behalf of the children who deserve better, they should get better.

, , ,

5 Years in Food Poverty

Part 1

Lessons Learnt

Looking back 5 years is a long time in food poverty. We started out with the best intentions, trying to organise, trying to make sense of it all, wanting to make a substantial change and, above all, wanting to feed people well.

Our journey started by arranging 3 conferences, all delivered in quick succession, intended to generate momentum and purpose. Throughout the conference attendees enthusiastically backed, on record, our aim to improve the quality of the food offering; there was not a single detractor amongst the 160 organisations in attendance. Yet, 3 years on from the last conference, most of the same organisations have done little or nothing to instigate any sort of change. Instead what they have preferred to do is pretend progress; criticise but claim it’s only meant to be constructive and never once be prepared to enter in to real discussions about creating the sort of change that would make sure hungry people are fed well.

As we tell our 5-year story in this series of short blogs we retain the same position we began with back in 2012 – food poverty can be stopped if the goal is making sure hungry people have access to good fresh food by choice. Everything we have done has focused solely on this goal – here is the story so far!

Absolute or Relative – Creating a Good Food System

When people are talking about food poverty what do they mean? Too often the term is being used as a catch all for everything going on in the poverty framework – it’s unfortunately trendy for organisations to say “we are in food poverty” but without a substantive reference point as to why and on behalf of whom?

From our experience, there are two types of food poverty;

Absolute: Capturing people who have no food whatsoever and are reliant on food banks and other such services for some sort of sustenance. This area is heavily populated with the supply offered by food banks etc.

Relative: Capturing people who have some means to avoid the use of food banks yet regularly skip meals due to finances. This area of work is completely under-developed and largely hidden. It’s the area where the festering struggle of millions of people starts to take shape, it’s the stage before these people find themselves descended on the food chain and into the reliance of food banks, i.e. absolute poverty.

Helping those who are absolutely skint should remain a priority, but we now must look to help those who are teetering on the edge and are therefore relatively skint, if you like. It’s time to arrange local food services to look after everyone with a good food offer. Doing this, and we think it can be done, means;

  • If people have nothing – they will get good food.
  • If they have a little – they will get good food.
  • If children are at school – they will get good food.
  • If older people are in care or returning home from hospital – they will get good food.
  • If people want to shop – there will be good food to buy.

Our experience of developing good food services, together with the food poverty work we have undertaken, has given us the will and knowledge to plan a model of delivery that we have called Good Food Areas. We are resolute in our conviction that this model can stop food poverty in every area it is set up to deliver in; it is this model that will now take our work forward. This model will launch quietly in September and we are currently negotiating with local authorities who will act as partners in a region-wide rollout.

What is innovative about GFA’s is that it utilises and improves the food services that already exist within every community and then re-uses elements of the profits to ensure that no person goes hungry and everyone has access to good food options. And by good food options we mean; options to shop, options to access subsidised meals and at-all-times, options that allow hungry families to access to freshly cooked meals in their time of crisis.

There is a lot of detail to the model, too much for a blog. If you are interested in the direction we are taking and have questions, please contact us.

Part 2:

Why Sandwiches Are Dangerous

The whiter the bread the sooner you’ll be dead.” –  Michael Pollan

Time to discuss the value of a sandwich in working class communities right across the UK. Of course, not all sandwiches are the same but we are not talking about a Waldorf here – far from it. The sandwiches we come across, made to provide children with a meal, amount to not much more nutrition than a packet of crisps.

“You could take your eye out with one of those!” A friend of ours once said when discussing all that cardboard like white bread with cardboard like processed cheese – she was of course exaggerating, but not by much, and her point does set the context for why sandwiches are such a big problem when dealing with children’s diet and hunger.

We have found, via our Share-Holiday-Hunger-Campaign, that a lot of children we fed were wholly locked into the offer of a sandwich – it is their “food comfort blanket”, and when the sandwich wasn’t there for them, it took some coaxing to switch them into trying/eating a good meal. It is a learnt behaviour (a dependency) taken on from both the home and school environments; in both, the headteacher and the parent is making their sandwich decision based on saving time and money.

