Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters: Too Salty!

Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to NYC homeless shelters (Huffington Post)

In a move that combines the mayor's affinity for overbearing health regulations with his controversial stance on homeless shelters already under fire from advocacy groups and City Council members, a new rule barring food donations to shelters is raising even more concern.

CBS reports on the bizarre rule that turns away food, perhaps the most needed item for any shelter, because according to health officials, it's impossible to gauge the items' salt, fiber, and other nutritional stats.

Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donation to Homeless Shelters: Too Salty! (FoxNews)

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations

Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless (The Moderate Voice)

New York city Mayor Bloomberg has banned donations to all government run homeless shelters because they cannot be sure that the nutritional content of the donations are good enough.
While I do see that we want people to eat healthy, it seems to me that when the choice is between no food and food that is a tad too salty that we could bend the diet a bit.

I do not understand this. I understand there might be concerns about food safety when an individual brings something to donate. This ban is not about that. It is aimed at things like donations from grocery store bakeries (think day old bread) and catered wedding party excess (you plan for 100 guests and 50 show up). It is specifically stated that his reason is nutrition content.
Salt can give you hypertension. Fat can raise your cholesterol. No food will cause starvation and death.
I volunteer at a food pantry twice a month. Most grocery stores in our area donate bakery items that are close to their expiration date. We get high quality bread, rolls, bagels, cupcakes, cakes, all sorts of wonderful contributions this way. We are always so glad to see them. The people that use the pantry love the extra variety! Bakery foods are a luxury many (myself included) simply can't afford, so it's a real treat!
No, I just don't understand this at all.
It's no more than a 2012 version of "If they do not have bread, let them eat cake."

(I did do a search for this article and didn't find anything..if it has been previously discussed I apologize.)

reply to post by anniquity


Houston's lovely mayor is trying to do the same right now.

They claim they are improving nutrition....yet NOT feeding the homeless as much somehow is better?? Sure, last time I checked starving is much better than eating candy and restaurant leftovers and McDonald's burgers.

This country is loosing it.

reply to post by anniquity


he is a very bad man with a very heavey heart,
he is forgeting that a man or women in need is to be helped,
by the grace of god go he to homelessnes (bloomberg)
so that he may learn charity

xploder

Let them eat cake!! .....errr wait..cake isn't healthy enough. Aww..now what?


I'd seen this in other places and just can't believe it. Oh I don't doubt it..it's just so incredible as to be a brain freeze moment where I have to ask myself if I really read what I think I read and....no...I didn't misunderstand it.

What have we elected as leaders when the health of what someone eats is MORE important than whether they have anything to eat at all?? What kind of society are we when we RE-elect the leaders who do this? Shame on Bloomberg and NYC. Shame on Orlando. (VERY similar issues on anti- feeding the homeless).

This is the HOMELESS for goodness sakes. Not some refugees from a Richard Simmons camp. ANY food works..who CARES about Sodium content on the label?!

reply to post by fictitious


Houston too? Dang!
San Antonio
Orlando
Philadelphia

It's bonkers!
While I was looking up info for this thread I came across at least a half dozen other places doing similar things!
I've been on the volunteer side and the in need side both. I can't understand how bans like this are allowed.

This is a profound example of private business attempting to use their affluence to help the less fortunate, but government putting a stop to it, and yet, so many believe that we need government to help the less fortunate and that private business cannot be counted on to do it. Whatever the City of New York's motives are in this ban, it should be more clear now that it is not - nor has it ever been - about serving the public that allows for their existence. It is, as it has always been, about an aggregation of power.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is a profound example of private business attempting to use their affluence to help the less fortunate, but government putting a stop to it, and yet, so many believe that we need government to help the less fortunate and that private business cannot be counted on to do it. Whatever the City of New York's motives are in this ban, it should be more clear now that it is not - nor has it ever been - about serving the public that allows for their existence. It is, as it has always been, about an aggregation of power.

I haven't figure out what there is to gain from this sort of thing yet. I'm still trying to find links. I think you're absolutely right, either power or money has to be involved somehow.
The .gov run commodities in our area are a joke. The food pantry I volunteer for is privately run, supplemented by local businesses and churchs. We do a much better job! No regulations needed, just people and companies that want to help.

Really things like this make me so furious i can hardly see straight!! The ONLY way creatures like this mayor will learn empathy and common sense,is for himself to be starved for days on end.The only way.This is being stupid and petty on a cosmic level..incomprehensible.

reply to post by anniquity


Its insane for sure but here are my theories about why:

-States are teaming up to attempt to decrease population
-Unemployment/credit crisis is much worse...and a huge amount of people will soon need aid as well....this will eliminate giving out so much aid
-Govt wants everyone to consume GM foods from a controlled source
-Vaccines, gmos, chemtrails, radiation, tv, msm, etc has successfully altered peoples minds and made them crazy and start acting like dictators
-all of the above

the guy behind Bloom definately looks a bit creepy to me.. not sure where I've seen his face before but I know I have .. personally, Bloom is a puppet and geting his strings pulled..

knee jerk media news =misdirection of something major going down at the same time..

