By Rachel Rubin
Images Sourced from The Marshall Project
When you think about food what first comes to mind? Is it your mom’s famous chicken dinner? Your go-to takeout order? The breakfast you had today? Does it bring up memories of fun with friends or large family dinners? Can you remember the textures and the taste of what you last enjoyed? Is it just something that you always expect to be there? Or is it so consistent that you really don’t even pay attention to its existence anymore?
Well those luxuries are not ones afforded to people who are incarcerated. Food is purely used as a means to keep people alive. It is not intended to be enjoyable and it is not even guaranteed to keep you from going hungry. The food served in prisons is given to a subset of the American population that is largely looked upon as “less than human.” This stigma greatly impacts the treatment of those who are incarcerated in all aspects, including something as seemingly basic as the food they are served. Having access to enjoyable, enough, and safe food is something commonly viewed as a human right, but it is not one that those who are incarcerated are afforded access to.
There is no uniform standard in America regarding the number of meals or quantity of food that needs to be served to people who are incarcerated. According to the Marshall Project research, nutritional standards are decided by a “patchwork of state laws, local policies, and court decisions”. This lack of uniformity further exacerbates the inequity and unfair practices that surround eating while incarcerated.
Money is the largest factor that dictates what food is being fed to those who are incarcerated. At the end of the day prisons are a business and they are doing everything they can to keep costs low, and feeding the approximately 2.3 million people currently incarcerated in America can add up very quickly. Cutting corners regarding both the quantity and quality of food they are serving has reduced the cost per day to less than $1.20 per day. As long as they are getting away with providing the bare minimum quantity of food, prisons will continue to do this.
The small portion sizes have left people who are incarcerated to deal with serious ramifications on top of going hungry. Drastic weight changes result from both the meager amount of food being served and the poor nutritional value. One individual at the Montgomery County Jail in New York lost 90 pounds in less than six months and was going hungry. On the other side of the spectrum, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that three quarters of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons are medically characterized as obese. This, in part, results from the high levels of refined starches, added sugars and salt that makes up the majority of their diet.
Another way in which the Department of Corrections has managed to cut costs and the expense of those who are incarcerated, is by changing who is responsible for supplying the food inside prisons. Previously, this duty belonged largely to the prisons themselves where people with food preparation training made the meals. A shift towards the cheaper option of privatization and industrialization means that 95% of the food served in prison was substituted for highly processed, premade and sugar filled meals.
Another unhealthy way that the prisons keep costs low is by serving extremely poor-quality food. The meat products that is served is not like what you would go out and buy in the supermarket for your family. Sometimes the food is already spoiled, which can cause serious illnesses. According to a report by Impact Justice, three-quarters of formerly incarcerated people who were interviewed, said that they were given “rotten or spoiled food” at least once during their time in prison. That is completely unacceptable.
Serving strictly meat would be detrimental to their budget’s bottom-line, so it is supplemented by mixing in a lot of TVP (texturized vegetable protein, which is basically just a lot of soy) with very little actual meat. Consuming TVP itself is not he dangerous part. The problem truly lies in the fact that almost all of the food being served to those who are incarcerated was highly processed (including the TVP), which is not good for the human body.
TVP was first largely incorporated into the prison diet in 2009 with the Department of Corrections initiative to further lower prison costs. When the consumption of TVP and other processed meals increased, more health complications, including: chronic and painful constipation, vomiting, sharp pains in their digestive tracts, passing out, heart palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression, feeling constantly cold, brain fog, fatigue, changes in weight and frequent infections were experienced.
Although most of the food served at these facilities is problematic, there has been a recent push towards incorporating more fresh produce into the diets of those who are incarcerated, which is beneficial because it helps to counteract the copious amount of processed food that is typically served. Across America, many facilities, including the San Quentin State Prison, have begun their own prison gardens. These gardens provide opportunities for those who are incarcerated to get directly involved with the production of food within their community, which provides a sense of purpose that reduces recidivism rates. This blog post is not about that, however, and I do not want to detract from the main topic of the food itself too greatly. If you wish to learn more about the benefits the gardens provide apart from having more fresh produce inside of the prisons, you can access information about the San Quentin program here. Overall, these gardening programs are a step in the right direction regarding less processed food and more whole foods in their diets, but they do not go far enough. There are too many problems with the way that people who are incarcerated are being fed for them to all be fixed by a couple of gardening programs across American facilities.
One such problem that cannot be completely solved through the presence of gardens is using food as a source of punishment. Apart from the physical toll that the food they are being served takes on those who are incarcerated, there is an intense mental toll that the deprivation can have as well. Food inside correctional facilities can be used as a method of punishment, which can have a lasting impact.
The Impact Justice report talks about food in prison as a “hidden punishment.” Taking away one’s food or not providing meals with the proper nutritional value is an example of concrete punishment that can leave people feeling “ignored, frustrated or humiliated”. This is not the way that food is supposed to make people feel. The food one eats is extremely personal and deeply connected to their culture, personal preferences, and relationships. Stripping someone of that choice and then forcing them to eat unappetizing and unhealthy food as an alternative is extremely dehumanizing and serves to further punish people who have been incarcerated.
Although several prisons across America are trying to improve their meal selections through community gardens, the unacceptable and subpar service of food to those who are incarcerated is still apparent and problematic. The lack of food safety, excess of processed food, and meager portion sizes all contribute to the inadequacies in the treatment of the people who are incarcerated.