Food Podcast: ‘YaJagoff’ hosts ‘feel an attachment’ to volunteering with food bank |

Food Podcast: ‘YaJagoff’ hosts ‘feel an attachment’ to volunteering with food bank

Courtesy of Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank
Volunteers helped pack 4,500 pounds of apples at the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank’s warehouse in Duquesne.

A pair of Pittsburgh podcasters are giving back this Thanksgiving season.

John Chamberlin and Rachel Rennebeck of the “YaJagoff” podcast volunteered to help Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank and the KDKA-TV Turkey Fund, helping a KDKA team sort and bag 4,500 pounds of locally grown apples at the food bank’s repack center in Duquesne.

Chamberlin and Rennebeck were guests on this week’s Food Podcast.

“We’ve been fortunate enough to work with a lot of different charities throughout Western Pennsylvania, to be there and have so many passionate people,” Rennebeck said. “It makes you want to do more.”

Repack volunteers help separate the food by category and repackage bulk items in family-sized portions. Food bank vice president Brian Gulish says the food bank has nearly 6,000 active volunteers, and the repack center allows for bigger groups, so local companies get get involved easier.

“When I walked out of there, I’m not done. I feel an attachment,” Chamberlin said. “I want to carry the story on. The operation is a first-class operation as far as how everything goes.”

LISTEN: ‘YaJagoff’ podcasters discuss volunteerism with food bank

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.