Live below the line

[Alec John Moore]

Do you think you could feed yourself on ?1 a day? The UN reckons that millions of people in the developing world have to do just that. There's a lot of interest in food on this forum - where it originates from, where to buy it, how to cook it and even, just recently, how to kill it. So, I wondered how many of you would be up for taking part in this challenge:

http://guyem.blogspot.com/

The campaign is meant to get you talking about what it must be like for the estimated 1.4 billion people living below the extreme poverty line. Click on the link above for more info and I'll be the one with the shopping trolley full of "basics" at Sainsburys. Alec

[Fabricio the Guido]

Interesting post. Can it be done in any realistic manner given the value of our currency, even if we buy stuff the prices are not commensurate with the prices overseas. There's a term for it in economics, but not sure what it's called at the moment.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Marmora Man (of this parish) tried something similar

a few years back

have a read of that thread - I doubt there is much new to be said

[Ladymuck]

Sean, how DO you remember that far back?

You really ARE an elephant - aren't you!

[Jeremy]

Haha, that old thread made me chuckle... especially MM's musings on how he could possibly eat for ?100 a week, if he made a few sacrifices!

I don't think ?1 a day per head would be possible - I think the minimum you'd need would be getting on for double that, if you're talking 3 meals a day. But it's rather meaningless, as ?1 buys a lot more food in the developing world than it does here.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think many people in this country are living on close that amount a day for food. It's a myth than no-one starves on benefits in the UK.

If I were living on lentils and rice I could probably do it but wouldn't expect to feel very well mentally or physically as a result.

[womanofdulwich]

?1 also buys a lot more if you dont live in London. It certainly goes much further in some parts of Glasgow.I know my father in law buys loaves of bread for 10p in the reduced section- I never see it that cheap here.

[*Bob*]

I wonder what ?1 would get you down at the East Dulwich Farmers Market?

[Scribe]

A place on the guest-list, most probably.

[HAL9000]

Is dumpster diving allowed? I used to scavenge discarded fruit and vegetables from Rye Lane market for a local community centre - often found enough food to feed a small army.

Lately, I've noticed that the trash piles are being picked clean by several impoverished-looking regulars - a sign of the times, I guess - no more easy pickings to be had there now.

[acumenman]

what it must be like for the estimated 1.4 billion people living below the extreme poverty line. wrote AJMoore.

Stick around for a few months/years and my guess is we will all know from personal experience.

[jumpinjackflash]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> If I were living on lentils and rice I could

> probably do it but wouldn't expect to feel very

> well mentally or physically as a result.

and you'd be farting like a trooper!

[Alec John Moore]

Hi, had a look at the previous thread referred to by SMG where MM ate for ?2.82 a day for 7 days as far as I could work out. The thread was also about the experience and the difficulties of living on benefits in the UK. Live below the line is asking people to attempt to eat for ?1 a day for 5 days. Clearly there are significant differences but lets not get hung up on that. Most of the extremely poor people in the world live in developing countries where if you fall into the category of extremely poor then you have only approximately US$1.25 a day for all of your needs. Trying to feed yourself on ?1 a day in the UK is a challenge that should help you think more about the problems poor people face in just trying to survive. Live below the line is about raising awareness on global poverty and taking the challenge should encourage you to think about the lives of poor people in developing countries and, hopefully, talk to others about it. I've mentioned it to my 11 year old son who seems to be up for it. I'm just trying to get my head round what effect it would have on his time at school etc for those few days.

Interestingly someone in the MM thread referred to rationing in WWII as the next subject to experiment with. Somewhat ironic, I suppose. However, but the Green Party's The New Home Front report seems to suggest that rationing (or the benefits that come from a less profligate usse of resources) may be a necessary response to the challenges of climate change. There's a link to it from Caroline Lucas's Guardian blog:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/20/home-front-war-climate-change

Alec

[Ridgley]

At work place my colleagues, have a lunch club where there all cheap in weekly to save money I think it is close to that amount.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I was reading this today:

Large meals weere prepared in this room, cauldrons of stew for the insatiate hunger of eight. Stews of all that grew on these rich banks, flavoured with sage, coloured with Oxo, and laced with a few bones of lamb. There was, it is true, little meat at those times; sometimes a pound of bare ribs for boiling, or an occasional rabbit dumped at the door by a neighbour. But there was green food of great weight in season, and lentils and bread for ballast.

Laurie Lee c. 1918

So all we need to do is turn over our gardens to veg and smile sweetly at Scribe who may drop a rabbit off. I'm happy to swap some sage for lentils.

[Jeremy]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At work place my colleagues, have a lunch club

> where there all cheap in weekly to save money I

> think it is close to that amount.

Lunch for ?1 each - sure. Lunch, dinner, and breakfast? It's possible, but only if you're willing to survive on boiled rice and roadkill.

[Ridgley]

Just lunch Jeremy it works for them

[Scribe]

OK, let's be serious here.

This hypothesis is redundant in both extremes.

