The Inequity of Food in American Society

The main problem our solution addresses is the inequity of food in society. Though there is a proper amount of food for the wealthy, there is lesser food among U.S. residents with low or no income because (1) food is a regular expense, and (2) food is wasted commonly in the U.S. Around one-third of all food grown, processed, and served in the U.S. is wasted (Food Waste) for various reasons, such as negative visual appeal or negligence. One way to supply the lower socioeconomic demographic with food would be to take it from the wealthy; however, with our project, we wanted to make sure we don’t create a new social imbalance.

I feel we address this social inequity well because the food in the system would go unused otherwise, and that it is one of our greatest strengths.

At scale, our project has a few problematic scenarios. Firstly, we designed our model to target small business owners. In our research, we discovered that most food chains do not want to donate excess/unserved food.

If by the definition of “at scale” would be using large businesses, there would be legal repercussions and unlikely participation. I think this is one of our largest ideals shortcomings. Large food chains would be able to donate vast supplies, but because of their restrictions we cannot include them. However, our website potentially proves to be a powerful resource if our project comes to national scale. The website is mainly designed to be an information resource, which explains your rights and how to get connected.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified

Proficient in: Food

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This means any and all small business owners are able to learn how to donate.

There are no parties which would explicitly oppose our cause. As discussed in the first question, this project uses food that would otherwise go to waste. We considered multiple parties in this discussion. In some solutions to social inequity, one party’s status must be lowered to balance the other’s status. The potential combatant party, those with food, would not be opposed for the reason that it is not their food being taken away. Alternatively, some people from this party will oppose the idea of charity because it supplies those with less contribution to society with goods they worked for. An additional but indirect opposition may be big businesses; our research finds they do not want to participate in most food donation because it legally holds them accountable as a large business. I do not consider this point a shortcoming because there is no legal recourse we can take for large businesses, however fantastic it would be to include them.

One unintended consequence I have considered from the beginning is the societal assumption that businesses who donate food to the needy are doing so in a morally appearing sense ultimately for financial benefit. Since excess food will be donated, businesses will not lose revenue by participating. By participating, there is potential for them to portray objectionable executive subsidies or tax write-offs. Though we want to make sure our system is used for good in social equity, there is the fact that society will tactfully judge. This is another shortcoming which will be difficult to avoid. In our resource, I plan on rebutting our benefits (good publicity, free advertising, ect.) with ensuring good intentions.

The positivity of our project actually adds to currently existing information systems, with new concepts and a reinforcement of information. Many food donation systems exist in the U.S. already; Copia delivers food to anybody, and it accepts donations from anybody (Copia); Children of the Nation (COTN) supplies food to specific disadvantaged groups; various soup kitchens and shelters everywhere provide nutritious refuge for the homeless everywhere. From my perspective, the best thing about our project is that it informationally connects these parties. It is a benefactor instead of a disrupter. It serves all parties and individuals by informing.