1

Calgary Poverty Reduction Initiative

FOOD DIGNITY CONSTELLATION

Final Report

March 2013

2

“The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement”.

– Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comment 12

3

Introduction Food is complex. Coded deeply in our relationships and activities as human beings, we have hunted, gathered and cooperated for it for millennium; we sit around tables with people we care about and share it; we are addicted to the food channels on TV and the sensual delights of watching food cooking and consumed in slow motion. We identify ourselves as “foodies”, or we pay other people to prepare it for us. We seek out exotic new tastes and combinations; novelties from different cultures. Who hasn’t heard about it as a metaphor for the attainment of higher values and enlightenment by faith traditions, after all? As well, there are many tensions surrounding food: poor quality, high quality, animal, vegetable, climate change, legalities…all making food and its production one of the most highly commodified and hotly contested topics in Calgary households. It is used to punish or reward naughty children; to coerce people; to placate people. We waste it in astonishing amounts. We can be allergic to

Lack of quality food is the litmus test for poverty and indicates the absence of food dignity.

Our need for food is intertwined with the other necessities of life: shelter, clothing, safe drinking water, physical security.

It is the recommendation of the CPRI Food Dignity Constellation that food dignity must be omnipresent in any action on poverty and just,

sustainable food systems.

4

it. It is dependent on conditions (the weather; growing zones) beyond our control, yet closely tied to conditions that are within our control (water use; land use). We weep over commercials showing starving children across the globe, yet fly it up in huge quantities that are invisibly subsidized by Canadian taxpayers. We fancy ourselves having the time and resources to grow it easily in our backyards, and then discover that Calgary’s growing season isn’t like California, or Ontario, or British Columbia. Yet one concept takes food out of all the above contexts—away from the analogies and the romance and the debates—the stark reality is that you will get very sick and eventually die if you can’t get it. In other words, one never knows its intrinsic value until one goes hungry. Food System vs. Food Security A Food System (food production, processing, distribution, access, preparation, consumption and food waste recovery) is inherently linked to Food Security. One of the key commonalities is access. In a food systems point-of-view, access is linked to production and consumption, land-use planning, transportation and logistics, environmental considerations, community and educational programming, etc. In a food security point-of-view, access is physical (if you can’t get to it, it might as well not exist), financial (if you can’t afford it, it may as well not exist) and psychological (if you must balance it with other competing basic needs, you will go hungry first—all of which can cause stress, anxiety and illness). Ensuring financial and physical access to quality food is crucial in any efforts to improve food security and thereby any actions to eliminate poverty. Combining the Efforts of Poverty Reduction and Sustainability In May 2012, The City of Calgary’s Office of Sustainability (OOS) developed a “Calgary Food System Assessment & Action Plan”. This was a response to the momentum built by many years of community-level initiatives and grassroots movements, demanding that food security and sustainable food systems be part of the political agenda. The Calgary Food System Assessment & Action Plan addresses food systems broadly, and food security as one component. As a result, the OOS informally asked the Calgary Poverty Reduction Initiative (CPRI) to champion the food security component, in respect for each other’s mandate. This way, the two streams could complement one another in effectively and efficiently realizing action plans through which all Calgarians benefit. The considerable groundswell of interest in food in recent years—in urban food production, in sharing economies, in the cultural aspects of food, in permaculture/agroecology, Calgary’s rich agricultural heritage and other sustainable approaches—tells a

