Ethical dilemmas in food insecurity

Ethical Dilemma: Food Insecurity

Steps to reduce food insecurity and poor nutrition

The ethical challenge in alleviating food security is balancing the principles of choice and autonomy with the need to ensure that people consume healthy, nutritious foods. For example, it would be theoretically possible to force people to eat a healthy diet by having a single mandatory school lunch for all students and limiting the types of foods that could be bought by persons using EBT, but this would be too restrictive of individual liberties. Conversely, one could have no financial support for school lunches or EBT and no restrictions on diets but this would result in a rise in both hunger and a reliance on non-nutritious foods.

Introducing healthier foods in the schools while still promoting better eating habits is important. Children get a significant percentage of calories from the foods they consume in school: "children consume 40% of their daily calories at school" (Martin 2013). However, if students discard a substantial portion of their lunches or are so alienated from the food that is served in the name of health, ultimately the aim to improve the diet of food-insecure children is thwarted. Instead, offering students healthier choices rather than a wholesale ban on popular staples like chicken nuggets might be more palatable. Consulting with students about what foods they like to eat, which is the policy in some districts, can create a less adversarial relationship between students and the administration. Also, enhancing the delivery system to meet student needs can encourage students to be more proactive and to select healthy foods. For example, one common complaint students have is that they have to wait too long in the lunch lines so it is easier to get chips and candy from a vending machine. Some schools are now offering "grab-n-go lunches" from mobile carts which make it easy to get a prepackaged healthy lunch very fast -- faster than to wait online for junk food in the cafeteria as well (Martin 2013).

To enhance nutritious choices by EBT users, rather than taking away choices, offering more choices such as allowing recipients to use their benefits at farmer's markets has been useful. A number of states such as New York have farmer's markets in which EBT recipients can use their allotment to buy fresh products, thus allowing them to 'elect' to eat better rather than to be forced to do so by limiting the types of foods that can be purchased. Legislation to 'shape' the environment to encourage healthy choices can also include providing incentives for supermarkets to open up in low-income areas to compete with bodegas that stock junk food and limiting the number of fast food restaurants that can have a presence in low-income areas. For example, one study of Los Angeles restaurants found that "in 2008 that fast-food restaurants, which often offer less-expensive fare than sit-down establishments, represented 45% of the eating establishments in South Los Angeles -- far more than in other parts of town" (Bernstein 2010).