Let’s be clear, a sandwich should never be a meal and always a snack – a filler and not a meal replacement. Sandwiches are a cheap and easy fix and, because of this, they have become a mainstay – useful for getting people past that initial hunger pang. They are, though, only that; a quick and easy fix – and what comes next and just as quickly (particularly for the child who is playing or studying), is that return to hunger and the need for a good meal.

Most of us love a sandwich, we do because we can choose to eat that sandwich safe in the knowledge that a good hearty meal will soon follow. But for those who do not have the same choices, or for the children who are forced or continually tempted at home, in centres or at school by the offer of a sandwich alone – on their behalf, it’s time to discuss the consequences.

Most sandwiches served in working class communities consist of (with the odd scattering of lettuce, or maybe a slice of tomato or cucumber);-

  • Only processed products (cheese and ham being favourites) sat in-between white bread or worse still;-
  • Chocolate spread

It is a composition of foodstuffs analysed by experts to damage people’s health in the medium/long term. In the current poverty climate and given our insight into children’s food dependencies, it’s fair to estimate that up to a million children could be regular diners on just those poor food sandwiches. Becoming the go-to meal replacement for children who are also enduring many other struggles; it is no doubt a contributor to the ongoing public health crisis that is the blight of so many children nationwide.

It is therefore the responsibility of everyone involved in the food poverty movement to realise the deficiencies of the sandwich offer and to come up with viable option. It is a problem hidden within a bigger problem and going unrecognised. Processed ingredients between two slices of bread, intended as a meal, have no place whatsoever in feeding hungry children.

Now is the time to start the discussion about how good sandwiches (snacks made from fresh ingredients), can be part of the solution, and as we start the discussion, the ‘some food is better than no food’ argument has long gone and on behalf of the children who deserve better, they should get better.

Part 3

Most Involved in Food Poverty Know Nothing About food:

Think about this for a moment; you are hungry and you are trusting organisations to feed you when you are most in need. You would hope that those organisations know something about food – yet most don’t, and it’s dangerous.

Can Cook was initially set up in 2007 to teach people how to cook. A decade later and we’ve taught over 15,000 people to cook and have, in addition, established a good food enterprise with our own range of chilled meals. We work with a dietician to continuously improve the health benefits and overall quality of the food we provide. We note this because we have maintained that if you work in food, you should know food – and working in food poverty should be no different.

For years, the Trussell Trust have defended their food bank parcel by claiming it had been designed by a nutritionist and that they had a report to support this claim. This report has never been produced and the nutritionist has never been identified, yet still the same poor food parcel, consisting mainly of tinned and processed goods, continues to dominate the food poverty supply chain.

Therefore, let’s be completely clear here, medium term use of a food bank parcel damages people’s health and any counter claims are emotive and have no basis in fact. We make this point because there are those who have criticised our fresh meal response as the wrong route to take, claiming that food poverty is more than just the supply of good food to those who are hungry. Again, let’s be clear here, it’s not – food poverty means people do not have any or enough food and as such need food to assist them when desperate – so the quality of the food means everything and again the counter claims are emotive and have no basis in fact.

The food poverty arena is dominated by charities who are good at logistics but do not understand food. In this space, Trussell Trust and Fareshare are the two main suppliers of those logistical services. These companies arrange the warehousing licensing and transport of donated foodstuffs. Once donated, the same food is then given out in its original state to people or organisations who in turn need that food to survive or then in the case of third sector groups, provide the food to their service users. These logistical services are an important conduit if the aim is to stop the landfill of re-usable food, however they were not ever designed to feed hungry people well. Moreover, it is now important to recognise and accept that these services do little more than churn a randomised supply of donated foodstuffs into a randomised offer of (mostly) processed food that has no basis to claim that it is nutritious or good for people to eat.

Knowing about food and the effects that good and bad food has on the individuals who will eat it should be a pre-requisite for any food business. Here at Can Cook we have to comply with a raft of regulations to ensure the food we produce is safe and healthy for people to eat it. We spend weeks, sometimes months, designing and refining recipes/ menus with the focus of people eating well whether they are paying customers of ours or people referred due to the struggle of having no money/no food.