5

narrative of hope and enthusiasm for a Calgary not-yet-realized. There is a clear indication that Calgarians would like to see their quality-of-life improved, and that food is a common thread in these conversations. It is an exciting time for food activists and advocates across the city. While this good news story should never be diminished, careful thought and a restructuring of the current industrial food model is required for the development of a just and sustainable food system that benefits all Calgarians. Some argue that the existence of charitable and community level food and nutrition programs do little to ameliorate the systemic conditions that are endemic to food insecurity and that large-scale structural change to policy and infrastructure will be required for deep, sustainable change (Raine, 2003; McIntyre, 2011; Wakefield, 2012). Many also argue that these community level initiatives are what builds the political will for such changes and that ways to improve household access to nutritious food (including affordability) are needed in the meantime (Baker, 2004; Glover et al., 2005, Gorton, 2010; Levkoe, 2006). Our position, as often reflected in many of these arguments, is that attention to food dignity as social justice rather than limited to simply food assistance remains of utmost importance (Hamelin et al., 2010). It is easy to resign ourselves and turn away from the overwhelming—and dare we say “negative”—aspects of food insecurity when compared to the charged, innovative and “positive” aspects of food systems. Poverty is often framed as an “us/them” situation, while sustainability is understood to embody all human beings. We would like to challenge this notion. We are all vulnerable to the disruptive events, that is, catastrophic change that comes through changes in life circumstances: job loss, illness, death of a provider, aging, getting divorced, amassing too much household debt, etc. An effective poverty reduction strategy is one that will support all Calgarians, and prevent these disruptive events from propelling someone into poverty. Maintaining dignified food access is essential to the maintenance of resilience and wellbeing.

Finding Common Ground

A desired outcome for Calgary is within reach, where food dignity and sustainable food systems are actualized. Calgary, in 2013, could be daring and forward-looking, ready to face any challenge and be a city where there is “enough for all”. The Food Dignity Constellation believes that this is the time to challenge existing assumptions and find common ground to benefit all Calgarians. This final report of the Food Dignity Constellation of the CPRI looks at access, as a means to this end. In the writing of it, we aim to ensure that this important thread of the conversation remains an integral piece of a Poverty Reduction Strategy —the piece that

6

levels the playing field for all Calgarians and reminds us that the root of any solution pertaining to food dignity lies in its ability to be accessed by all. This report is structured around monthly discussions over a six-month period, with a roundtable of participants from municipal government, Alberta Health Services, non-profit agencies, community-builders and anti-poverty advocates and activists. The group looked at Issues, Goals and Solutions, in that order. Terms of reference included a deliberate avoidance of food-programming as an end solution, collaboration versus advocacy and ensuring that the voice of vulnerable populations that have experienced trauma because of food insecurity was never lost in the discussions.

7

CPRI Goal I: Everyone in Calgary can easily access the right

supports, services and resources. Food Dignity Recommendations:

1. All Calgarians can access high quality, nutritious food appropriate to their needs that prevents an increase in vulnerability.

2. All organizations affiliated with food and food dignity must demonstrate a comprehensive evidence based strategy that empowers people to attain food security.

3. Food must be a primary requirement for programming that seeks to alleviate poverty. It must never be

alternative, variable or adjunct to policy or initiative.

4. CPRI (or its successors) monitor and valuate service provision through a strong network that provides equal entry no matter what the poverty-advancing situation.

The goals that the Food Dignity Constellation have placed under this common CPRI Goal do not address the root causes of household food insecurity; however, they do focus on the need to understand how household food insecurity is experienced in Calgary. Food insecurity constrains food selection, acquisition and consumption, and leads to compromises being made on quality and food preferences. It is important to note that poorer quality food choices are often considered to be due to lack of knowledge, but they are more likely to be due to having to make food purchasing decisions based on price. In addition to understanding the factors affecting food choice, these goals encourage agencies and organizations to build access to healthy food into all aspects of services and resources. This type of programming goes beyond emergency food provision into

8

exploring ways in which some of the consequences of being food insecure such as alienation, monotony of diet, poor quality and lack of choice can be a lens for an inclusive approach. Finally, any clients who seek access to services based on any measures of poverty are more likely to be vulnerable to household food insecurity. Monitoring household food insecurity at a municipal level is one way in which the extent of this issue in Calgary can be understood and additional municipal level action taken.

Relevant Definitions The United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization states that “food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1996). This is a broad definition and important issues such as availability, stability of supply, accessibility, utilization, knowledge and production of safe and healthy food are included (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005). Another key definition for the Calgary Poverty Reduction Initiative is the definition of food insecurity as it relates to income-related access to food for households and individuals. This is most appropriately referred to as “household food insecurity”. Household food insecurity is what is measured on a consistent basis in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2010). It is a specific measure of “the inability to acquire or consume an adequate diet quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways, or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so based on not having enough money” (Davis and Tarasuk, 1994).

