It is a Human’s Right to Share Food with the Homeless in Public Places
Twelve people were arrested after handing out food to the homeless at a public park in El Cajon city, San Diego, California. This is the result of a protest called “Break the Ban” which was launched after the City of El Cajon had enacted a temporary ban of sharing food with homeless individuals at city parks in late October 2017 to deter the year-long outbreak of Hepatitis A in San Diego County. Although the ban was ended since the hepatitis A outbreak was over, the activists still concern about further charges in El Cajon which may inflict the protest about food sharing ban again. In my opinion, to combat the hunger issue among homeless people and give other individuals exercise their right to share food with people in need, the authority should stop regulating or even planning any laws that prohibit people from feeding the homeless and panhandlers in public places.
The food-sharing ban practice has been established for five years and become a controversial topic through the years. Since 2013, 21 cities have introduced new legislation designed with the “intention of restricting individuals and groups from sharing food with people experiencing homelessness” (Stoops). Over the years, at least 31 cities nationwide have successfully restricted or banned the act of food-sharing in various ways, in which the City of El Cajon, San Diego county chose to ban people from feeding the homeless in public places like city parks. The reason of this temporary ordinance is that San Diego reached the peak of Hepatitis A epidemic at that time, and homeless people were the predominant group of people who were already infected and more at-risk for infection by the disease. El Cajon is believed to be where the outbreak started since it was in the top two largest concentrations of contagious illness in the county besides the City of San Diego (Murphy). According to a report from the county, approximately two-thirds of 561 Hepatitis A cases have been “homeless people, users of illicit drugs, or a combination of both,” and over a half of 20 deaths across the county were homeless people as well (Goble). The city council officers believed that if they can prevent the transmission of hepatitis A “through the sharing of food, utensils and ingesting something contaminated with fecal material” from homeless people, they will protect the group’s safety in the places that belong to public property, under the control of the law. While the city saw this temporary measure is an appropriate action and did not overreach on to private property regarding to churches or volunteer groups, as long as it clarified that individuals who shared food while attending parties or picnics did not count to the ordinance, many activists against the ban still consider it cutting off the food sources for people experiencing homelessness, dehumanizing homeless people from others and criminalizing the good purpose of sharing food, especially when the police get involved and conduct some citations that might bring so many people to the court.
Food-sharing should be allowed so that homeless people can have another source of food to survive. Normally, it is estimated that 1 in 6 Americans goes hungry on a daily basis, and when it comes to homeless people who are among extremely low-income populations, hunger goes beyond a challenge to fulfill their basic need for food (Stoops). There have been so many places that homeless individuals can get food from: free meals from the churches, soup kitchens, shelters, or drop-in centers. However, getting food at these places is not usually effective and possible for homeless people because of the availability of these centers. For example, many soup kitchens serve only one meal per day, and not so many shelters that serve two meals a day (Doak). Moreover, the idea of feeding homeless people which “should be done ways and places where other ‘wrap around’ services can be provided to get people off the street immediately” seems to put more pressure on the churches and other food handling centers (Smolens). As an example, David Madsen, pastor at St. Alban’s Episcopal Church, and Steve Locke, pastor at First Presbyterian Church of El Cajon reveal that they do not have enough resources like emergency shelters available for the people who need them. They even point out that “Local churches open their cupboards or their wallets to try to help meet emergency needs for people who call or show up on their doorsteps” even though sometimes they go beyond the budget and cannot afford the rising and demanding expense (Madsen and Locke). Therefore, sharing food in public places can help the churches and other shelter places reduce the burden of taking responsibility for feeding the homeless.
Moreover, there is a lifestyle introduced in the book The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason which is called “dumpster diving,” and the concept is still being used today. The original purpose of dumpster diving lies in not supporting the food companies that exploit animals and reduce food waste (Singer and Mason 260). However, dumpster diving today is also considered a way for homeless people to get food also encourages people to not waste food in the U.S. While this idea seems to be practical for the homeless to get food, it still contains some problems related to health. In the book, Singer and Mason acknowledge that the dumpster divers “experienced no after-effects, from that or any of the other ingredients in the meal;” however, they might not know that the contaminated parts of the food, which are not clean or even expired, can be accumulated in their body, and that can cause some disease such as food poisoning or even cancer since they cannot predict exactly what will happen (Singer and Mason 264). In addition, the authors point out that studies say 40% of the food that is thrown away could have been safely consumed, but regarding the other 60%, there is nothing which can ensure the food is safe to be consumed. Another challenge of dumpster diving is that “in areas where there are high homeless populations, the grocery stores tend to lock their dumpsters,” according to Rob Greenfield, a San Diego-based activist (Owens). He also makes a point that instead of dumping food, people can choose to donate and share food that they will not use. Then, it goes back to point that sharing food is necessary not only to feed the homeless but also to encourage people to use the food economically. Hence, it can contribute to solving the hunger combat among homeless people in San Diego County, which has the fourth largest population of homeless people in the United States.