Typical rich mentality thinking "health comes first".

These are homeless people. Like all poor people, their health comes second to their survival.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is a profound example of private business attempting to use their affluence to help the less fortunate, but government putting a stop to it, and yet, so many believe that we need government to help the less fortunate and that private business cannot be counted on to do it. Whatever the City of New York's motives are in this ban, it should be more clear now that it is not - nor has it ever been - about serving the public that allows for their existence. It is, as it has always been, about an aggregation of power.

Actually this is very clear. Mayor Bloomberg has been purging NYC of the "undesirables" his entire time as Mayor of NYC. After getting rid of a few hundred thousand minorities and illegals on welfare(thanks alot NYC (flips the bird in a NE direction), it was only a manner of time before he turned his attention to the homeless. Next it will be the disabled and elderly.

This really doesn't make sense at all. No one is that idiotic. This is clearly being done for a reason, and I believe it might have something to do with the crackdown on protest.

There was a huge argument about the Occupy camps providing food, and having it donated to them. I think at one time they were even raided and the little kitchen shut down.

The way Bloomberg (and others) see it is if they can stop people from being able to eat there in the protest camps they can limit the numbers of protesters.

It might be worth seeing which local authorities are making this move and where the Occupy protests have been. They were all being influenced by the DHS previously, so this could be a limiting method used by them to prevent protest.

Funny really . I work for a company that has a pretty much gormet cafeteria. The local shelter turned down the food that we donater every day because the homeless didn't want leftovers. Now we have a lottery for senior centers to come pick up the leftovers and they LOVE THEM. I really do believe it's time to quit babying people. Look what we've done.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Funny really . I work for a company that has a pretty much gormet cafeteria. The local shelter turned down the food that we donater every day because the homeless didn't want leftovers. Now we have a lottery for senior centers to come pick up the leftovers and they LOVE THEM. I really do believe it's time to quit babying people. Look what we've done.

I have lived in New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Albuquerque, and Now Los Angeles. In everyone of these cities I have witnessed homeless digging out of dumpsters and trash cans food. I have with my own two eyes seen homeless take half eaten cheeseburgers, tacos, burritos, and other fast food items left behind in a trash can, and eat it greedily. You may be telling the truth about your local shelter turning down food because it was leftovers, but I would love to know what city or town exists where the snobbish homeless live.

I have seen what hunger does to a person, and I for one am not buying this. It may be the shelter that offered up this dubious excuse for turning down food, but it is beyond the pale to expect anyone to believe it was actually homeless people who turned their noses up at left over "gourmet" food.

I have long held, and still do, that the government has no business creating welfare programs and generally making it their business to act as some sort tyrannical charity. I have come to know many homeless people and few very many are homeless because of substance abuse problems, or mental illness, but whatever their circumstances, this does not excuse government using it as an excuse to aggregate power. There are individuals, the world over, who are quite willing and more than capable of helping homeless. Government is not needed in this regard and only get in the way.

Feeding the Homeless banned in Major Cities all over America

Las Vegas, whose homeless population has doubled in the past decade to about 12,000 people in and around the city, joins several other cities across the country that have adopted or considered ordinances limiting the distribution of charitable meals in parks. Most have restricted the time and place of such handouts, hoping to discourage homeless people from congregating and, in the view of officials, ruining efforts to beautify downtowns and neighborhoods.
But the Las Vegas ordinance is believed to be the first to explicitly make it an offense to feed “the indigent.”

emphasis mine

This article has more information, also. It looks like Las Vegas was the first.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Funny really . I work for a company that has a pretty much gormet cafeteria. The local shelter turned down the food that we donater every day because the homeless didn't want leftovers..

I have seen this attitude rom people in shelters when I worked on the serving line. People would walk in and look at the choices, sneer and say "Well, it's McDonald's for me tonight. This is slop." But more often I've seen the officials at the shelter use excuses to turn down something to not offend a business owner.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have lived in New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Albuquerque, and Now Los Angeles. In everyone of these cities I have witnessed homeless digging out of dumpsters and trash cans food. I have with my own two eyes seen homeless take half eaten cheeseburgers, tacos, burritos, and other fast food items left behind in a trash can, and eat it greedily. You may be telling the truth about your local shelter turning down food because it was leftovers, but I would love to know what city or town exists where the snobbish homeless live.

