Food Storage 102 - 2 Weeks Is Not Enough
Sharon July 8th, 2008
Last time I ran the food storage class, I started off with a Food Storage 101 post that discussed the bare minimum for food storage - the 2 weeks recommended by both the US Department of Homeland Security and the American Red Cross. I reviewed the fact that 2 week extended periods in which we are unable to shop or get supplies are actually not at all uncommon - that they have occurred many times in rich world nations including the US, and that all of us should, as simply commonsense preparedness, have a 2 week supply of food. I then went along trying to get you all to store much more food than that, but I didn’t want to push too hard on that, because I know that for some people, the idea that you might not be able to get food at the store for more than a couple of weeks due to a short-term disaster is just plain crazy talk.
But this time around, I’m going to push the issue, even if it makes you think I’m nuts (if you are just figuring this out, you may be new to the blog ;-)). Because the truth is that 2 weeks is nowhere near enough - 3 months really should be the minimum.
Why? Five reasons, all of them, I think important.
1. Longer periods of large scale crisis/limited supplies are well within the realm of the possible - they fit with planning scenarios. Government agencies and some nations are recommending larger quantities - often 3 months worth of food.
2. People planning for very short terms actually are at a disadvantage, both economically and in terms of how they think about their personal infrastructure - that is, in many ways, it is cheaper, easier and better to make plans for longer term disruptions, because the strategies commonly used for them are cheaper and better and make more sense.
3. Because it is mistake to view food storage and preservation as merely a hedge against a major, widespread national disaster. Personal disasters occur all the time, and can be just as devastating as a national supply crisis. Buying food now, and storing it in bulk means you can keep your family fed in a medical crisis, after a job loss, etc…
4. Many crises mean you may be caring for more than just yourself. It is easy to look around at your family right now and say “ok, there’s me, Mom and my brother, we need that times 2 weeks” - but the truth is that a crisis in your region or your area may involve extended family who evacuate, your neighbors coming to you to admit their pantry is completely empty, and do you have anything at all for their hungry kids, someone coming and asking if you have anything at all to share with those who are worse off - and don’t doubt worse off can almost always happen.
5. Those with the knowledge and ability to do so have the obligation not to drain resources needed for those who didn’t have the capacity to prepare. So let’s say that the disaster does only last two weeks, and that there are people out there with soup waiting - is there enough soup for everyone? You don’t know, and resources are almost always stretched thin in a disaster. The mindset that says “I just have to make it until the safety net picks me up” is the wrong one. I believe in safety nets - but they work best when people can be trusted not to use them unless they really need them. Right now most of us (and yes, I know that there are some readers of this blog who simply can’t do anything or any more than they have already) have the ability and the knowledge of the coming crises to remove ourselves from the emergency lines when the time comes, and that’s both a privelege (we can protect ourselves and our loved ones) and a burden (we are now responsible for ourselves).
Let’s talk scenarios, and why 2 weeks food storage is not an adequate minimum. The first reason is that a whole lot of people dealing with these issues think it is not unlikely that you might have to endure a much longer period of time without resupply than just two weeks. For example, in the case of a flu pandemic, various government agencies estimate that a influenza wave might require quarantine periods of up to 12 weeks. The Australian Government suggests that average Australian stockpile food for 3 months. So that’s just one possible scenario in which you’d want a much longer supply - in the case of a widespread epidemic, you don’t want to have to go the grocery store during periods where contagion is spreading.
But more importantly, the scenario planning that government agencies are doing tends to focus on a short term, localized crisis - a tornado, a flood, wildfires. The assumption of the two week theory is that there will be one big disaster, and the nation’s response will be mobilized to get to you there. Even when that’s actually what happens, the two week limit hasn’t been adequate a number of times - in the ice storm that paralyzed much of the Northeast in the late 1990s, for example, there were areas of New York, Vermont and New Hampshire that didn’t have power back or road access for 16 days more. In Kobe Japan, during the last major earthquake, it took more than 2 weeks for rescue workers to reach some of the hardest hit suburbs - and Kobe was one of the best prepared cities in the world for earthquakes.
But let us imagine a non-localized crisis - either multiple natural disasters occurring simultaneously (not super likely, but not at all impossible), or a dramatic, sudden rise in energy prices that cut off many areas from food deliveries (again, not super likely immanently, but hardly impossible). In that case, everyone has needs that have to be answered right now - and there’s simply no way for even the best organized response to cover everyone.
Finally, the most likely disaster to befall you is this. You lose your job. Your spouse losess their job. You spend your savings on a medical crisis or two. You are stretched trying to keep your house/pay your rent/buy gas to get to work, and you don’t have any money for food. Your kids are hungry, and the food pantry is, as at least one US pantry was, down to stale Doritos because of the huge demand. Maybe you get food stamps (assuming the program can still be funded after a radical drop in tax revenue), but they don’t stretch to the end of the month. And two weeks worth of food won’t save you. Neither will three months, but it gives you options.
I know that some of you can’t buy extra food because you can’t buy enough food. For the rest, you need to do what you can, both to protect yourself, and to make sure that you don’t compete for food resources with those who have no ability to protect themselves, maybe ensure that you can drop a few cans at the food pantry, even when things get tough at home. That means a minimum of three months of food. Build it up gradually, write down what you eat, focus on meals based on staple foods like grains, dried beans, locally produced and home preserved vegetables. I wrote during my last class about what a 3 month supply of food looks like.
I know this is hard - in March I was being soft, and helping people with baby steps. I’m going to be blunt now - I don’t think we have that much time before it gets harder and harder for more and more of us to prepare and get ahead. I don’t think it will be that long before many of us can’t afford those extra bags of rice anymore. So I’m not going to suggest baby steps anymore - I think all of us should get very, very serious about this. And I wish I didn’t think that.
More soon,
Sharon
sharonastyk.com |
