In late Aug., the Madison Children’s Museum opened the first restaurant of its kind in a U.S. museum. Inside, museum attendees will find a variety of options, from grab-and-go snacks and beverages to pre-packaged meals that can be heated in the on-site microwaves. Unlike most restaurants in capitalist and economically-minded society, the Little John’s cafe uses a pay-what-you-can system.
The concept is fairly self-explanatory: none of the cafe’s meals are labeled with prices, and customers serve themselves with no cashiers. Should visitors choose to pay, the cafe provides a self-serve tablet that lists pre-set payment options ranging from $1-$20 dollars.
Not only financially accessible, the entire service is nutritionally sound and environmentally sustainable. The nonprofit prepares over 17,000 meals per week and all of its ingredients are fresh products donated by local grocery stores and farms. These donations are usually items that would have otherwise gone to waste and been thrown away, despite being completely edible and nutritionally sound. In 2010, the USDA estimated that 133 billion pounds of food went to waste that year – a 31% food loss overall.
This ‘pay-what-you-can’ system improves our environmental sustainability, reduces both economic and food product losses and increases personal well-being on the individual level. But there are painfully few of these options across the country and they do not adequately address the communities that need them the most. Furthermore, this system should be extended beyond restaurants to grocery stores.
Wisconsin communities are not ignorant of food insecurity. Food deserts are disturbingly common across the state, ranging from small rural towns to counties in and surrounding the Madison area. Food deserts, defined as geographical areas or regions with very limited access to affordable and fresh or nutritious food, have been studied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for years. The USDA states that if 33% or more of a region’s population is more than 0.5-1 mile (in urban areas) or 10-20 miles (in rural areas) from a supermarket or grocery store, this region is a food desert.
Rural communities are systemically prone to food insecurity compared to urban areas, with 10.8% of rural households in the U.S lacking access to affordable and high-quality food. Knowing that Wisconsin is a primarily rural state, it is no wonder that 2015 data identified almost 570,000 Wisconsinites living in a certified food desert.
Of course, simply building more grocery stores or food shops will not solve food insecurity, which is not only born from a lack of physical access to nutritious food, but also financial access.
The fact that healthy food is priced higher than its lower-quality counterparts is not new information. A 2013 Harvard study estimated healthy diets to cost at least $1.50 more per day than the average unhealthy diet. This trend has only increased in its severity over recent years. With recent inflation and a limited supply of fuel and fertilizer due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, supermarket prices are expected to be up 8.5% to 9.5% over the next year. This will only continue to widen the gap between high-quality food and unhealthy, cheaper alternatives.
Despite rising prices and increasing unaffordability across the supermarket, there is still an astounding amount of food waste generated in our country every year. Across the United States, food waste is estimated to be 30% to 40% of the entire food supply. Because of the lack of consumer demand for “ugly” fruits and vegetables, for example, large quantities of high-quality produce do not even make it out of the fields.
Supermarkets are also notorious for overstocking their inventories. Shelves packed with produce are more visually appealing to customers than those with limited supply, despite being the same quality. However, due to the prevalence of food deserts across Wisconsin in particular, the populations which need access to this overabundance of food the most are not able to take advantage of these stocks. Instead, these extra items end up in the landfill. If this food was instead redirected to food insecure populations, we could improve our country’s environmental and social well-being without taking on any extra financial pressure. In fact, doing so would help diminish the financial loss caused by food waste every year.
It is also important to recognize that, as with many inequalities, food insecurity affects certain populations more than others. In regard to food deserts, a 2012 study found that the higher concentrations of minority populations a region has, the more likely it was to be a food desert.
The biggest concern that is raised by those who do not support pay-what-you-can models is the potential economic impact. The question that is always posed is: how expensive will it be to provide affordable food to insecure communities? Evidently, the answer is not as worrisome as it might first appear.
As mentioned earlier, our current system is experiencing rapid overproduction, which is leaving our economy at a net loss. Returning to the 2010 USDA study, the U.S lost over $161 billion dollars in food production in one year alone. By using produce and food products that were otherwise headed to the landfill, we would not only be repurposing food that we have already spent on, but we would also save money in terms of landfill usage and eventual climate costs.
The environmental benefit of repurposing food that would have otherwise gone to a landfill would also reap eventual economic benefits. As a positive externality, keeping food out of the garbage can help decrease greenhouse gases that are produced during the decomposition of organic waste. Not only would this be a huge benefit to our country’s ecological health, but it would also eventually reap economic benefits in the form of decreased spending on planet restoration and climate mitigation actions in the future.
Finally, our economy would have the potential to see an extreme increase in worker productivity and supply if pay-what-you-can restaurants and grocery stores were more widely adopted. If workers did not have to dedicate their time and energy toward worrying about finding their next meal, the benefits would extend beyond the individual and into their work environment and productivity.
Food is a fundamental right. It is shameful that this basic human need is unaffordable for millions of people in Wisconsin and across the country. The economic costs of introducing pay-what-you-can restaurants and grocery stores may initially look extreme, but overall, our economic and societal position would experience a net benefit by providing free food to insecure populations.
Fiona Hatch is an undergraduate student studying political science and international studies.
