Fans of the beloved 90’s sitcom Seinfeld will no doubt remember the words of the Soup Nazi which were quickly directed at any customer who did not strictly follow his no nonsense rules for standing in line, ordering, and payment at his popular New York deli.
“No soup for you! Â NEXT!” the Soup Nazi would shout at the red faced customers who would silently slink away in shame after being lambasted for not adhering to his standards.
New York Mayor Bloomberg has taken Soup Nazi’s tactics to a whole new level with his Administration’s banning of food donations to all government-run facilities that serve New York City’s large homeless population.
The nanny-esque ban, put in place in March 2012, still stands despite city resources stretched to the breaking point by the devastating effects of Hurricane Sandy on the City’s five Boroughs in October 2012.
Perplexingly, the reason for the ban is not the result of homeless getting ill from food contamination!
Rather, Mayor Bloomberg has become New York’s new Soup Nazi by insisting that because the nutritional content of donated food cannot be adequately assessed by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), homeless shelters are thereby required to turn away all Good Samaritans wishing to donate even such innocuous items as soup and bagels.
Seth Diamond, Commissioner of the DHS, defends the decision saying that the ban is in line with Bloomberg’s passion for improving the nutrition of all residents of New York City. Â The measure tightly controls what can and cannot be served at city run facilities for New York’s down and out including portion sizes and the amount of sodium, fat, fiber and calories per serving.
No exceptions to the strict ban are given even for established donation centers with a healthy track record such as Ohab Zedek, an Upper West Side Orthodox congregation which has donated freshly cooked and nutrient rich foods left over from synagogue events for over ten years.
Mayor Bloomberg’s relentless pursuit of a New York food utopia through implementation of his social justice agenda, while well meaning, is certain to fail (note the ban on all sugary sodas larger than 16 oz in September 2012 which head scratchingly exempted diet sodas which are arguably just as bad if not worse as diet drinks have been shown to trigger overeating).
The reason is that is removes all personal choice and responsible actions from the individual – be it positive or negative.  If people want to drink a Big Gulp, they should be free to do so.  And, if citizens like Glenn and Lenore Richter, who lead a team of food-delivery volunteers from their local congregation, want to donate fresh foods to homeless shelters in their neighborhood, they should have the freedom to perform such charitable activities as well.
Attempting to control consumer behavior with a socially “just” agenda cannot and never will accomplish health. Â It just creates a populace that becomes highly adept at circumventing the “rules” such as what happened in America during Prohibition.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Source: Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters
Kenny, if my family was starving? Yes. Yes I would.
the person may still choose to have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 100 portions.
How is limiting a “single portion” size taking away anything from the individual?
He will be rightly judged for this one day!!!!
OK….so you’re a homeless person. You eat at a shelter, and the food makes you sick.
A: All the food came from one place, so the problem can be contained and minimized.
B: The food came from all over the City from unknown kitchens and food sources and ….well…..ummmm…..I don’t know what to do now. We can’t trace or track ANYTHING to prevent it from happening again.
GMO labeling is about requiring *corporations* to be honest with *citizens* about what is in the food they are eating. It does not affect the freedom of individuals at all, and because it is something most citizens want, it is the government acting on behalf of the people. This is comparable to Bloomberg’s push for restaurants to display nutrition information. It facilitates the freedom of the individual to make informed decisions. Facilitating informed decisions is different than coercing certain behaviors. In the case of the food for the homeless, homeless people are still human beings. They should be given the opportunity to choose whether to accept food that may or may not be ideal health wise. And the government can offer alternatives that meet the official health standards.
A: I never called him a saint. I just said that I think his heart is in the right place. (as opposed to most other politicians, who are working for personal gain and their corporate masters)
B: He’s not denying the hungry, he’s just not accepting donations for a variety of reasons that I see as “reasonable”. I don’t think that the whole story is being told here — only enough to get people riled up.
If food of unknown origin showed up on your doorstep would you serve it for dinner instead of what you had prepared yourself?
Answer honestly.
I havent confirmed but i suspect that there are contracts to food service companies for these city homeless shelters (akin to the huge contracts for school food). Not saying it is right, or best but it might be how it is managed on this scale to keep flow adequate. When places stop accepting donations it is possible they have “enough” food or would require more paid staff to accept and deal with the donations. Maybe food is going bad. Just a guess. Interview people working at the the shelters, not the people inconvenienced because they can’t donate leftovers to their regular drop off locations and take it personally as an insult. There are still plenty of churches that have their own soup kitchens who ask congregation for donations, like ours, in NYC. And yes, what is healthy food is so controversial but I personally don’t think businesses have the right to put just anything they want in stuff people consume even if people see it so often they have become blasé or numb to consider it normal. I don’t think majority of the population has the knowledge, health to know what is dangerous for them. Exactly why I read Healthy Home Economist, I have learned so much. Not sure this particular news story has been fully investigated though, just taken from brief stories in a couple online papers.
In one breath you say that the gov’t is taking away our freedoms and right, but in the next you say you want the gov’t to mandate GMO labeling.
You can’t have both. Which do you choose?
(He actually stated that nutrition was the reason, not safety)