The first scenario is in a conventional, modern-day, anarchy-free dwelling. You give someone a ?1 coin to cover their entire expenditure for 24 hours. Their first concern will be food and water. All they'll be able to afford is cold food, because ?1 can't cover food, water and fuel. It's just not going to happen, so they buy a packet of sausage roles from whereever is the cheapest; although this can't be considered a seriously healthy source of sustenance. Even in the short-term they'll be forced to supplement their diet by theft or foraging, therefore living beyond their ?1 a day budget.

The second scenario takes place after societal collapse, the setting this experiment would no-doubt be (hypothetically) preparing the participant for. The ?1 would be of no value in what would now be a barter economy; and personal defense would take precedence over satisfying you stomach. Besides, society has failed and there's no-one to stop you from just taking what you want, by whatever means possible.

The only conclusive result you can draw from this experiment, is that when pushed, man will be forced to rely on his or her wits to survive.

[DJKillaQueen]

I was in the supermarket today and saw that for a pound I could buy a apck of stew vegetables. The pack contained a carrot, a small turnip, two potatoes and a leek. From that I could make enough soup to feed me for a day and would probably feel quite full. But then I'm a small woman. So there is also that to consider. Some people need to eat more than others.

[Scribe]

That's all well and good, DJKQ. But you haven't accounted for the water and fuel you're going to need to make that food edible. And, whatever you BMI, could you seriously see yourself surviving on a pack of stewing vegetables every day for the next few months, considering you'd have to eat them dry, or stew them in toilet water?

[DJKillaQueen]

I could make a fire from wood foraged (not hard to find in this area) and water could either be collected from rain or a river. You don't need much water to cook vegetables anyway.

Also, every day, supermarkets have food at the edge of it's sell by date for sale. So things could be picked up there.

I totally agree, to have to do that for more than a few days is not going to be any fun, or keep you healthy.....and there are people who already are living close to that poverty line in the UK.....ask any of the many food charities that operate to give food to people in the UK.

And as Alec points out.....there a far too many accross the world going hungry, when they don't need to - because the globe does produce enough food.....and we throw tons of it away (that's another issue).

[Scribe]

Yes, I understand that there are literally millions of people living on less than a pound a day, DJKQ, but let's be brutally honest, they don't live very long; nor do they have such ready access to medical help as we do in a conventional, modern-day, anarchy-free society.

What I'm attempting to disprove is the parameter set on this experiment, which is a ?1 threshold. We both agree that we can't survive on the nutrients and peripheral needs supplied by just one pound alone. We'd have no choice but to break the restrictions placed upon us in this experiment to survive.

[Alec John Moore]

One couple spent their ?10 - ?5 each - as described below. Why not give it a try and see the effect. You should be able to survive OK for 5 days. If its a struggle for us in developed countries then it must be even more difficult for people who live at the bottom of the pile as it were. As well as those categorised as living in extreme poverty - having less than US$1.5 a day - there are millions more who don't have much more and can afford to feed themselves to a point where they are persistently under nourished.

"So yesterday we headed out with our ?10 to the shops to buy food to feed two people for five days. Having been firmly told by Emily that she wasn't going to put up with me for a week without coffee we had to budget in for a cup a day. There were a couple of things we had to buy in larger quantities and then multiply down for the amount we were going to eat, but that was simply because it's not possible to buy 1 egg for example. So here is our food for the week:

10 Bananas - ?1.29

1kg Potatoes - ?0.60

1kg Rice - ?0.72

400g Porridge Oats - ?0.26

1 Frozen Chicken - ?3.40

970g Frozen Mixed Veg - ?0.91

Coffee - ?0.30

50ml Oil - ?0.07

10g salt - ?0.03

1 egg - ?0.21

As you can see the big purchase was the chicken. This may seem like an odd buy but, it's truly amazing how many meals you can get from that one chicken. I jointed it into:

2 breasts

2 thighs

2 drumsticks

2 wings

And of course I kept the carcass and the giblets that Mr. Morrison was kind enough to leave in for me so that I can make stock which I will turn into several meals worth of chicken soup.

Those math's wizzes among you will have worked out that the above adds to a total of ?7.77, leaving us with a total of ?2.23. So Emily headed off to the local market to buy some fresh groceries. Thanks to her fantastic haggling skills, for a total of ?2.20, she managed to get us:

5 carrots

2 onions

4 peppers

a segment of pumpkin

a chilli

So this means our total for the week is ?9.97"

[DJKillaQueen]

Feeding two though is I guess easier than feeding one. The chicken would blow one persons budget. But just for the exercise of doing it....I will see tm what I can get for a fiver to feed me for five days.

[Jeremy]

Alec John Moore Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If its a struggle for us in developed

> countries then it must be even more difficult for

> people who live at the bottom of the pile as it

> were.

No, the opposite is true. As I have already pointed out, ?1 buys more in poorer countries than it does in richer countries.

I looked at that shopping list above, it simply doesn't add up to 20 meals.

I know you mean well Alec, and I don't mean to suggest that poverty awareness is not important, but IMO this exercise is misguided.