People who share food with other individuals who experience homelessness cannot exercise their right to give food to those in need because of the food-sharing ban. To many homeless advocates, the ban is not constitutional and unnecessarily cruel. After the El Cajon had adopted the ordinance, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of San Diego and Imperial Counties sent a letter to the city requesting reconsideration of the food-sharing ban which is potentially unconstitutional. According to the ACLU SDIC’s legal director, David Loy, “El Cajon is regulating food sharing because of its expressive content, punishing only those who share food to express their religious or political beliefs in ministry or charity but not those who share food for other purposes” (“ACLU Asks”). In fact, the City of El Cajon did reconsider the ban; however, it was after the outbreak came to an end in January 2018, which means El Cajon had been implementing the ordinance for a couple months from October 2017 until the ban was totally lifted. In the city’s defense, El Cajon spokesperson, Monica Zech, said that “We want to protect the homeless by feeding them in a clean and safe environment” (Honarvar). However, arresting people who shared food with the homeless got a negative attention which is opposite to the main purpose that was being said, also violated the right of people to feed others who are in need of food. According to many homeless activists, “Sharing a meal with someone in need is not supposed to be a crime,” and banning or restricting food-sharing “helps create a negative connotation about homelessness” (“Con: Bans”). Therefore, the El Cajon city’s ban of public feeding to homeless people is also unnecessarily cruel, especially to those who got arrested after feeding some homeless individuals at a local park. These people could have faced a $1,000 fine and six months in jail even the ordinance was lifted ten days after the arresting, and no one can know if the charges against the activists have been dropped or not (Tevrizian and Maynard).
In my opinion, even the ban was ended in January, there is nothing ensuring that it will not be brought back to be legislated again; therefore, I do not think keeping the ordinance in depending is a good plan, and the city should not consider implementing the ban again at all. It seems that the obtaining the ordinance on sharing food in city parks as a safety measure for the Hepatitis A is just an excuse from the El Cajon’s authority to get homeless people out of some public places. There would be another method that is more efficient and practical rather than cutting off one of the food sources for homeless people. It is proven that food contamination was not involved in the outbreak of Hepatitis A in San Diego County, according to the San Diego County Grand Jury 2017/2018. It was reported that “This sudden increase in Hep A centered on the local homeless population and illicit IV drug users, and was unrelated to food contamination,” and the disease was defeated through vaccination and sanitation including street sanitizing, hand-washing stations and portable toilets (“The San Diego”). Therefore, issuing a ban that prohibits sharing food with homeless people in public places does not actually solve the problem of spreading Hepatitis A virus. People were looking for other alternatives such as cleaning up the parks and providing and encouraging the use of public restrooms and hand-washing rather than stopping people from feeding the homeless, which they believe is a violation to their right of sharing food for those in need. Hence, instead of thinking about banning food-sharing again, the city’s authority should use the time and money to repair the facilities or help local charities and community groups coordinated in their food sharing efforts.
Some people may argue that food-sharing may do more harm than good because it keeps people in homeless status. It might be true because some homeless people may neglect the services that can help them “get back to their feet” and just keep chasing for food (Barclay). However, we cannot overlook that food-sharing belongs to the process of solving hunger regardless of who gets shared and where to share. Indoor meals are meant to be options for the homeless to eat, but the programs cannot meet the full scope of needs. Therefore, food-sharing, especially in public places, plays a part of helping these indoor meal programs to fulfill the need of food among homeless people. Banning food-sharing has never been a possible solution to combat hunger and homelessness; in contrast, it violates the human’s right of sharing food with the needy and criminalizes the good purpose of helping people. It even causes a backlash to the legislators who issue the ordinance if people who share food get involved in citations and legal misdemeanor charges. Sharing food with homeless individuals at public places should be warned so that people can get the reason why they have to be careful while feeding the homeless publicly. To make this solution work, a permit to feed homeless people can be issued so that food sharers can be aware of their limits as well as their right cannot be violated. It would be efficient if the authority stops regulating any ban that prohibits people from sharing food with the homeless, especially in public places.
As it has been noted, banning independent feedings does not solve the hunger issue, at the same time, it criminalizes the good purpose of helping others – sharing food. To allow people to exercise their right to feed people in need in public places without causing any legal troubles, the authority should not consider food-sharing as an issue and should end the food sharing ban to homeless people; otherwise, a food-sharing permit can be applied to make food sharers feel safer to do what they believe is the right thing to do.