3 ms·

This is a cynical move because, as the article mentions right at the top, this is just to apply pressure on suppliers before contracts renegotiations. Tesco in

This is a cynical move because, as the article mentions right at the top, this is just to apply pressure on suppliers before contracts renegotiations. Tesco in the Uk does not sort of stunt as well and for the same reasons. > In the UK many people rely on Food banks and parents skip meals to feed their children. A small minority, not 'many'...

mholm 3y ago
A small minority of the UK can still be hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. Don't underestimate volume just because the % is low.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  A small minority is a small minority whatever the absolute number and that is not 'many', which suggests something common and widespread. Also, using a food bank at least once and 'relying' on them are not the same thing.
tyingq 3y ago
If this[1] is correct, one part stands out to me: "2.1 million people in the UK lived in household which had used a food bank in the previous 12 months, a rate of 3%. This includes 6% of children, 3% of working-age adults, and around 0% of pensioners." 6% of children feels not great, though other stats say the US is much worse, with 6+% of all households, not just children...and I've seen higher estimates. [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  That's a small minority that has used a food bank at least once in 12 months. The number of people 'relying' on them has to be even lower. We also can't discount that some people could have bought food but chose the food bank instead because it is free. My point was that writing 'many' suggests something common and widespread like if there were breadlines everywhere. It is not (but The Guardian likes to dramatise on this). In fact, I suspect that poorer people in the UK have a much higher chance of being obese than of being actually hungry.
bearmode 3y ago
3 million people used them between last year and this year. About 4.5% of the population. That's a lot of people.

mholm 3y ago

A small minority of the UK can still be hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. Don't underestimate volume just because the % is low.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
A small minority is a small minority whatever the absolute number and that is not 'many', which suggests something common and widespread. Also, using a food bank at least once and 'relying' on them are not the same thing.

tyingq 3y ago

If this[1] is correct, one part stands out to me: "2.1 million people in the UK lived in household which had used a food bank in the previous 12 months, a rate of 3%. This includes 6% of children, 3% of working-age adults, and around 0% of pensioners." 6% of children feels not great, though other stats say the US is much worse, with 6+% of all households, not just children...and I've seen higher estimates. [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

mytailorisrich 3y ago
That's a small minority that has used a food bank at least once in 12 months. The number of people 'relying' on them has to be even lower. We also can't discount that some people could have bought food but chose the food bank instead because it is free. My point was that writing 'many' suggests something common and widespread like if there were breadlines everywhere. It is not (but The Guardian likes to dramatise on this). In fact, I suspect that poorer people in the UK have a much higher chance of being obese than of being actually hungry.

bearmode 3y ago

3 million people used them between last year and this year. About 4.5% of the population. That's a lot of people.