Everyone who receives a food service should be safe in the knowledge that food service has been set up to protect their wellbeing. Unfortunately, in the private sector there have been numerous stories or unscrupulous companies dodging the rules and pretending they are not. The Third Sector still has a chance to change and adapt linking up those who are good at logistics with those who know food – creating a service that can merge the best of both.

Our guess is that this will not happen and the larger charities will still pursue an intention to go and grow alone or with other ‘big’ charities that can improve their ‘bid-ability’, focusing on income over solution. If this happens, and we return to something we wrote 4 years ago, the sector will be complicit in institutionalising food poverty – and if that happens there will be one big loser (or millions as the case will be) – those people who are hungry.

For The Record:

It’s imperative that we tackle food poverty in a city like Liverpool; our region holds five of England’s ten poorest districts, one third of our children grow up in poverty; 20% of older people receiving a home care visit are in food poverty and a shocking 45% of families in the city region live below the poverty line. To be candid, poverty is blighting the wellbeing of individuals from every generation and touching too many people at each stage of their lives.

Poverty, and more specifically food poverty, is an epidemic that envelops our city, but it’s certainly not one that’s exclusive to Liverpool alone. In 2015/16, approximately 12.8 million UK individuals were reported to be living in absolute poverty (AHC), including 3.7 million children. Around 15% of all older people and 7 million individuals from working households are living in poverty. Britain’s biggest food bank provider, the Trussel Trust, reported to have given out 1.2 million food parcels in 2016-17, the ninth consecutive year in which demand for its service had risen. It’s a chilling indictment that hunger in the UK is significantly increasing, yet the blanket response to our nation’s food poverty remains as it was 8 years ago – saturated with poor food.

The current food bank offer can contain up to 24 tins and zero fresh produce; 45% of all food bank goods go unused by the recipient as they cannot be adequately combined to constitute a ‘proper’ meal. Graver still, the UK’s food system has made processed, unhealthy foodstuffs the cheaper (and therefore more attractive option), to the money-poor, time-poor parent who needs to feed their family. The 18% increase in the number of people living in persistent poverty only highlights the fact that the range of foodstuffs affordable and available to the absolutely and relatively ‘skint’ are, undoubtedly, failing to support individuals move on from their crisis. In this economy, we require a significant shift in government policy or a change of government, – improving benefits, improving wages or we need a good food poverty system. Anything short of one or the other or a mix of the two is a failure that makes people and society as a whole, poorer – it really is as simple as that.

Part 4

Campaigning Matters But Be Aware…

Campaigns are an underused but a very valuable tool the third sector has. Done well, they push out key messages and provide credible information and feedback that can then be used to influence those who have the power to instigate change. They are though tough to manage and should never be confused with the straight PR promotion of the organisation involved – good campaigns are designed to solve a social problem.

We set up the ‘Share’ campaign to;-

  1. Raise awareness of the food problems people were/are facing
  2. Supply thousands of fresh meals to people who were/are hungry and;
  3. Draw attention to possible Good Food solutions that are available

Drawing celebrity, private and public sector support, the campaign pushed the messages of people’s hunger into areas previously hidden from the facts. It created a feedback structure that allowed people to vent their frustrations and for the first time take part in the debate. It allowed campaign partners to use their expertise to add new insights that in turn generated quite large donations which in turn enabled us to produce over 30,000 meals delivered to feed people of all ages – it was a massive and very successful effort.

Campaigns do though contain an inherent warning sign; best categorised as ‘the good, the not so good and the downright ugly’ – here was our experience…

The good comes when people get behind the message, understand the problem and want to help; thousands of good people came forward during the Share Campaigns, offering donations, offering help, giving up their Christmas day to make sure people were fed well.

The not so good came quickly, mostly from food banks making spurious emotive claims about the perceived plight of the people we were feeding; always taking the moral high ground of their clients being needier than ours, never once providing facts, hiding behind ‘we know best’ type statements. And then there was the downright ugly – people involved in the third (food) sector actually claiming that good food is not part of the solution, claiming that the only sustainable solution was the poor food options that prop up food banks. Again, no basis in fact – all emotive but all very public.

