Eating Real Food - Just for the Rich?

First off I'd like to thank everyone who came out last night for the kickoff event for the SNAP Into Action Against Hunger Challenge 2010. It was great to meet you all and get to know a little more about what is involved in the Challenge as well as a bit more about the hard reality of hunger in Hartford and Connecticut. I hope everyone had a good time and is ready to tackle the Challenge, whether you're committing to the whole month, just a week, or a few days. In the next few days I will post some pictures of the event.

I came across the article on CNN.com today about another food challenge proposed by blogger Jennifer McGruther - to rid your diet of all processed foods (Click here to read the article). I found it particularly interesting considering the rules I'm finding myself faced with for the SNAP Challenge, particularly that one small stipulation about spending only $3.50 a day on food for myself and what that would mean if I were to take on both challenges. I think it would be nearly impossibly to eat only "real" food on this budget - considering the prices these days for fresh produce and other unprocessed foods.

Last night one subject that came up was the stereotyping of people on the SNAP benefit only eating junk food, because generally that sort of processed, pre-packaged food is cheaper and more easily accessible than fresh make-it-yourself meals. Does this mean that those on the SNAP benefit can't eat a diet of only "real" food? Or is that an assumption made based solely on the fact that when I want something quick and cheap it is usually something completely unhealthy?

I'm interested to hear your opinions on this paradox of diet challenges, and whether you think they can be done simultaneously or not. If you're feeling especially adventurous you may want to attempt both challenges! Let me know what you think!