Whoever asks such questions only wants to stir up envy and divide society, they claim. And play the weak against the weakest. Cases in which asylum seekers, for example, take a taxi to the doctor at the expense of the general public or are allowed to use public transport free of charge, are always the famous individual cases taken out of context, they maintain.
However, if you look at services for asylum seekers in detail, the question arises whether they are always just exceptions or rather the general rule. Like all German cities, Aachen had to struggle with the accommodation of numerous asylum seekers during the 2015 asylum crisis. The city created temporary dormitories in several gyms and barracks.
The catering was provided by various catering services and restaurants. Depending on the number of people to be supplied, the order volume amounted to several hundred thousand euros in just a few months. This information was made public after a request from AfD Councilor Markus Mohr and his colleague Wolfgang Palmin.
A contracted delicatessen kitchen, for example, received more than 800 000 euros for its services, a kebab grill almost 350 000 euros.
The individual daily costs for breakfast (cold), lunch (warm) and dinner (cold) ranged from between 12 and 13,48 euros. At first glance, that may not seem like much, but based on what the state promises to provide a Hartz IV recipient with meals each day, the total is quite considerable. Hartz IV is the German welfare system.
Because the Hartz IV standard rate of 424 euros per month provides for 147,83 euros for food and non-alcoholic beverages. That comes to 4,85 euros per day. For a child between 7 and 14 years old, the daily rate is only around three euros.
However, three times this amount is available for an asylum seeker in shared accommodation. Even if the price includes the purchase, the preparation and the transport of the dishes as well as the disposal of the leftovers, it is still a lot of money. Moreover, this all-round care obviously does not always please recipients.
According to the city council of Aachen, efforts have been made to provide “culture-specific offers” such as flatbread and olives as a side dish. Pork – a much cheaper meat alternative – is also avoided.
Nevertheless, due to the “cultural eating habits” of the migrants “not every taste could be met”, the administration noted.
Germany may be performing well when it comes to avoiding waste, ranking second in the EU. But it let itself down on nutrition, with a diet that relies heavily on meat, alongside sugars and carbohydrates, especially for citizens struggling with poverty.
The country receives only mediocre scores for nutrition education, said Martin Koehring, managing editor at The Economist Intelligence Unit, citing the Food Sustainability Index (FSI), developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit with the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition Foundation.
Foodwatch and Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) accused the government of publishing “unimportant brochures” instead of focusing on effective policies to improve food quality and consumption habits.