So that’s campaigns for you – vital for raising awareness, vital for raising funds and vital for raising emotions of all kinds. We have enjoyed our campaign trail/trial. We have learnt a lot about hunger, about people’s perceptions of hunger and most importantly about the impact good food has on people lives when they are in food crisis. Supplying over 30,000 free fresh meals has given a significant insight into how people are coping and what they need to move on to better circumstances. We are now going to use all that experience to make sure we shape a service that always remembers that social justice means people getting the best service possible regardless of their struggle.

Which leads me into the next part of our story; why charity is part of the problem and why problems such as food poverty require structural responses that are enterprising, using and improving existing food businesses to solve the problem by making sure hungry people have access to good food wherever they come-into-contact-with-it. The Share campaign has taught us how to do this.

Part 5

Charity Will Never Solve The Problem But May Make It Worse

Robert Egger, American food campaigner and entrepreneur, has two pertinent quotes that are relevant to the ongoing roll out of food poverty services here in the UK.

“Too often, charity is about the redemption of the giver, not the liberation of the receiver.” And; “Pity isn’t a plan.”

At Can Cook we passionately believe in the need for charity, it helps people out of immediate risk and it can, an often does, fill gaps mobilising local people to generate local responses. Charity has the ability to move much quicker than more established statutory services and can therefore stem a local problem quicker. It is, however, only ever meant to be a temporary measure, filling in those short-term gaps, alerting others who can take on the bigger challenge of solving the problem.

Charity and food poverty is a good case study. In the UK, the charity response to food poverty was strong, putting a service in place as the public sector struggled to cope. Setting up food banks in the case of the Trussell Trust or producing reports such as those published by Oxfam – it was all activity that laid the foundations for the food poverty movement we have now. It has created a movement that parts of the UK the public has bought into via donations of all sorts and it has done so via a frenzy of activity and emotion; highlighting struggle, lobbying those with influence, and all the time looking to secure more resources to respond to increased demand – this is classic charity but classic charitable models have real limitations and those limitations ultimately restrict the value and scope of the response as the problem gets worse or as is the case the Government ignores the problem altogether.

Moreover, charity cannot really campaign; it can object and subtly lobby, but start to cast influence and step too far into a political campaigning role and the Government can step in with threats of closure. Charity is also restricted by the donations it receives either from a public appeal it may administer or directly from a grants system it will apply to for whatever project it has in mind. It means that charity becomes quickly boxed in as the problem gets worse, needing more resources but finding those resources are finite and increasingly competitive, needing to say more but being careful not to say too much. It becomes a revolving door of lots of projects all wanting to do similar things, dreaming up the next new idea to keep potential funders happy, hardly ever joined up (because of competition) and ultimately leading to what we have now regarding food poverty here in the UK – thousands of little projects, all well intentioned, relying on volunteers and recycled (mostly processed) food, digging in for the long haul. It is unsustainable, it tires good people out and whilst it generates local services and awareness amongst those who (it could be argued) would support poverty initiatives anyway – it’s never able to move the problem into the mainstream of society and therefore will never offer a solution to the problem.

Right now, the food poverty problem is a charity problem. As a backdrop to services too much of the charitable activity is about the redemption of the giver and contains a strong thread of pity being part of the plan. Having generated lots of activity and local mini-projects, after roughly 8 years of concerted effort; still using the same methods of delivery and mostly relying on volunteers to deliver some sort of change – the model is tired and in need of a complete overhaul. But will those with a vested interest in the status quo be brave enough or will they cling onto what they have? It is likely the same-old will prevail. The current model is sustainable because its low cost (free food, free labour) and the alternative require new thinking and a shift of resources and that’s all about change. Let’s hope some are brave enough; the Feeding Britain initiative appears to be ready to break the mould and time will tell if it is able to do so.

We hope to see if the food poverty movement can offer solutions that are about good food, are about job chances and are able, through local enterprise, to generate solutions that can financially sustain themselves – it can be done but we need to be quick.

Part 6

Hidden Hunger

We wrote in an earlier blog about relative food poverty, the place where hidden hunger takes hold, the place where people do their best to cope, asking friends and family for short term help or often going without to cope or worse still slipping into the pernicious world of localised debt and all the sharks that circle that murky activity. Imagine if you can (and most who people who advise in these situations, can’t) the stress having to go without and also watching your children suffer as a consequence.

