A Place At The Table Documentary Analysis

Food Insecurity in the United States

The documentary A Place at the Table reveals some very startling facts about food insecurity in the United States. The directors, Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush, relate the stories of three people to present the struggles common to people who are faced with food insecurity. Barbie is a young single mother who struggles to provide for her two young children. Rosie is a young student who has trouble focusing in class because she is hungry. Trmonica is another young student who has health problems, which are worsened by the unhealthy diet that her mother is able to afford. Through the stories of these three people and the testimonies of some experts, the directors present an argument dealing with food

insecurity, evidence that validates the argument, and ethical implications of the argument.
The argument presented in the documentary is that food insecurity is not caused by a scarcity of food; it is caused by poverty and the government’s policies which are political.

The United States is one of the richest nations in the world and food is plentiful; fifty million people should not experience food insecurity. The problem is that people who live in poverty do not have access to enough food. Policies governing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program need to be changed. The policies cannot be relaxed to the extent that everyone tries to get assistance, but they should be reasonable enough for a family provider to qualify for food stamps and hold a job which pays him enough to sustain a family. Legislators need to look at increase funding for programs like the National School Lunch Program in a manner in which NSLP does not have to compete with funding for budget items that have major lobbyists’ support. Funds to feed hungry children should not be a political budget item. The allocation of subsidies to farmers should also be revisited. Eighty-four percent of subsidies goes to commodity crops and only one percent goes to growers of fruits and vegetables. Even if they had the money to buy food, people living in poverty could not buy the healthier fruits and vegetables; they are too expensive. “If you only have a few dollars to eat, in other words, processed foods will fill you up far cheaper than fruits and vegetables,” (Horn par.12). The unhealthy diets are

causing obesity and health issues in young children. The only way to decrease the price of healthy foods is to increase the subsidies for producers of fruits and vegetables and, perhaps, decrease subsidies to agribusiness. Peter Rainer states:” Nearly $20 billion in corporate farm subsidies are awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture annually, of which 70 percent goes to the largest and most centralized farms – the ones with the most clout…” (par. 5). A reallocation of subsidy funds, increasing the portion allocated to fruit and vegetable producers could, over time, lead to decreases in the market price of healthy fruits and vegetables. The reduction in price will make the healthy items more affordable to low income families.
Validation of the argument is certainly evidenced by the mere fact that fifty million people in the United States do not know where their next meal is coming from. The fact that more and more Americans are relying on food banks and pantries is also validation of the argument. Food banks, pantries, and soup kitchens have increased from two hundred in 1980 to forty thousand today. Congress debated for months over the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act, an act that increases the school reimbursement from the federal government for school lunches. Congress finally agreed on an increase of 4.5 billion dollars, an increase of six cents per meal, over ten years .Over half the funding was gained by cutting the food stamps budget; a political decision that hurt low or no income people. The decision to cut the budget for the food stamp program was a political maneuver aimed at funding a program that is low priority by cutting the budget of another program that is also low priority.
The directors’ presentation of the argument and the validations offered lead to various ethical implications. Jeff Bridges, celebrity and spokesperson for Share Our Strength/No Kid Hungry campaign, states that a moral argument exists which requires a response “for ending hunger through greater governmental involvement,” (Rainer par. 10). In other words, Bridges is saying that our government has a moral responsibility to find solutions to curb food insecurity. It appears that, because the United States is considered to be the richest nation in the world, our government does not want to acknowledge that we have a food insecurity problem. The allocation of subsidies to big industrial farms, agribusinesses, presents an ethical dilemma: is it right to subsidize businesses that are already earning sizable profits. Currently, the federal government allocates the majority of the subsidies to producers of crops that are used in processed foods, a large contributor to obesity in children. Because of obesity and health issues many young children are experiencing, education in healthy diets should be provided to those receiving food stamps. Another ethical issue is that the U.S. and state governments are placing too much dependence on charities to feed our poor. While society does have a moral obligation to help the needy, the government should bear the responsibility of finding solutions for the millions who are suffering from food insecurity. As implied in the documentary, the government definitely has a moral obligation to make sure that all public schools have the funds necessary to feed all children participating in the federally funded school meals programs. Often, the school meals are the only healthy meals these children eat. Since President Reagan’s administration, our presidents have reported on the numbers of people who are food insecure; the numbers keep increasing with every administration. Perhaps, it is time for legislatures to take food assistance out of the political arena and study possible measures to resolve food insecurity.
The directors of A Place at the Table present an excellent argument about food insecurity in the United States.

It is difficult to understand how a country with so much wealth has fifty million people who do not know where their next meal is coming from. These people are not just the homeless; many are working class people who just do not earn enough to feed their families every day from one payday to the next. The directors present validation and ethical implications for the argument that food insecurity is not caused by a scarcity of food; it is caused by poverty and the government’s policies which are

political.