Stricter rules intended to maintain standards for the preparation of food for all, including the homeless, were necessary to more fully assure the safety of meals. But care must be taken to minimize the impact on people who need and rely on food service, especially in more remote parts of the state where distances between state-certified kitchens could stand in the way of getting hungry people fed.
Since 2007, kitchens preparing food for the homeless have been allowed to operate outside some of the normal state Department of Health restrictions imposed on kitchens, under an emergency exemption. That exemption is lapsing, being replaced by more stringent regulations that, officials said, will reduce the risk of contamination by food- and water-borne microbes that cause disease.
These rules are part of a range of food-safety regulations imposed on 10,000 restaurants, lunch wagons and food establishments statewide. There’s no reason why the same standards shouldn’t be maintained for all food service operations.
But it’s a good thing that authorities won’t begin enforcement until June. This allows some time for those who have permits to meet with inspectors to learn more about what’s required. The learning needs to be a two-way street, though: Officials must find out the real consequences of stricter rules and assess whether the crackdown may create new food "deserts" in areas where the homeless can’t be served.
Hawaii is not the only place where the laws covering soup kitchens and other outreach operations have tightened. Philadelphia has banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks, to cite just one example.
But it’s a controversial issue in some places. In Dallas, for example, a fight over where the homeless may be fed is being waged in courtrooms, with ministries providing the food arguing that the practice is protected under constitutional religious freedoms.
Government liability for food service delivered under its regulatory supervision is a real concern, even if so far there has been no significant food-safety issue. State staff need to stand guard, but with an eye to finding practical solutions. If only a standard kitchen is available, inspectors should provide advice on ways groups can fulfill their mission safely.
Although the prepared foods that can be served without a state-certified kitchen are not always optimal fare — sandwiches, salads, canned goods and other processed foods — they can be sustaining.
There is no doubt that more closely regulating where food can be prepared will complicate matters for groups conducting outreach programs, feeding the homeless wherever they’re found.
But curbing this kind of ad hoc meal delivery is also necessary, in order to steer the homeless toward sites best equipped to provide the full range of social services. Hawaii is never going to get its homeless crisis under control if it doesn’t adopt a multipronged approach. Many homeless families and individuals can be nourished for the short term by soup or the peanut butter sandwich, but they need so much more to re-enter the community in a more stable, self-sustaining way.
Getting a tighter rein on food service is part of a more rational, systematic way of reaching people, but policymakers should hear the cautionary note as well. Taking care of the less fortunate is part of the responsibility of the larger community, and people do need to feel engaged in this humanitarian work.
Surely there is a way that both the imperative to feed the hungry and the human desire to be of service, can be accommodated by our laws.
