Upcoming webinar – Who is vulnerable to household food insecurity and what does this mean for policy and practice? (April 13/17 1:00-2:30 EST)

Upcoming webinar - Who is vulnerable to household food insecurity and what does this mean for policy and practice? (April 13/17 1:00-2:30 EST)

On April 13, 2017 from 1:00 – 2:30 pm EST, PROOF is co-hosting a webinar with Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada (CDPAC) on what drives vulnerability to household food insecurity in Canada

Register today at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7992737431982570755. A recording of the webinar will be available afterwards.

Who is vulnerable to household food insecurity and what does this mean for policy and practice?

Please join PROOF and CDPAC for a second webinar on household food insecurity. In this webinar, we will delve into the question of what drives vulnerability to household food insecurity in Canada. Drawing on the wealth of Canadian data collected during more than a decade of food insecurity monitoring, we will examine the social and economic circumstances of food insecure households and look at what has been found to underpin changes in household food insecurity status over time. We will also discuss the relationship between food insecurity and health, considering the evidence of a bidirectional relationship for some conditions. The interpretation of these findings by Dietitians of Canada in their recent Position Statement and Recommendations – Addressing Household Food Insecurity in Canada will also be shared as a platform for policy and practice recommendations.

Presenters:
Valerie Tarasuk, PhD, Professor, University of Toronto and PROOF principal investigator
Lynn McIntyre, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, FCAHS, Professor Emerita, University of Calgary and PROOF investigator
Pat Vanderkooy, MSc, RD, Public Affairs Manager, Dietitians of Canada

New Research & Factsheet: Food Procurement, Food Skills & Food Insecurity

PROOF has recently published a new study in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, looking at the extent that food skills and garden use relate to household food insecurity in Canada. This new PROOF factsheet summarizes some of the findings from this study.

Listen to PROOF Principal Investigator, Valerie Tarasuk, discuss the findings and importance of this research.(5 minutes) [Download MP3]

For more information about this research, please see: Huisken, A., Orr, S. K., & Tarasuk, V. (2017). Adults’ food skills and use of gardens are not associated with household food insecurity in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 107(6), e526-e532. [Abstract]

To see our other factsheets on food insecurity in Canada, visit http://proof.utoronto.ca/resources/fact-sheets.

Download Factsheet: [PDF] [PNG]

Click to download PDF
Fact Sheet: Food Procurement, Food Skills & Food Insecurity

Upcoming: Food Banks? A Panel Discussion – Toronto, Ontario (April 6, 2017)

Banner: Food Banks. What do they do now? What can they do in the near future? What can’t they do? What can we do?


UPDATE: The panel discussion will now also be livestreamed at: https://ryecast.ryerson.ca/78/live/1601.aspx, starting at 7:00pm ET. A recording of the event will also be available afterwards.


Thursday, April 6, 2017
6:30 PM to 9:00 PM
Ryerson University, 80 Gould Street, Rogers Communications Centre, RCC204

Join as a panel of outstanding experts and activists talk through the complex pros, cons, and to-dos of food banks. All points of view welcomed and respected.

Welcome by:
Fiona Yeudall, Director, Ryerson Centre for Studies in Food Security

Chaired by:
Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, Toronto Board of Health

With guest panelists:
Andy Fisher, Author of the controversial new book from MIT Press: Big Hunger: The Unholy Alliance between Corporate America and Anti-Hunger Groups. Available April 21, 2017. Pre-order the book now from Amazon.ca
Valerie Tarasuk, Professor, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Principal Investigator, PROOF
Cecilia Rocha, Director, Ryerson School of Nutrition
Ryan Noble, Executive Director, North York Harvest Food Bank
Merryn Maynard, Program Coordinator, Meal Exchange

Closing Remarks by:
Melana Roberts, Chair, Toronto Youth Food Policy Council

Hosted by:
Ryerson University’s School Of Nutrition and Centre For Studies in Food Security
Endorsed by:
New College Global Food Equity Initiative, North York Harvest Food Bank, Toronto Food Policy Council, Toronto Youth Food Policy Council, Stop Community Food Centre

Poster: Food Banks. What do they do now? What can they do in the near future? What can’t they do? What can we do?

Upcoming webinar – Food Insecurity Measurement in Canada: Interpreting the Statistics (Feb 8/17 1:00-2:30 EST)

Upcoming webinar - Food Insecurity Measurement in Canada: Interpreting the Statistics (Feb 8/17 1:00-2:30 EST)

On February 8, 2017 from 1:00 – 2:30 pm EST, PROOF is co-hosting a webinar with Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada (CDPAC) on food insecurity measurement and statistics. For more information and to register, please visit: http://www.cdpac.ca/content.php?doc=369. A recording of the webinar will be available afterwards.