One article, published by New Statesman last October, highlighted the extreme measures that those in poverty had resorted to in order to acquire money as a consequence of the benefit reform. At present there are nearly 50 people on the crowdfunding website who have used the words ‘Universal Credit’ in their plea. The article goes on;-

‘In February, Heather’s home had a power cut,’ one claimants story reads, ‘As her severely asthmatic nine-year-old son requires a plugged-in nebuliser to help his breathing, Heather called an ambulance. “By 10pm my baby was sedated and being treated intravenously in intensive care,” Heather wrote on her crowdfunding page. As she was with her son in the hospital, she then missed her Jobcentre appointment. In response, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) sanctioned her, meaning she received no UC for two months.’

This is amounts to “digital begging” – good people being forced to promote their struggle to strangers in the hope that they will feel sorry enough to donate to their cause – a path crowdfunding was never intended for. A path that will be short lived as many more try the same route and or until someone cheats the digital begging system and the Mail, Sun or Telegraph get hold of the story, and we know they will be watching/waiting. It’s not going to end well and all the time desperate, good people remain and will remain the victims whichever way this part of the food poverty story plays out.

The Statesman article isn’t an atypical illustration in the media spike that has soared since the rollout of Universal Credit – each day comes a new indication of the reality that claimants face, and as the rollout continues these realities are bleak with no upside.

Thousands like Heather will turn to food banks as the welfare reform continues & unmanageable standards fail to be met. Thousands more stay silently hungry until they can afford to eat; the ‘hidden hungry’, the hungry remaining unseen and unaccounted for by the national food poverty figures gathered by independent researchers & campaigners; figures/data still, unoccupied by any national government study/statistics.

It is incumbent of us all to put pressure on our local MP’s and instruct them to challenge hunger of all kinds. If they are Conservative and in Government be relentless in the challenge laid upon them about the life-threatening crisis their callous support for the welfare bill has caused. And if they are Labour and in opposition be as relentless in challenging them to establish an alternative model, that once in Government will reform benefits and stamp out the poor food practice that holds together the current food aid system. Only then will things change and only then will good people who deserve better get what they deserve.

Our Food Poverty Track Record:-

  • 3 conferences
  • Published a Position statement, published a report
  • Share Your Lunch Campaign + Share “Holiday Hunger” Campaign
  • 30,000 free fresh meals distributed (since 2016)

Now it’s time to move on and pass the baton on – for us making sure Good Food Areas sticks is now our priority; making sure hungry people get fed well every day in every area we work.

We’ll continue to observe the spaces filled by food banks and recycled food, we hope the change we’ve so long campaigned for will appear in these two areas soon.

If you have supported the work we do, thank you. If you have been a critic of ours then please ask yourself the question, why would you not want to feed people good, fresh food? It’s time we stop designing services that feed people, but to design a service that feeds people well.

, ,

Cordon Gris!

At Can Cook, we’ve been catering for older people across the Liverpool City Region for almost 2 years. Our COOKED chilled meals-on-wheels service delivers fresh, delicious meals to our customers each week; providing a much-needed service for dozens of individuals across Merseyside.

As a catering provision and anti-food poverty social enterprise, Can Cook is resolute in its efforts to improve the lifestyles of older people in our region. So far we’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this goal through the provision of good food and fresh produce, and now we’ve turned to innovative technology to support us in our mission.

Along with a host of European partners, including Liverpool’s very own Red Ninja Studios, we’ve been working to co-develop ‘Cordon Gris’; an upcoming smartphone application that will assist older people in managing meal plans, their grocery budgets, food choices and preventing malnutrition.

Older people in our most deprived communities are especially at risk of malnutrition, and with over 1.3 million over 65’s suffering from malnourishment in the UK alone, it’s our collective goal to provide older people with the tools they need to improve their health and ensure access to fresher food and a better lifestyle.

Follow @CordonGris on twitter to keep updated on the app’s progress!

 

,

Processing the Processed

Almost three weeks into 2017, let’s check how our new year’s resolutions are coming along.