I have seen what hunger does to a person, and I for one am not buying this. It may be the shelter that offered up this dubious excuse for turning down food, but it is beyond the pale to expect anyone to believe it was actually homeless people who turned their noses up at left over "gourmet" food.

I have seen similar rejections of food, for various reasons. But, as you said, there was usually an underlying reason from shelter officials. I think a lot of it depends on the size of city and homeless population, also. In my area the shelter houses approx. 100 people and has a pantry for people in the area. The shelter gets more food donations than it can possibly use. The amount of food they throw out makes someone like me, who has lived in larger cities and seen the need and desperation, cringe.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have long held, and still do, that the government has no business creating welfare programs and generally making it their business to act as some sort tyrannical charity. I have come to know many homeless people and few very many are homeless because of substance abuse problems, or mental illness, but whatever their circumstances, this does not excuse government using it as an excuse to aggregate power. There are individuals, the world over, who are quite willing and more than capable of helping homeless. Government is not needed in this regard and only get in the way.

Those with power now, like Bloomberg, are regulating us to death.
I lean toward agreeing with you. I do believe private sources do a better job of things. My question would be with the system bloated, and millions dependent on welfare, how could we change things? Is it even possible?

Disclosure in regard to Welfare: I am a Disabled Vet on a VA Pension.

This kind of thing really pisses me off! Didn't we have cops arresting people for feeding homeless people not too long ago in Florida? Now this in NYC? They are being treated like "animals" in the name of "safety". DON'T FEED THE BEARS, MOVE ALONG! '

I guess they are just supposed to starve.

In my city, tent cities were popping up and the city made them all move with a promise of free housing in an abandoned hotel. That sounded great until 1 year later the hotel was condemed due to lack of funding. Now what the hell are they supposed to do, they can't pitch tents! I guess they should just all be sent to prison?? WTF.

Having paid some attention to politicians in my life, and those like Mayor Bloomberg, the following can be stated:

The first question that most people ask, is how did this man get elected in the first place. Well like all politicians, he pandered to what was on everyones minds, that being in the 2001 election, jobs and the economy. Remember 9/11, and the hit to the financial sector of the country, city and state. He ran on the endorsement of Giulliani, and one of the appealing factors, is that he did not take public contributions for his election, but rather that of his own personal wealth. That in itself was appealing to many voters in that city. And he then went on to promote what he viewed as some of the social views and what the people were saying that they wanted, stricter gun control, prochoice and legalizing same sex marriage. You know every thing that the Republican party was against, he was for, and in a city where it is estimated that 68% of the citizens are Democrats, it played right into what they wanted and ideals.

Think about it a republican with the same ideaology as the Democrats, kind of makes you think of a wolf in sheeps clothing?

And what is really ironic, is that not only did the people buy it, but so did the Republican party, hook, line and sinker. Well he got elected again in 2005, playing dirty politics, by ensuring that any challenger in the Republican party would have a hard time to get onto the ticket, and then proceeded to use his own wealth get ensure he got elected.

Now here is the real thing that everyone should think about, what is a 2 term mayor, and one in a city that has term limits suppose to do near the end of his second term? Why seek and get the laws changed so he can stay in office. And in a sweeping city council vote, of 29 for change, against the 22 against such, the laws and rules were changed by the stroke of a pen and now he is in office a third term. but lets just say there are some questions about his campaign finances and those who support him.

Now he is trying to give the people what they want. We are too fat, so ban fast food serving sizes and transfat. People smoke too much, so raise the taxes on such. Diabetes is growing in numbers, so limit the soda size. Well if you consider this it will make sense. When you refuse to take personal responsibility for your actions, and leave it to others, that is the exact kinds of laws that you get on the books. Perhaps the people of the city of New York, perhaps they need to just take back personal responsibility and look at the government and say no thank you, we can take care of ourselves and accept the consequences of our actions.

reply to post by anniquity

. . .
.
. . .
.
I do not understand this . . .
.
. . .
.

.

Uhhhh . . . pure dee tyranny.

Perhaps some more testing of the limits of the tyranny the population will currently accept in order to know how fast to schedule worse tyranny.

Coming soon far and wide . . .

the worst of Big Brother, Big Gov, NWO, UN Agenda 21, etc. etc. etc.

As The Book says:

"The heart [of man] is deceitfully wicked, who can know it."
.

Originally posted by Wookiep

. . . . Now what the hell are they supposed to do, they can't pitch tents! I guess they should just all be sent to prison??

.

Evidently . . . the screws are being tightened . . .

beginning with the lowest on the totem pole.

. . . building excuses to send folks to the . . . . camps.
. . .

. . . the body parts factories?