Food is Medicine (FIM) programs are gaining national attention and funding as a method to treat chronic food-related diseases by providing free, nutritious foods to patients. [However, policymakers] should be cautious; FIM may not be the best way to address food and nutrition insecurities for the US population.
With this article, I [Jody Sindelar] identify four types of limitations underpinning FIM programs as delivered through the medical system: the “medicalization” of food; logistical concerns created by reliance on the medical system for food; the limited reach of programs in the medical system, and treatment only of patients with food-related disease without broader prevention; and a lack of rigorous, supporting evidence.
In the face of these problems, we should look to, and make additional [investments] in, national programs that have already been tested and proven effective at providing food and nutrition—and which also offer some services that aim to promote long-term economic self-sufficiency.
