What to give vegan at foodbank?

moneyistooshorttomention

Caterina,

I'd guess that those who think people should eat anything absolutely regardless of what they personally eat normally (for whatever reason) are the type that will state their own personal opinion as a fact regardless and expect it to be regarded as non-controversial.

I can think of instances of people I know/am even friends with that think they have the right to speak (and make decisions) on behalf of others - even if it means those others will be forced into using their own time and/or money to support something they havent decided on.I watch people all the time making very major decisions that will impact on someone else's life for the rest of that life - and not stopping to think that means the other person has to be able to have their input into this decision.

So - it's not surprising that if some people think it's acceptable to even make a Major Life Changing Decision all on their own (despite it involving one or more other people) that they think it perfectly acceptable to make much smaller decisions on other peoples behalf (eg deciding how those other people will eat).

You and I (and some others on this thread) can see that that is unacceptable and shocking. But that isn't how those who try and "decide" on other peoples behalf think and, to them, it seems perfectly okay to make someone else's decision for them (in this case how to eat).

Caterina

It is more a case of "blaming the victim" in my view. It goes " You are poor, you are given what you are given and that's your lot, like or lump it". That's so unacceptable, in every sense.

There are plenty of carnivores who see and fully accept that this is not a compassionate way of thinking!

LameWolf

Caterina wrote: »

It is more a case of "blaming the victim" in my view. It goes " You are poor, you are given what you are given and that's your lot, like or lump it". That's so unacceptable, in every sense.

There are plenty of carnivores who see and fully accept that this is not a compassionate way of thinking!

Sadly, you're always going to get people whose attitude is "my way or the highway". I just hope they're never in that situation themselves, where someone says "you accept something that is totally unsuitable for you, or you go without completely".

moneyistooshorttomention

LameWolf wrote: »

Sadly, you're always going to get people whose attitude is "my way or the highway". I just hope they're never in that situation themselves, where someone says "you accept something that is totally unsuitable for you, or you go without completely".

Don't tempt me LW - I do think it would do some people a power of good to be in a situation where they are the ones expected to have something totally unsuitable for them. So I'm not going to say "I...hope they're never in that situation" - as it might just help them understand.

Some of us have learnt that its "not our place" to say anything about people who say they cant or wont eat one thing/wear another thing/etc. Personally - even if I'm thinking that I don't agree with them in their refusal to have "whatever it is" - it's not up to me to "stand in their way" and try and force it on them. If they say they won't have it - then....okay...they won't have it and they may or may not have a good reason for saying that. However, personally, I don't go into that - and just accept what I'm told they cant/wont have.

GreenBitterfly

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

My local foodbank has posted notices at all its collection points saying they don't want any more pasta, rice, beans, or powdered milk.

Now, this got my goat a bit.... when I was going through really bad times myself I lived on rice and pasta - even just on its own.... needs must and all that.

Yes, I support the need to provide emergency supplies for people in need BUT why so choosy?

I don't think those with moral or religious convictions should be forced to eat foods which cause them conflict so the OP is being very helpful and caring in asking her questions and trying to help. However, I also feel that people receiving the help should accept that the choice of available foods at the foodbank will be limited and likely to be at the more affordable end of groceries.

Foodbanks should be there for temporary assistance to those in immediate need - surely living on rice or pasta or beans on toast for six weeks max is not the worst thing that could ever happen (health conditions notwithstanding) .... it's not an uncivilised diet as thousands of students will confirm.

It's time for people to start understanding the difference between 'needs' and 'wants'.

This is more to do with they have more than enough of those items, and need other items more urgently. My local food bank have 'always in need of' list, which doesn't include baked beans or pasta. It's not because they don't think people don't want them, it's because they've got more than enough, and are in desperate need of other items, such as tinned fruit and vegetables. In fact, they are always low and in need of toiletries and toilet paper, doesn't mean people don't want to eat beans, they just need something to wash with!

NewShadow

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Don't tempt me LW - I do think it would do some people a power of good to be in a situation where they are the ones expected to have something totally unsuitable for them. So I'm not going to say "I...hope they're never in that situation" - as it might just help them understand.