We’ve dodged the temptation of the Saturday night takeaway twice, we’ve learned what to do with kale, and the house has been transformed into a chocolate-free zone (mainly because all the Christmas goodies have already been scoffed by our less health-conscious 2016 selves). Even though we may have not been quite as disciplined as we may have promised ourselves on New Year’s Eve, we’re definitely trying.

Check out this list of how processed foods can affect our minds and bodies, just to help keep you motivated in 2017.

 

The Sugar Crash

Processed foods, high in fat and sugar, are quickly digested by the body and stored as energy. Because of the refined nature of processed ingredients, this little sugar boost is often temporary and followed by an imminent crash once our metabolisms have burnt all the food’s potential energy. These ‘crashes’ make us feel sluggish, unfocused and have us reaching for another sugar snack to restore our lowered energy levels.

CRUSH

The Solution = Trying healthier foods with slow-releasing energy properties, such as eggs, porridge or sweet potato, will help you keep invigorated throughout the day and keep the sugar cravings at bay.

Food, Not-so-glorious Mood

Artificial ingredients in processed foods can wreak havoc with our gut flora, destroying the microbes we need for good mental health. Over time, foods high in sugar can produce negative chemical reactions in the body and affect optimal brain function; often leading to depression and mood swings.

DEPRESSION

The Answer = Foods high in calcium such as yoghurt and almonds, or in Omega 3 such as salmon and spinach, have been scientifically proven to help boost your mood.

Skin Problems

When the sugar in our food responds to fats exposed to high temperatures, like the ones used for processed food preparation, a reaction called ‘exogenous glycation’ occurs. Glycation begins a sequence of reactions that eventually form advanced glycation end-products, aka proteins that can eventually cause collagen breakdown and fine skin lines. Washing-Face-Gif

The Answer = The powerful antioxidants in fruit and vegetables help fight against wrinkle-inducing cellular damage. Foods high in vitamin C: blueberries, oranges, strawberries, broccoli, also produce collagen to keep your skin radiant and blemish-free. 

Luckily many of us have a choice when it comes to our food, and for the most part we can avoid the processed food pitfalls. Sadly, many have no option but to consume cheap and processed meals because a healthier choice is an unaffordable alternative. Here at Can Cook we pride ourselves on providing fresher and more nutritious meals for those living with food poverty.

Leigh Sheridan

Leigh 2

 

Somehow we all believe ourselves to be masters of our own ships and controllers of our own future. We imagine that the paths to where we’re going will be as linear and uninterrupted as we hoped they’d be the moment we decided to create them. For better or worse, that’s rarely the case.

Once graduating from university I found myself lost on the road I’d created for myself three years previously. There was no trail of breadcrumbs to remember how I’d navigated the journey so far, and there was only a foggy obscurity ahead.

Fortunately, that’s when I discovered Agent Academy: a programme created by Agent Marketing to help young people just like me who knew what their passions were but were unsure which avenues were best to manifest them. Through Agent I had the opportunity to meet amazing creative companies throughout the North West, each an innovative addition to England’s ever-expanding digital marketing culture.

When Agent introduced us to Can Cook I wasn’t sure what to expect. I knew it as a catering service and of its reputation for healthy affordable dishes, but not much else. When Robbie and Laura described to the academy the work they do to tackle food poverty, I was more than shocked. As the session went on they broke down every misconception I had about food poverty in the city region and provided the tactical solutions they undertook to defeat the problem. There was a transparency about the company that was refreshing and thought-provoking: they genuinely cared. I saw the level of enthusiasm the team had for making a substantial difference, and though I wanted a piece of it, I didn’t know how my interests in marketing and content production could help. Luckily Can Cook did…and here I am.

Not everybody endures such a smooth pathway, for many the road is often more turbulent and the opportunities to change their journey are limited and rarely present themselves along the way. That’s what Can Cook does. Their work can change the directions of those who need it; allowing them to be fulfilled, nourished, supported and most importantly, hopeful. Can Cook has a mission to end food poverty in the city region, a mighty task we know, but with the right dedication it’s definitely an achievable one. And I’m honoured to be part of it.

Thank you to Robbie and Laura for the opportunity and thanks to all the team for being so welcoming.

Leigh