Food Security “…when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”

9

Consequences of Food Insecurity Since 2005, household food insecurity has been measured on the Canadian Community Health Survey. This survey tool measures food insecurity using a specific set of questions that ask about the food experiences in a household. The term household food insecurity is used because “hunger” in Canada is much broader than the popular image of absolute food deprivation and starvation. This is important because research shows that household food insecurity experienced at all levels or domains impacts health and well-being (Hamelin et al., 2002), as described below. The four domains of household food insecurity are:

• Psychological: worry and anxiety about whether food will last and where it will come from, • Qualitative: compromises in the quality of food choices; eating nutritionally inadequate food or meals, • Quantitative: shortage of food, experiencing hunger, going without food, having to eat less food than usual, skipping meals, • Social: obtaining of foods by socially or culturally unacceptable means.

(Hamelin et al., 2002)

The consequences of experiencing these issues may lead to: • Negative effect on physical, mental and social wellbeing • Profound lack of food choice, • Monotony of diet, • Lack of control over food situation, • Feelings of powerlessness and shame, • Inequity and frustration, • Alienation, • Reliance on energy dense foods over nutrient dense foods.

(Davis and Tarasuk, 1994; Hamelin et al., 2002)

Food security also may be affected by additional obstacles such as: • The inability to obtain the right foods for chronic health conditions, • Access to culturally appropriate food,

Household Food Insecurity “…the inability to acquire or consume an adequate diet quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways, or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so based on not having enough money.”

10

• Access to a store to purchase food (i.e. no transportation), • Lack of skills to cook and prepare food.

(Wolfe et al., 2003, Mercille et al. 2012, Wiig and Smith, 2009)

Food Insecurity in Alberta According to the most recent estimate (2009-2010), 7.2 % of Albertan households experienced food insecurity; 4.8 % experienced moderate food insecurity (compromises in quality and/or quantity of food consumed) and 2.4% experienced severe food insecurity (reported reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns such as skipping meals or going a full day without eating) (Health Canada, 2012). Food banks across Canada and in Alberta, including the Calgary Interfaith Food Bank, collect information on those who access the food bank programs for emergency food assistance. Although food bank data captures only one way in which food insecure households may cope, this data provides valuable local information. In Alberta, 53,512 people used a food bank in March 2012, 8.9 % less than in 2011 but a 59.4% increase over usage in 2008. Of those, 44% identified having children in their households and 3.0% were seniors. Approximately one-third (33.7%) reported to be receiving social assistance, 15% disability-related income support and 3.8% Employment Insurance. Those reporting job income remains a primary source of need for food bank users in Alberta, with 23.8% reporting job income (Food Banks Canada, 2012). Roughly half (51%) of food bank users in Alberta identify themselves as First Nations, Métis or Inuit (Kolkman et al., 2010). Food Insecurity in Calgary Although the Canadian Community Health Survey data is not available at the city level, in 2009, 21% of Calgarians reported that they were concerned about not having enough money for food, with 9% reporting that they were “very concerned”. At the same time, more than one-third (35%) were concerned about not eating healthy food (Signposts II: A Survey of the Social Issues and Needs of Calgarians, 2011). Household Food Security Surveys consistently show the following trends: • The lower the household income, the higher the risk of food insecurity (Statistics Canada 2010; Health Canada 2007).

11

• The source of income is also important. Households whose main source of income is government transfers (welfare/social assistance, worker’s compensation and employment insurance) have a much higher risk of food insecurity (Statistics Canada 2010; Health Canada 2007).

• Lone parent families, especially those headed by women – or single mothers – are most at risk for food insecurity (Statistics Canada 2010; Health Canada 2007).

• People who do not own a home are most at risk for food insecurity (Statistics Canada 2010; Health Canada 2007).

• Aboriginal households are most at risk for food insecurity (Statistics Canada 2010; Health Canada 2007; Willows et al., 2009; Willows et al., 2011).

Food bank surveys in Calgary also consistently reveal that: • Those reporting social assistance, disability-related income support and

employment insurance access the food bank for emergency food. • Job income is a key source of income for many who access the food bank.

Coping strategies used in food insecure families include: • At first, the quality of the diet decreases. • As scarcity increases, the quantity of food is decreased first for the mother and only in dire circumstances for the children. • Parents purchase a limited variety of foods and extend recipes with low cost ingredients. • Caregivers purchase only foods that their families like. • Families eat less preferred foods or consume socially unacceptable foods. • Families eat foods that may not be safe. • Eat fewer meals and snacks to conserve food. • Families borrow food or send children to eat at others’ homes. • Families obtain food from food banks or churches.

