More … than 6.9 million Canadiansincluding 1.8 million children, face food insecurity, a figure that could further increase as high rates of food inflation persist.
Food insecurity is more than just a problem of lack of food: it is a symptom of profound material deprivation. Too many Canadians do not have enough money to meet their basic needs. According to Food Costing in BC 2022 report, the average family of four in British Columbia receiving income assistance has $311.89 each month after paying for housing and food. A single parent with a child on income assistance finds themselves in an even more dire financial situation: $111.82 in the red after paying for housing and food.
When people don’t have enough money to pay rent and meet other basic needs, they may resort to buying cheaper, less nutritious foods. Individuals may not be able to pay half their rent due to the threat of eviction, but they may spend less on food. However, when individuals rely on cheaper and unhealthy foods, they put their health at risk. Food insecurity significantly increases the risk of developing chronic diseases.
The British Columbia government has found a way to increase access to nutritious food and support food security for low-income people. Since 2007, she has worked with the BC Association of Farmers’ Markets and local community organizations to provide BC Farmers Market Nutritional Voucher Program (FNCCP). In 2022, the province provided 12 million dollars to support the program over 3 years. Participating households receive $27 per week to purchase healthy foods – fruits, vegetables, dairy, eggs, fish, meat, poultry, nuts, honey and fresh herbs – at participating farmers’ markets between June and December each year. The FNCCP provides funds to purchase preferred healthy foods in a way that maintains people’s autonomy and dignity.
Recently, we studied the impact of this program on rates of food insecurity among participants. OUR results, published in October in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, showed that the program reduced short-term household food insecurity by 79 percent. Notably, this decline was maintained four months after the end of the program. It is not clear why these large and sustained reductions in food insecurity were maintained after the program ended. However, we suspect this could be because participants preserved the foods they purchased with their coupons (e.g., freezing, canning) or were able to develop social connections through the FNCCP which improved their access to food and other support resources after the program. For example, FMNCP vouchers are distributed to participants by community partners (e.g., social support agencies) who may have helped participants find more affordable housing, access lower-cost transportation, or report their taxes, thus making them eligible for government aid.
We also saw a trend suggesting that the program may have improved participants’ mental well-being and their sense of connection with others in their community. However, the program did not improve the situation of the participants. power quality. Our results suggest that higher subsidy amounts may be needed to improve access to nutritious foods for all household members. This study is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a food subsidy program for agricultural markets, which means it can show cause and effect. Although it may seem counterintuitive that a healthy food stamp program did not improve the quality of adults’ diets, we suspect that parents used their subsidies to improve their household food security and gave most of the food to their children. In a future study, we plan to assess the diet quality of children as well as their parents to determine if this may have been the case.
There is disagreement among food insecurity researchers regarding the optimal ways to reduce household food insecurity. Some argue that policies and programs should be prioritized to address the “root causes” of food insecurity – inadequate wages and social supports (e.g., increasing the minimum wage and welfare rates ). We agree that such policies are an important way to reduce household food insecurity. However, the data indicates that increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour or providing an additional social income of $1,000 would only increase the minimum wage. reduce the risk of household food insecurity by 5 percent at the population level. In comparison, our results show that targeted supports provided by the FMNCP reduced the risk of short-term food insecurity for households by 79 percent.
Healthy food subsidies can be a socially acceptable and dignified way to provide people with additional income to purchase nutritious foods.
By providing people with money to buy nutritious foods, healthy food subsidies free up income that can be used to meet other material needs such as housing and utilities. In this way, healthy food subsidies are no different from higher wages and welfare benefits, because all of these programs provide additional income that alleviates financial stress. Healthy food subsidies can also incentivize the purchase of healthier foods, which can improve diet quality when subsidies are large enough and provided over the long term. When offered at local farmers’ markets, healthy food subsidies can also improve mental well-being and social connections among community members, improve participants’ knowledge about where their food comes from and the how they are produced, and bring benefits to farmers and local food systems. and savings. In short, healthy food subsidies can be a socially acceptable and worthy way to provide people with additional income to purchase nutritious foods.
But don’t take our word for it, listen to those who participated in our longitudinal qualitative study of FMNCP, available here And here. Participants told us that “their vouchers were like gold” and described how FMNCP improved their access to nutritious food and alleviated financial hardship by allowing them to direct funds toward other living expenses. They also reported that the program improved their social connections, sense of community, healthy eating knowledge, and eating skills. Although a small number mentioned stigmatizing experiences, the vast majority indicated that the program gave them a sense of dignity and autonomy in purchasing their own nutritious foods. After the program ended, participants described increased financial pressure and the need to return to their pre-program purchasing practices of purchasing low-cost, less nutritious foods.
We do not believe there is a single “best” approach to addressing household food insecurity, as all programs have their strengths and limitations. Furthermore, the root causes of food insecurity are numerous. Therefore, if we want to combat food insecurity at its roots, a single approach will not be enough. For example, some people may experience food insecurity because their low education level leads them to low-paying employment. Others may have been victims of childhood abuse and the resulting trauma made it difficult for them to maintain stable employment. Although higher wages and social supports may address the income-related manifestations of these people’s problems, they will not necessarily address their root causes. Additionally, higher wages and welfare benefits won’t help everyone, including undocumented immigrants and homeless people. So, just as obesity is a complex problem with no single solution, so is household food insecurity.
For this reason, a range of policies and programs at all levels and across multiple sectors – including healthy food subsidies, social prescribing interventions and policies that are not specifically linked to poverty (e.g. efforts to prevent domestic violence) – are necessary to reduce household poverty. food insecurity in Canada. We support a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach that includes multiple programs and policies, as there is no single solution.
We recognize that, like other approaches, healthy food subsidies have limitations. For example, our own research showed that current grants provided by FMNCP may be too small to measurably improve adult diet quality, nor is the program offered year-round. Furthermore, the FMNCP remains modest and should be extended nationally so that substantial benefits can result at the population level. However, with key improvements, a plan for scale-up, and stable long-term funding, these programs can be an important part of a comprehensive policy package to address household food insecurity.
While higher minimum wages and social supports are certainly necessary, such policy reforms require long lead times for change – meanwhile millions of Canadians continue to suffer. Other evidence-based approaches – some of which may be equally or more effective – can be part of strategies to reduce household food insecurity. This will require some upfront spending, but reducing household food insecurity will save millions of dollars in unnecessary spending. health care expenses and other costs to taxpayers.
It’s time to take a more holistic approach to one of our most complex and pressing societal problems.
