SNAP/Food Stamp Challenge at GCPC

During the week of November 17, several members of Grace Covenant took the SNAP/Food Stamp Challenge, along with members of many other churches in the Presbytery. The challenge was to eat on a budget of less than $4.50 per person, per day. The experiment helps to highlight issues of food insecurity, offering those of us who aren’t currently under those budget constraints to experience a week of those limitations.

During the week, the GCPC Snap Challenge participants kept in touch via e-mail, sharing budget ideas, realizations, and frustrations. Some themes emerged fairly quickly:

• 1.      Picky eaters not allowed. The first thing many of us noticed was that any preferences, allergies, or food intolerances could not be accommodated within the daily allotments. Organic food, lactose-free milk, or non-peanut butters were immediately out the window. Our yearning for a variety of foods was tested as we had to make recipes stretch for a few days. There was also no real room for that treat at the checkout, without paying for it later by missing a meal.
• 2.      Gifting food is not in the budget. One of the participants had out-of-town family visiting, and she realized she wouldn’t have the budget to make special meals—or provide alcoholic beverages—for them. Another noted being unable to bring food to a church event that she normally would’ve volunteered to do. Brownies for the teacher appreciation lunch couldn’t be offered. It hit a lot of us that the giving of food is a privilege woven into our lifestyles.
• 3.      Eating healthy takes work. Just as organic foods were not feasible, much of the out-of-season produce was out of reach, as well. The leaner meats were more expensive, as were the whole-grain breads. Working protein and fiber into our diets took some creative menu planning, and many of us were dragging a bit by the end of the week.
• 4.      Resourcefulness is key. Several participants recalled times in their lives when they’d lived within tight food budgets, so they were able to call on the menu planning, smart shopping, and food prep skills they’d acquired at that time. One participant said that, if the dollar limit had continued past a week, he’d have called upon the dumpster-diving skills he’d learned in earlier days.
• 5.      Support is crucial. Aside from the support that some of us had in the way of serendipitous gifts (e.g., a neighbor asks if I could use leftovers from a party, a friend brings over some cookies), we also recognized the importance of leaning on each other. The frustrations we were feeling during this experiment were easier to tolerate, knowing others were going through it. The e-mail thread kept many of us afloat that week. 

The experiment was a useful learning experience for many of us, although we quickly recognized that we were not immersed fully in a typical experience of poverty. In order to shop and menu plan, we had advantages such as reliable transportation, child care, time, and internet access (to e-mail each other and search for menu ideas and grocery store sales). Most of us had enough margin in our income that we could buy some things in bulk, knowing we’d use them in future weeks and could manage our allotment by day instead of week. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck would have to buy smaller (and thus more expensive) portions. We were really just glimpsing one sliver of the challenge, and I think we were all taken aback by how difficult it was. For many of us, this experience has firmed up our commitment to food security advocacy and to donating more regularly to our local food banks, like MANNA.

You can learn more about this challenge--and how you might become an advocate for greater food security—on this page: http://frac.org/initiatives/snapfood-stamp-challenges/.