(Coates et al., 2006; McIntyre, 2003; Zekeri et al., 2007)

“…in 2009, 21% of Calgarians reported that they were concerned about not having enough money for food, with 9% reporting that they were ‘very concerned’. At the same time, more than one-third (35%) were concerned about not eating healthy food.”

12

CPRI Goal II: Everyone in Calgary has the income and assets needed to thrive.

Food Dignity Recommendations:

1. Ensure a living wage for all Calgarians that accounts for affording quality food in addition to meeting other basic needs (transportation, housing, energy/utility costs, childcare, etc.).

2. Immediately implement a Food Dignity Policy for the City of Calgary that functions as a lens for the development of all municipal initiatives. This is the food lens to the Triple Bottom Line Policy.

3. Preserve physical assets to avoid liquidation induced poverty, adding complexity to existing conditions for which supports are being sought.

The goals surfaced in the Food Dignity Constellation under this common CPRI Goal apply to things The City can do to apply a “food security” lens to many of their current practices, policies and initiatives. In particular, these goals could be used to expand, deepen and complement many of the pursuits of The City’s Office of Sustainability, who have made great strides in developing a food systems approach to sustainability.

It is important to note that while we were able to compile data outlining the barriers and challenges for the lowest income groups, this goal infers benefits to all Calgarians, regardless of their socio-economic status.

13

Physical Access to Healthy Food The Calgary Food System Assessment and Action Plan identified physical access to food as a concern in “specific areas of the city with either a high population and/or also a high percentage of low income households with no availability to a grocery store” (Calgary Food Committee and Serecon Management, 2012, p.129). This report identified Wards 5, 9 and 10 to be communities of particular concern as well as identifying that nearly all wards had some gaps and multiple gaps exist in the newly established developments in new communities (Calgary Food Committee and Serecon Management, 2012). Lack of retail food access is commonly thought to be a significant barrier to food security, but there has been little direct examination of this. Nevertheless, there is an interest and recommendations in numerous reports for municipal policies to support urban access to local food (Community Health and Food Access: The Local Government Role, 2006; Flournoy, 2011). These reports provide strong arguments for local governments to support policies and programs that create an environment in which all residents have access to affordable and healthy foods in their schools and communities. Examples include:

• Attracting or developing grocery stores and supermarkets; • Developing other retail markets such as farmers’ markets, public markets,

cooperatives, farmstands, community supported agriculture programs; • Increasing the stock of fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods at

neighbourhood corner stores or small groceries; • Growing food locally through backyard, front yard and community gardens and

larger-scale urban agriculture; and,

• Improving transportation to grocery stores and other community markets. (Community Health and Food Access: The Local Government Role, 2006;

Flournoy, 2011).

Household Income and Food Basic needs affordability costing is often used to assess the financial accessibility of basic needs for groups known to be at risk of poverty. Basic needs costing completed in Alberta (Alberta Community/Public Health Nutritionists Food Security Subcommittee and Dietitians of Canada, Alberta and the Territories Region ,

“…consider alleviating the pressures caused by ‘food deserts’ by creating opportunities for food to get to people, instead of the other way around.”

14

2008) and Calgary (Meeting Basic Needs in Calgary: A Closer Look at the Cost of Living for Low-Income Calgarians, 2007) demonstrate the deficit in household income to meet even a minimum list of basic living expenses of shelter (housing), power, childcare and transportation. This is supported by a significant number of published literature in Canada (Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2007; Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2011; Williams et al., 2006). Recent research on housing and food “tensions” found that two-thirds (65.5%) of families living in subsidized and market rental housing were food insecure. Not surprisingly, the lower the household income, the higher the chance that the household would be food insecure (Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2011). The cost or affordability of food is best considered within the context of these other basic costs. Since basics are usually fixed and food is the most flexible part of a household budget, it is food that is most often sacrificed to cover other essential costs. In Canada, a tool called the National Nutritious Food Basket (NNFB) has been developed to assist health jurisdictions in determining the cost of a basic nutritious diet. An Albertan adaptation of this tool is used in Calgary, and Alberta Nutritious Food Basket data is collected in Calgary every June and November. This nutritious food basket is a list of basic, minimally processed foods that are widely available and commonly eaten by most Canadians. The cost of special food considerations, such as modifications for a therapeutic diet, culturally appropriate foods or potentially higher cost local food or organic foods are not included in the calculation of the cost of a healthy, balanced diet. In June 2011 (the last data available when this report was written), the average monthly food costs for eating a healthy diet in Calgary were: • $356.75 for an adolescent male, 14 – 18 years of age • $284.06 for a pregnant woman, 19 – 30 years of age • $989.04 for a family of four comprised of a man (31 – 50 years), a woman

