Yesterday I briefly mentioned that we saw the new documentary, A Place at the Table, over the weekend. Since the film evoked a strong emotional response from me, I feel it deserves a full review.

If you’ve seen or read various food politics and food industry related films or books, then some of the statistics and ideas this film shares may not surprise you.

If, however, you feel that access to nutritious food is a basic human right and that agri-business, food scientists, and our government have a moral obligation to unclench their vice-grip around the impoverished and malnourished, then this film is for you.

As noted in the synopsis, 50 million people in the U.S.—one in four children—don’t know where their next meal is coming from, despite our having the means to provide nutritious, affordable food for all Americans.

Stories of such “food insecure” families are told through the eyes of the following: Barbie, a single mother, who resides in Philadelphia and recently lost her job; Rosie, a 5th grader in Colorado who has trouble focusing and applying herself in class; and Tremonica, a 2nd grader in the Mississippi Delta, whose asthma and weight issues are exacerbated by her diet.

[source]

Though all of the stories were touching, I was angered by the injustice of Barbie’s circumstances.

Having lost her job, Barbie struggles to feed her 2 young children; she eventually qualifies for SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or “food stamps”), which slightly lightens her burden. Her story doesn’t seem unusual, however.

I could see in her eyes that Barbie loves her children and wants to give them a better life. After advocating with Witness to Hunger, Barbie lands a fulltime job—ironically, at the local food stamp office counseling others—which puts her $2 over the salary requirements for assistance, leaving her worse off than when she was unemployed. She did everything right, yet her “compensation” is more struggle.

[source]

As suggested in the film, there needs to be a transitional period between relying on benefits and becoming fully independent. Barbie is not a “mooch,” nor is she complacent. She longs for independence and feels immense self-worth helping others through her job. She doesn’t wish to rely on government assistance, but because her fulltime job doesn’t provide a living wage, her children eat better on the taxpayers’ dime.

Rosie’s story was equally gut-wrenching. Despite having grown accustomed to a rumbling tummy, she continues smiling. Though she’s obviously bright, she has trouble focusing in class. My heart broke when she described picturing her teacher as a banana—and her classmates as apples—because all she could think about her unrelenting hunger.

Rosie’s teacher recognizes these symptoms, having experienced hunger in her own childhood, and works with the local food pantry to deliver bags of groceries weekly to Rosie’s family. While the teacher’s charity is respectable, even she acknowledges that the foods are nutritionally lacking. The justification, in her eyes, is calorie-dense, processed meals are better than no meal at all. And who else will help if the family doesn’t qualify for assistance?

[source]

Tremonica’s story brought attention to another sad reality: obesity and malnourishment are 2 different results of the same unsatisfied need. Although many “food deserts” are located in urban areas, much of rural Mississippi lacks access to fresh produce and fully-stocked grocery stores.

At only 8 years old, Tremonica already experiences so-called “grown-up” symptoms of her diet: being overweight and having trouble breathing due to her asthma. In fact, she’s likely part of the first generation in U.S. history that will live shorter and unhealthier lives than their parents. Unlike many adults who do have a choice to purchase healthful foods, Tremonica eats what her hard-working mother is able to put on the table.

[source]

Though these 3 stories are very discouraging, the film is hopeful. Familiar faces like Chef Tom Colicchio (husband of the film’s director, Lori Silverbush), actor Jeff Bridges, authors Marion Nestle and Raj Patel, and others offer commentary and their own views on the nation’s food and nutrition policies.

In the 1970s, President Nixon expanded nutritional assistance, which nearly eradicated food insecurity in the U.S. Of course, in the 1980s, funding was cut drastically, which continued through the 1990s, 2000s, and into the current presidency.  In the 1980s, only around 200 food banks existed; by 2013, that number reached 40,000.

Farm subsidies, and their exponential growth over the past several decades, were discussed in the film. Although I knew the government spends far too much subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat (which, as a result, subsidizes the processed food industry), I didn’t realize that <1% went toward fresh fruits and vegetables!

[source]

The film acknowledges the complexity of both the problem and the potential solutions. Education, of course, is vital, but if one does not have access to affordable, fresh vegetables, then how can one choose them over calorie-dense packaged foods?

A Place at the Table brings highlights the economic and social consequences caused by hunger that could be reversed—and even prevented—if the American public chooses to make access to healthy food a priority. Sacrifices in other areas of spending will need to be made, but it will be in the entire public’s best interest to pay full attention to what amounts to a true hunger crisis.

If your local theatres aren’t showing the film, it’s available on iTunes and OnDemand.