Food Insecurity Measurement in Canada: Interpreting the Statistics

Food insecurity – the inadequate or insecure access to food due to financial constraints – is increasingly recognized as a serious public health problem. Since 2005, household food insecurity has been systematically monitored in Canada through the Canadian Community Health Survey run by Statistics Canada.

The growing use of these data by public health, community agencies, research centres, and social policy groups has been critical in building awareness and understanding of the problem of food insecurity. However, inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the reporting of data on food insecurity mask the scale and severity of this problem. The accurate and effective use of Canada’s monitoring data hinges on a clear understanding of what exactly is being measured on the Canadian Community Health Survey, what it means, and how to interpret the food insecurity statistics available on Statistics Canada’s website (CANSIM). Anyone interested in using food insecurity statistics or learning about how food insecurity is monitored in Canada is encouraged to join.

Presenters:
Valerie Tarasuk, PhD – Professor at University of Toronto and principal investigator of PROOF
Suzanne Galesloot, MSA, RD – Public Health Nutrition Provincial Lead at Alberta Health Services
Tracy Woloshyn, RD – Public Health Nutritionist at York Region Public Health

Basic Income Can Reduce Food Insecurity and Improve Health

This article was originally published in the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine News and the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health News November 16, 2016.


By: Jim Oldfield, Writer, Office of Communications, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto

Advancing Food Insecurity Research in Canada conference logoOntario plans to roll out a pilot project on guaranteed annual income early next year. The goal of the project, according a recent report by former senator and current master of Massey College Hugh Segal, is to test whether a basic income can produce better outcomes for recipients and lower costs for government than the province’s current mix of social programs.

Two of the pilot’s key measures will be health and health care costs, and Segal’s report ties both to the growing problem of food insecurity, among other factors. Professor Valerie Tarasuk was one of many experts Segal consulted for his report. She is a professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Department of Nutritional Sciences, and she has studied food insecurity for over 20 years.

Ahead of this week’s food insecurity conference at U of T, Tarasuk spoke with Faculty of Medicine writer Jim Oldfield about Segal’s report, the devastating effects of food insecurity and how quickly a guaranteed income can make a difference for people who need it.

What was your reaction when you read Segal’s report?
One of the really wonderful things about Hugh’s report is that it names food insecurity as an outcome to look at. That’s fantastic, because research by us and others shows that low income means a greater probability of food insecurity. Moreover, the more extreme the food insecurity, the more toxic it is for health. So by the time a person is living with severe food insecurity they’re burning up well over double the health care dollars of the rest of us. Food security is absolutely intertwined with income, and both are very tightly tied to health care spending. There are four million people in this country living with some form of food insecurity; it’s a major public health problem, so I’m very glad it gets attention in this report.

How does food insecurity affect health?
Well, it’s devastating for mental health and physical health, and that’s true across the life cycle. Adults with chronic diseases like diabetes or HIV are less able to manage their conditions. They’re more prone to complications and negative outcomes, and they have higher mortality rates. Household food insecurity affects one in six Canadian children, and as result they are at much higher risk for asthma, depression and other diseases. Although we’ve only monitored food insecurity systematically in Canada for 10 years, it’s been a persistent problem much longer than that. The encouraging thing is that a lot of good evidence shows it doesn’t need to be that way.

Valerie Tarasuk

So what would a basic income do for food insecurity?
A basic income won’t let people fall below a certain income level, and it very effectively limits food insecurity. The connection on that is very strong. Studies have also shown that improving incomes produces very definite changes in food security over a short period of time. In Newfoundland and Labrador, food insecurity among social assistance recipients dropped by almost half over five years, starting within a year of increases to income supports. Our group PROOF recently found that food insecurity went from 40 to 16 per cent among low-income adults who became eligible for old-age security at 65. So a secure and decent income can largely cut off food insecurity — and to a degree that increases in minimum wage, subsidized housing or small increases to welfare payments don’t do.

What are the arguments against basic income?
There are two big criticisms of basic income. One is that we can’t afford it, and the other is that it creates a disincentive to work. Yes, it will cost money, but it’s important for Ontarians to get their heads around the trade-offs. Given the effects of food insecurity on health, I think we can’t afford not to do it. That said, we need more data on exactly how a basic income can reduce health-care and administrative social assistance costs, whether it limits encounters with the justice system and how it affects kids’ performance in school, among other things. Hopefully the pilot will answer some of those questions. As for the disincentive to work, that’s debatable. But it’s important to know that over half of families living with food insecurity in Ontario have jobs — the problem is with the quality and security of their employment and income. We have an opportunity in Ontario to make an important choice on the issue of basic income, and I hope the debate on it over the next few weeks reflects a true understanding of its costs and benefits.