(31-50 years), a boy (9-13 years) and a girl (4-8 years)

Food costs continue to increase over time; the costs for a family of four in June 2011 were a 5% increase over the same period in 2010.

Food – the Big Loser against Other Basic Needs

“…consider inserting alternative economic incubators into every new program or service, to ensure there are always funds to off-set the fluctuating market prices of food.”

15

Housing costs have been found to impact the ability of households to maintain an adequate and healthy diet. Part of the discussion of this study is particularly relevant for policies and decisions impacting costs to low income citizens, as the authors note:

“the findings of this study shed light on the complexity of the relationships between income, housing and utility costs, housing affordability interventions, and food security at the household level, highlighting that it is not simply the income entering a household that influences the resources available for food but also the financial burden of non-discretionary expenses” (page 292, Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2011).

Fuel prices are an additional rising cost of living expense that can be expected to negatively impact food security status among lower income households. Gas prices in Canada have risen by 23% since September 2010. While higher gas prices will not likely have an impact on higher income earners, it may have a significant impact on middle and low-income households, as low-income households spend more than twice as much of their income on energy (Tal, 2011).

16

CPRI Goal III: All Calgary communities are strong, supportive and inclusive.

Food Dignity Recommendations: 1. Hunger coexists with poverty. Calgary must not support a culture of blame with regard to food

dignity.

2. Calgary must promote diversity in the provision of supports and development.

The goals derived here from the Food Dignity Constellation are based on evidence in support of community-building and capacity-building at a neighbourhood level to ameliorate both the stigma and isolation so often associated with poverty. As such, they align with many initiatives currently underway at The City of Calgary and The United Way of Calgary and Area around building strong neighbourhoods.

Health Outcomes

The lack of food security is a real and significant public health issue (McIntyre, 2003). Understandably, household food insecurity has been shown to affect healthy eating (McIntyre and Glanville, 2003). Population health surveys in Canada find that adults and adolescents in food-insecure households have lower intakes of milk products and fruits and vegetables and are more likely to have inadequate nutrient intakes (Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk, 2008).

Poverty and household food insecurity can lead to poorer health (PROOF, 2013). Evidence of poorer health includes mental, physical and oral health (Che and Che 2001; Vozoris and Tarasuk, 2003; Willows et al., 2011; Muirhead et al., 2009) and chronic

17

conditions such as diabetes (Gucciardi et al., 2009), heart disease (Seligman et al., 2010), and social health (Vozoris and Tarasuk, 2003). Clearly, food insecurity is a barrier to the social, cultural, and economic development of families and communities. Given the strong evidence, there is a disconnect, as pointed out by Gorton and colleauges (2010) that “in high-income countries, considerable resources are directed towards the problem of obesity and over-nutrition while many people in these countries still do not have sufficient nutritious food to eat” (Gorton et al, 2010, p.1). In Calgary communities, it is important that food programs, whether charitable programs or community-development food projects (community gardens, community kitchens) or urban agriculture, do not reinforce individualistic thinking that those accessing the programs are to blame, rather than addressing the socioeconomic policies that leave that individual, family or community without resources. It is also important to address a common misconception that a lack of food skills is a contributing factor for households experiencing food insecurity (Vanderkooy, 2009).

“…food programs alone will never be sufficient to reduce poverty because they focus on the individual before they focus on the structures that keep people poor.”

18

CPRI Goal IV: Policies and systems (private and public) enable participation in

Society. Food Dignity Recommendations:

1. Advocate for a housing and food dignity model where both are seen as essential elements for life. This includes adequate access and availability of food and income for full participation in all communities.