Some of us have learnt that its "not our place" to say anything about people who say they cant or wont eat one thing/wear another thing/etc. Personally - even if I'm thinking that I don't agree with them in their refusal to have "whatever it is" - it's not up to me to "stand in their way" and try and force it on them. If they say they won't have it - then....okay...they won't have it and they may or may not have a good reason for saying that. However, personally, I don't go into that - and just accept what I'm told they cant/wont have.

Out of interest - honestly curious - would you feel the same way if it were a family that turned up at the food bank and said they 'needed' to have meat with every meal?

Or one that could only have branded/couldn't have value brand products?

LameWolf

NewShadow wrote: »

Out of interest - honestly curious - would you feel the same way if it were a family that turned up at the food bank and said they 'needed' to have meat with every meal?

Or one that could only have branded/couldn't have value brand products?

I think these two questions get different answers, from me.

If someone "needs" meat, it's not my place to say they can't have it; for all I know there may be a perfectly good reason they require animal protein in their diet.

Fwiw, when I moved in with Mr LW, I said I had no objection to him eating meat if he wished, but he'd need to cook it himself (I simply cannot touch the stuff) and I'd be glad if he'd keep the kitchen door shut while doing so. He opted to eat veggie at home, the same as me, and has a meat dish if we eat out.:o

Branded/SM own label I think is a totally different question - a tin of baked beans is a tin of baked beans, whether it's a brand or a value item. OK, there may be some difference in taste or quality, but if we're talking the sort of desperation that sends people to the food bank, then insisting on branded goods is not really on.

Anyway, that's my two-penny-worth.

Primrose

Some people do have very fixed ideas about the standards they believe they are entitled to adopt for themselves. Diverting slightly from food, an acquaintance I know is very hard up and walks around in a thin outer layer of clothing totally unsuitable and inadequate for this frosty weather complaining she feels frozen. I pointed out to her that there were currently some lovely warm coats and jackets in our two High Street charity shops as I'd recently been in browsing through them. "I wouldn't be see dead buying anything from a charity shop" was her response. Well if her pride gets in the way of hypothermia, I suppose that's a choice she has a right to make but she should stop wondering why people feel so reluctant to help or support her.

NewShadow

LameWolf wrote: »

I think these two questions get different answers, from me.

If someone "needs" meat, it's not my place to say they can't have it; for all I know there may be a perfectly good reason they require animal protein in their diet.

Fwiw, when I moved in with Mr LW, I said I had no objection to him eating meat if he wished, but he'd need to cook it himself (I simply cannot touch the stuff) and I'd be glad if he'd keep the kitchen door shut while doing so. He opted to eat veggie at home, the same as me, and has a meat dish if we eat out.:o

Branded/SM own label I think is a totally different question - a tin of baked beans is a tin of baked beans, whether it's a brand or a value item. OK, there may be some difference in taste or quality, but if we're talking the sort of desperation that sends people to the food bank, then insisting on branded goods is not really on.

Anyway, that's my two-penny-worth.

Thank you.

Your solution with your OH with meat was very similar to my arrangement growing up - Step dad and I would occasionally pop out for a steak and then slink back very satisfied and slightly shame faced (well, he would be, I've never been very good at shame )

The branded goods question - that's interesting.

CathA

On a slightly different note, we had a young chap trying to kip by the trolleys at work one night. I spoke to him and he told me he'd had a row with his father a while ago and had been chucked out, and was trying to find somewhere to sleep for the night.

I spoke to the manager who suggested we take him out something (bless her, she thought an Easter Egg would be nice!) but I thought some sandwiches would be more use. Anyway, she went to talk to him and in the meantime we were rustling up a hot drink for him, some sandwiches etc. She came in and told us he didn't want sandwiches as he didn't like them but would prefer sausage rolls, and could his drink be de-caffinated!

There was another homeless chap in town a few days later that I spoke to when I got him a hot drink and some food. He turned it down as he had medical issues eating practically everything (he gave me a list of things he couldn't/wouldn't eat) plus all his medical issues. It made me sad that I couldn't help him but he wasn't helping himself much either. I'm not saying someone gluten intolerant should eat bread and be grateful, but a lot of stuff was things he 'wouldn't' eat as he didn't like it. I was amazed he was still alive, considering the comprehensive list of stuff he mentioned.

I try and take my free coffee to the big issue lady on Friday, she doesn't moan it's a latte rather than a cappuccino and she's always grateful. I take some sugar in a packet with me in case she wants it, plus a stirring stick for her.