Food Insecurity in Poor Canadian Seniors is Greatly Reduced when Guaranteed Annual Income Kicks in

In a new PROOF research article published in Canadian Public Policy, Lynn McIntyre, Daniel Dutton, Cynthia Kwok, and Herb Emery show that guaranteed annual income is effective in decreasing food insecurity among low income seniors in Canada. Learn more in the press release below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Food Insecurity in Poor Canadian Seniors is Greatly Reduced when Guaranteed Annual Income Kicks in

Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement identified as a key driver of substantial decreases in food insecurity among the poorest seniors in Canada.

Canadian Public Policy cover

The low prevalence of poverty among Canadian seniors has been attributed to a guaranteed annual income: the Old Age Security program and its supplement for those with low incomes. One measure of extreme poverty is food insecurity. This study authored by Lynn McIntyre, Daniel Dutton, Cynthia Kwok, and Herb Emery, shows that guaranteed annual income is effective in decreasing food insecurity among low income seniors in Canada. Turning 65 and being eligible for this funding is associated with, on average, a 15 percentage point drop in food insecurity compared to baseline.

The authors use seven years of national-level data from the Canadian Community Health Survey to examine food insecurity prevalence among those aged 55 to 74. Focusing on low income single-person households (<$20K / year) reflected a statistically significant drop in those who were food insecure after the age of 65, coupled with a shift in source of income from wages or from conditional public assistance (e.g., workers’ compensation or welfare) to public pensions. As a result, the prevalence of food insecurity was cut nearly in half. This effect was most beneficial for those with low income and low wealth, indicated by not owning a home.

Low income home owners continued to experience low food insecurity levels throughout the observation period, which is intuitive since they could absorb short term shocks to their household budget by borrowing. In contrast, low income renters seemed to have the greatest benefits from the guaranteed annual income and approaching the level of home owners. Since this analysis was limited to those earning <$20K / year, these decreases in food insecurity are determined not only by the amount of money individuals receive but also the stability of the funding; none of the individuals in this study were significantly enriched by this policy yet the drop in food insecurity was sizable.

Food insecurity leads to higher health care costs and utilization, over and above regular poverty indicators. This study demonstrates that even small amounts of guaranteed annual income can have a potentially important impact on poverty and, in turn, costs borne by the rest of society. The current Liberal federal government overturned a policy change instated by the previous government changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67. The issue remains as to whether using an age-based demogrant is appropriate, and future work could identify alternative funding models that address poverty before individuals are eligible for Old Age Security.

Daniel J. Dutton is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Lethbridge’s Prentice Institute for Global Population and Economy. His training is in population health and economics and he has a special interest in how policy can change population-level health outcomes. In the past he worked for the Ontario Ministry of Finance before moving to Alberta for his Ph.D.

“Reduction of Food Insecurity among Low-Income Canadian Seniors as a Likely Impact of a Guaranteed Annual Income” by Lynn McIntyre, Daniel J. Dutton, Cynthia Kwok, and J.C. Herbert Emery is available online, open access, for a limited time: http://bit.ly/CPP423d.

###

[PDF version of Press Release] This press release originally released by University of Toronto Press.

Media Contacts:

Daniel Dutton
Post-Doctoral Fellow
University of Lethbridge
daniel.dutton@uleth.ca
http://www.uleth.ca/communications
https://twitter.com/ulethbridge

Lauren Naus
Marketing Specialist
University of Toronto Press
lnaus@utpress.utoronto.ca
www.utpjournals.press/loi/cpp
www.twitter.com/utpjournals

University of Lethbridge Logo University of Calgary Logo University of Toronto Press Journals Logo

New Publication: Legislation Debated as Responses to Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 1995–2012

Legislation Debated as Responses to Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 1995–2012
McIntyre L, Lukic R, Patterson P, Anderson L, Mah C (2016)
Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Published online
[Abstract]

This study reviewed Hansard records for 4 jurisdictions – British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and the federal government – between 1995-2012 to examine the policy proposals put forth to address household food insecurity and how they were debated in legislation. Although legislators debated a variety of policy actions and acknowledged that inadequate income causes food insecurity, legislative proposals and tabled bills primarily focused on food-based charity responses, contributing to the validation of food banks as a policy response.

Of the 4 bills that received royal assent during the studied time period, only one had the explicit intent to address food insecurity – a bill to reduce the liability for unknowingly harmful food donations in British Columbia. 2 assented bills in British Columbia and Nova Scotia focused public health and health promotion and were criticized by some members for not addressing underlying issues to health, like food insecurity. An assented bill to regulate food labeling in Ontario schools received similar criticism for failing to address the component of poverty when discussing children’s health. At the federal level, no legislation intended to directly address food insecurity or contribute to its reduction was tabled.