2. Require existing programs and initiatives (for example, but not limited to, the City of Calgary’s existing Sustainable Environmental & Ethical Procurement Policy (SEEPP and Fair Calgary) include food dignity eligibility criteria.

3. Advocate for clear and concise regulatory frameworks around food, food labeling and food waste reduction.

The communities in which we live, work and play (e.g. municipalities, neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces) have significant roles in shaping our health. The development, implementation and support of policies which increase access to healthy food choices for all citizens in our communities is an important strategy in building healthier environments for all.

Numerous reports, including “Poverty Costs: An economic case for a preventative poverty reduction strategy in Alberta”, demonstrate the benefit to all Albertans of investing in eliminating poverty verses spending to alleviate poverty (attempting to ensure that most basic needs are met)(Briggs and Lee, 2012).

19

In the case of the food discussion, current activities to alleviate inadequate household income for food include a variety of extra governmental, community-based and charitable responses such as food banks, school meal and snack programs, and community development programs (e.g. group cooking programs, community gardens, good food boxes).

Many researchers and policy analysts (Goldberg and Green, 2009; Kertsetter and Goldberg, 2007; McIntyre, 2011; Riches et al., 2002; Rideout et al., 2007) argue that people’s need for food assistance stems from the failure of our federal and provincial governments to provide adequate supports to those unable to compete in the current labour market. Consistent findings are that social policies under the jurisdiction of provincial and federal governments have a critical role in ensuring economic access to food. Dedicated social policies that provide adequate household income for food is a critical path to improving food insecurity. Neither a robust charitable food assistance response nor a dynamic local food system can compensate for fundamentally inadequate incomes.

Food as a Basic Human Right Concepts integral to “food dignity” and most commonly discussed in community food systems dialogues, are the concepts of right to food, food justice and social equity. The right to food was first recognized as a fundamental human right in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25. This article states that: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (Universal declaration of rights, 1948). Despite numerous national and international agreements since that time which promote the right to food, food security has not been achieved in Canada (Rideout et al., 2007). Rideout and colleagues (2007) present several reasons for Canada’s failure in its’ commitment to the right to food including: international and domestic disconnect, the lack of support for the right to food in Canadian case law; the breakdown of the social safety net; the institutionalization of food banks in Canadian society; and the lack of “joined-up” food and nutrition policies. The most recent criticism of Canada’s approach to upholding the human right to adequate food was from the official visit and statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food in May 2012. Key criticisms were the high rates and severity of household food insecurity and the lack of a rights-based national food strategy that clearly delineates the responsibilities of public officials at the federal, provincial/territorial and municipal/local levels (De Schutter, 2012).

20

Food Sovereignty Central to the justice concept, are the issues of inequity in the agrifood system including low wages and poor working conditions for food-system workers and an unequal distribution of resources (Allen, 2010). In this discussion, it is apparent that “cheap food” for those with limited incomes is not the desired outcome of a Calgary Poverty Reduction Initiative. Also often included in this discussion is “food sovereignty”, which is about the right of peoples to define their own food systems: “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” (Nyéléni, 2007). It is this discussion which continues to be a challenge for food system and food policy council dialogues in Calgary and across all of Canada.

While food-related community-development projects and urban agriculture should exist as food system choices, these programs cannot become a “recommendation” for those living in poverty or in essence “a two-tiered food system: a market system for those who can afford it; and a subsistence, self-sufficiency-based system for those who cannot” (Power, 2010, p.34). An additional “lens” to apply to any food programs must include what unintended burdens they may place on populations known to be at greatest risk for food insecurity: lone-parent families, particularly those headed by females, those on some form of social assistance, the working poor, and those who rent their dwelling (Statistics Canada, 2010).

There has been less research conducted to examine the relationship between household food insecurity and other social determinants such as the value derived from social connections and social networks, and neighbourhood factors (i.e. proximity to supermarkets and community food programs).

21

Conclusion It is the recommendation of the CPRI Food Dignity Constellation that food dignity must be omnipresent in any action on poverty and just, sustainable food systems. As we have shown, food dignity is critical to the health and well being of people and communities; therefore, without dignified food access populations remain vulnerable to poverty. There are many factors that must be considered to create truly accessible high quality food. Our recommendations have identified a number of ways that these considerations must be included in a strategy to eliminate poverty in Calgary.

