Are Our Foodbanks Too Exclusive ?

There is little doubt that more and more of us are struggling to keep ourselves and our families fed at present.

This unhappy situation has arisen because of a ‘perfect storm’ of adverse circumstances and events that have hit us all over the past couple of years, and which shows little sign of abating. 

The pandemic is widely seen as the principal source of our recent decline in fortunes, but in reality our population demographics, Brexit, the Ukraine war, mistaken monetary policies and a decade of austerity introduced by the coalition government after the 2008 financial crisis, have all contributed.

Food banks have been a lifeline for some of the least fortunate in society for many years. 

Until relatively recently, however, the numbers really needing to use them were relatively small. Over the past year, however, the added financial pressure of sudden-onset and rampant inflation, and the rush by BofE  to raise interest rates in a vain attempt to restrain it, have pushed many more into relative poverty.

We are technically still in the top tier of the world’s richest economies, but the fact that we have allowed many jobs in our so-called ‘gig economy’ to continue to be poorly paid and often subject to zero hours contracts has kept a large segment of our working population in relative poverty and unable to make ends meet in today's inflationary environment. 

Our lamentable UK state pension, one of the lowest in northern Europe, has also left those pensioners unlucky enough to be wholly dependent on its provision really struggling. The famed 'triple lock', despite appearing generous,  still leaves the UK state pension as one of the least generous in Western Europe and has done little to alleviate poverty in the pensioner population. Given the lack of any prospect for those wholly dependent on the state pension to increase their earnings in other ways, their prospects for a happy and well-earned retirement are not good. 

Food price increases, and in particular the rapid rate at which they have occurred, seems to have been one of the worst effects for the more impoverished groups to deal with. Recent revelations that profiteering by the retailers and their suppliers has actually proven to be widespread; this has added to the consumer’s burden unnecessarily in order to secure profit margins, and has, quite rightly, enraged many.

All this has driven many families, who would otherwise not have needed help, to make major economies with their food shopping, sometimes going without food altogether to ensure they can afford to heat their homes and feed their children adequately.

Until relatively recently, some supermarkets did provide some welcome assistance in the form of radical price markdowns at the end of each day for produce reaching its sell-by date. This has all but dried up recently, with the supermarkets preferring to keep prices high 'come what may' in the hope of bolstering their profit margins; they are apparently quite happy to send whatever is left unsold at the end of each day to landfill with all the adverse environmental consequences that involves (see recent blog).

Is any assistance available ?

For those on certain prescribed state benefits, the answer to this question is a qualified 'yes'.

As already indicated, our foodbanks are in high demand and have gone from strength to strength in recent years in response to the various economic crises. It has to be said that they do a valuable job, largely via the efforts of their volunteers, and without them the very worst off among us would be at risk of destitution. As a concession to public dissatisfaction with their policies, supermarkets have also increasingly begun to ‘play ball’ more of late by diverting surplus stock to these organisations before it reaches its sell-by date. (It should be noted that according to current UK law it is illegal to sell or give away anything after it reaches its sell-by date, although anecdotal evidence suggests this rule is sometimes ‘bent’ a little by store managers to allow next day collections by food banks). Thus food banks continue to fulfil a vital role in keeping those who qualify afloat.

For the rest of us, however, there is a problem. Traditionally, food banks have been strictly means-tested, such that anyone not on certain qualifying state benefits such as Universal Credit or Pension Credit is not eligible for support. Often a direct referral from an official agency and references are also required for enrolment in a local food bank scheme.

In ‘normal’ circumstances, this might be considered reasonable. However we are certainly not in normal circumstances, and we may never actually return to them, given the increasing population pressure and demographic & political changes yet to come. Arguably then it’s now time for a re-think on eligibility.

What should be done ?

 In my view, food banks have evolved to be too exclusive.

We, and they, should recognise that a much larger proportion of the population now need their support. Many who are not eligible for qualifying state benefits are nevertheless genuinely struggling to feed themselves and their families, and are now effectively ‘falling through the exclusivity net’.

Since the majority of food banks are run by charities, they are not subject to public sector financial rules or constraints, and so could open their doors to anyone who presents themselves as being in need of support. Some more enlightened institutions dedicated to recycling are already doing this, but these are few and far between. The best example of a non-means tested food recycling offering is the Community Fridge network which is growing in popularity and is so far the only option for those in need who do not qualify for food bank enrolment. The network is coordinated nationally by the Hubbub recycling organisation.

Government could also provide an additional incentive for food banks to expand their role by allocating extra grant funding for those charities prepared to embrace a more inclusive regime. This could be done without increasing total spend by adopting a 'carrot and stick' approach. Many charities are struggling financially due to the reduced levels of spending power consequent on the cost-of-living crisis and a drop-off in donations, so would probably welcome more financial help just now. Any who steadfastly refused to comply for whatever reason could be subject to sanctions, and ultimately could have their charitable status revoked.....

I have heard comments that if eligibility were widened, this would ‘open the floodgates’ and simply overwhelm the food banks, as well as giving rise to widespread abuse and hoarding. Somehow, I doubt this would actually happen. The food bank ‘network’ is expanding continuously in response to demand, and the charities running them will always have the option to refuse support to anyone obviously abusing the system. Most potential new users would I'm sure be grateful for help, and accept the need to leave enough for others. 

The fact that an additional ‘safety net’ was available to them would, in time, alleviate some of the worry currently driving families to do without, and supply would continue to increase to meet any increase in demand. Government would also gain credit by recognising the pivotal role these organisations play in supporting the least well-off, as more and more people need support in response to yet more price increases and the oncoming recession.

By continuing to insist on state means-tested benefits as the only criterion for eligibility, food banks are already discriminating against others in acute need of support in a worsening economic climate.

Is this really fair, and is it consistent with the ethical principles under which the charities operate ?

I’ll leave that question for the reader (and the charities) to answer for themselves….

First published 26.7.23