Despite a growing literature on the the downloading of the responsibility for food insecurity from the public to the charitable sector, and an awareness among legislators that inadequate incomes causes food insecurity, little has been done to address this issue through income-based policies.

Monitoring Food Insecurity around the World and in Canada

UN FAO Voices of the Hungry reportThe United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently released food insecurity rates for 146 countries as part of their Voices of the Hungry project. The data were collected through the inclusion of their new Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey on the 2014 Gallup World Poll, producing the first set of comparable, nationally representative data on food insecurity around the world. The FAO estimate puts the prevalence of food insecurity in Canada at 8.0% in 2014. For other high-income countries like the United States, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Sweden, the rates were 10.2%, 10.1%, 10.6%, 6.9%, 4.3%, and 3.1% respectively.

While the FAO estimates provide valuable insight into how the prevalence of food insecurity differs across countries, there are some important differences between the FAO’s estimate of food insecurity in Canada and the estimates that PROOF has been reporting, drawing on data from Statistics Canada’s Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS).

Statistics Canada has been monitoring food insecurity since 2005 through the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM). It is administered on the CCHS, which surveys a nationally-representative sample of about 60,000 individuals each year. Whereas the Gallup World Poll collected data on food insecurity in high income countries like Canada using phone interviews with samples of approximately 1000 individuals selected from random digit dialing or national lists, Statistics Canada uses the more complex method of multi-stage probability sampling to create a sample representative at the provincial, territorial, and national levels. The large, population-representative samples in CCHS provide reliable annual data on food insecurity in Canada. The data has enabled researchers to chart changes in rates over time, identify population subgroups at particular risk of food insecurity, and examine the underlying causes and health implications of household food insecurity.

The HFSSM consists of 18 questions on experiences of food insecurity in a household over the previous 12 months, ranging from worrying about running out of food to going whole days without eating. These questions distinguish between the experiences of adults and those of children. Depending on the number of affirmative responses, households are classified as food secure or marginally, moderately, or severely food insecure. The FIES has 8 similar questions, but in order for it to be included on the 2014 Gallup World Poll, the questions referred specifically to the individual respondent’s experience of food insecurity over the previous 12 months, and only adults were surveyed. So, the FAO’s estimates of food insecurity are based solely on data about adults’ experiences.

Although the determination of food insecurity, whether assessed using the FIES and HFSSM, is based on the number of affirmative responses, calculation of the food insecurity prevalence rates that appear in the FAO report was more complicated. Rather than applying a discrete classification scheme for food security based on raw scores from the survey, the analysts calibrated individual measures to a global reference scale to allow for comparisons between countries. The FAO prevalence estimates are roughly comparable to the prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity as these terms have been defined by Health Canada, but they are by no means identical.

Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2014The food insecurity prevalence estimate presented for Canada in the Voices of the Hungry report cannot be compared to the estimates in our report, Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2014, because we do not have national data on food insecurity for 2014 in CCHS. The HFSSM was not mandatory in 2013 and 2014, and Yukon, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador chose not to measure food insecurity those years. The most recent national estimate derived from CCHS data is from 2012 when 8.6% of Canadian households were moderately or severely food insecure. However, a more comprehensive estimate of household food insecurity in Canada for 2012 is the national prevalence of 12.6%, which includes marginally food insecure households.

In sum, while the FAO’s Voices of the Hungry project is a valuable first step in generating information on food insecurity across a broad spectrum of countries that do not routinely monitor this problem, the estimate of food insecurity for Canada that comes from this survey should not be considered interchangeable with the estimates PROOF is deriving from CCHS data. The food insecurity estimates from CCHS are based on much larger, more representative samples, using a more comprehensive assessment of food insecurity in the household. Moreover, with CCHS, we are able to assess not only the prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in Canada, but also the prevalence of marginal food insecurity. This is important given research demonstrating the increased vulnerability of people in marginally food insecure households to poor health. Thus while the FAO results provide a snapshot of where Canada sits in relation to other high income countries, the food insecurity data from CCHS are much better suited to ongoing monitoring and research to understand the causes and consequences of food insecurity in Canada.

More information:

Voices of the Hungry website

Methods for estimating comparable prevalence rates of food insecurity experienced by adults throughout the world (PDF)

Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2014 (PDF)

Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2012 (PDF)

Video: The full story of Food (In)security – Valerie Tarasuk’s presentation at Closing the Gap

Upstream‘s conference, Closing the Gap: Action for Health Equity, brought together Canada’s social determinants of health leaders and decision makers to discuss how we can equitably improve the social conditions that determine good health.

At Closing the Gap, PROOF Principal Investigator Valerie Tarasuk presented on food insecurity in Canada and what we’ve learned from over a decade of monitoring and research.