22

References

Alberta Community/Public Health Nutritionists Food Security Subcommittee and Dietitians of Canada, Alberta and the Territories Region. Cost of eating in

Alberta.

Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 295.

Baker, L. E. (2004). Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto. Geographical Review, 94(3), 305.

Briggs, A., & Lee, C. R. (2012). Poverty costs: An economic case for a preventative poverty reduction strategy in Alberta. Calgary. Calgary: Vibrant Communities

Calgary and Action to End Poverty in Alberta.

Calgary Food Committee and Serecon Management. (2012). Calgary food system Assessment and action plan. Calgary, Alberta: The City of Calgary.

Che, J., & Chen, J. (2001). Food insecurity in Canadian households. Health Reports, 12(4), 11-22.

Coates, J., Frongillo, E. A., Rogers, B. L., Webb, P., Wilde, P. E., & Houser, R. (2006). Commonalities in the experience of household food insecurity across

cultures: What are measures missing? Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1438S.

Committee on economic, social and cultural rights, office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights, general comment 12. (2007). Retrieved

March, 2013, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

23

Community health and food access: The local government role(2006). ICMA Press.

Davis, B., & Tarasuk, V. (1994). Hunger in Canada. Agriculture and Human Rights, 11, 50.

De Schutter, O. (2012). Mandate of the special rapporteur on the right to food: Visit to Canada from 6 to 16 may 2012United Nations (UN).

Nyéléni. (2007). Declaration of Nyéléni 2007 - Forum for Food Sovereignty, Sélingué, Mali. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from

http://www.nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290.

Flournoy, R. (2011). Healthy food, healthy communities: Promising strategies to improve access to fresh, healthy food and transform communities Policy Link.

Food and Agriculture Organization. (1996). Rome declaration on world food security and world food summit plan of action. tech. rep. W3613/E, Rome, Italy:

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2005). Voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national

food security. . Rome, Italy:

Food Banks Canada. (2012). A comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada, and recommendations for change., Retrieved January 26, 2012,

from http://www.foodbankscanada.ca/

Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Studies,

27(1), 75.

24

Goldberg, M., & Green, D. A. (2009). Understanding the link between welfare policy and the use of food banks: An economic security project report. Ottawa,

Ontario: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Gorton, D., Bullen, C. R., & Mhurehu, C. N. (2010). Environmental influences on food security in high-income countries. Nutrition Reviews, 68(1), 1.

Gucciardi, E., Vogt, J. A., DeMelo, M., & Stewart, D. E. (2009). Exploration of the relationship between household food insecurity and diabetes in Canada.

Diabetes Care, 32(12), 2218.

Hamelin, A. M., Beaudry, M., & Habicht, J. P. (2002). Characterization of household food insecurity in Quebec: Food and feelings. Social Science and Medicine,

54(1), 119.

Health Canada. (2007). Canadian community health survey cycle 2.2, nutrition (2004). Income-related food insecurity in Canada. Retrieved December 15, 2012,

from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/income_food_sec-sec_alim-eng.php

Health Canada. (2012). Household food insecurity in select provinces and the territories in 2009 - 2010., Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.hc-

sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/prov_ter-eng.php

Kerstetter, S., & Goldberg, M. (2007).

A review of policy options for increasing food security and income security in British Columbia - A discussion paper . British Columbia: Provincial Health

Services Authority.

25

Kirkpatric, S. I., & Tarasuk, V. (2011). Housing circumstances are associated with household food access among low-income urban families. Journal of Urban

Health, 88(2), 284.

Kirkpatrick, S. I., & Tarasuk, V. (2007). Adequacy of food spending is related to housing expenditures among lower-income Canadian households. Public Health

Nutrition, 10(12), 1464.

Kirkpatrick, S., & Tarasuk, V. (2008). Food insecurity is associated with nutrient inadequacies among canadian adults and adolescents. Journal of Nutrition,

138(3), 604.

Kolkman, J., Ahorro, J., & Varlen, K. (2010). Time for action: Working together to end poverty in Alberta. Public Interest Alberta and Edmonton Social Planning

Council.

Levkoe, C. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1), 89.

McIntyre, L. (2003). Food security: More than a determinant of health. Policy Options, March

McIntyre, L. (2011). Food insecurity policy is not the flip side of food security policy. Policy Options, 32(7), 48.

McIntyre, L., & Glanville, T. (2003). Do low-income mothers compromise their nutrition to feed their children? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(6),

686.

Meeting basic needs in Calgary: A closer look at the cost of living for low-income Calgarians (2007). Calgary, Alberta: Poverty Reduction Coalition.

26

Mercille, G., Receveur, O., & Potvin, L. (2012). Household food insecurity and Canadian aboriginal women's self-efficacy in food preparation. Canadian Journal

of Dietetic Practice and Research, 73(3), 134.

Muirhead, V., Quinonez, C., Figueiredo, R., & Locker, D. (2009). Oral health disparities and food insecurity in working poor Canadians. Community Dentistry and

Oral Epidemiology, 37(4), 294.

Power, E. M. (2010). Combining social justice and sustainability for food security. In M. Koc, R. MacRae, L. J. A. Mougeot & J. Welsh (Eds.), Hunger proof cities:

Sustainable urban food systems (pp. 30)

PROOF. research to identify policy opportunities to reduce food insecurity. (2013). http://nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.ca/

Raine, K., McIntyre, L., & Dayle, J. B. (2003). The failure of charitable school- and community-based nutrition programs to feed hungry children. Critical Public

Health, 13(2), 155.

Riches, G. (2002). Food banks and food security: Welfare reform, human rights and social policy. lessons from canada?. Social Policy and Administration, 36(6),

648.

Rideout, K., Riches, G., Ostry, A., Buckingham, D., & MacRae, R. (2007). Bringing home the right to food in canada: Challenges and possibilities for achieving

food security. Public Health Nutrition, 10(6), 566.

Seligman, H. K., Laraia, B. A., & Kushel, M. B. (2010). Food insecurity is associated with chronic disease among low-income NHANES participants. Journal of

Nutrition, 140(2), 304.

27

Signposts II: A survey of the social issues and needs of Calgarians(2011). . Calgary, Alberta: Goss Gilroy Inc.

Statistics Canada. (2010). Household food insecurity, 2007-2008.http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2010001/article/11162-eng.htm

Tal, B. (2011) “Sucking Energy out of Households.” Consumer Watch Canada. Toronto: CIBC World Markets. Retrieved March 12, 2013 from:

http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/cw-20110411.pdf

Universal declaration of rights (1948). Geneva: United Nations (UN). Retrieved March 5, 2013 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25

Vanderkooy, P. (2009). Food skills of waterloo region adults. Waterloo, Ontario: Region of Waterloo Public Health.

Vozoris, N. T., & Tarasuk, V. S. (2003). Household food insufficiency is associated with poorer health. Jouranl of Nutrition, 133(1), 120.

Wakefield, S., Fleming, J., Klassen, C., & Skinner, A. (2012). Sweet charity, revisited: Organizational responses to food insecurity in Hamilton and Toronto,

Canada. Critical Society Policy,

Wiig, K., & Smith, C. (2009). The art of grocery shopping on a food stamp budget: Factors influencing the food choices of low-income women as they try to

make ends meet. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 726.

Wikipedia. (2012)

Williams, P. L., Johnson, C. P., Kratzmann, M. L., Johnson, C. S., Anderson, B. J., & Chenhall, C. (2006). Can households earning minimum wage in Nova Scotia

afford a nutritious diet? Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97(6), 430.

28

Willows, N., Veugelers, P., Raine, K., & Kuhle, S. (2009). Prevalence and sociodemographic risk factors related to household food security in aboriginal peoples

in Canada. Public Health Nutrition, 12(8), 1150.

Willows, N., Veugelers, P., Raine, K., & Kuhle, S. (2011). Associations between household food insecurity and health outcomes in the aboriginal population

(excluding reserves). Health Reports, 22(2), 15.

Wolfe, W. S., Frongillo, E. A., & Valois, P. (2003). Understanding the experience of food insecurity by elders. Journal of Nutrition, 133(9), 2762.

Zekeri, A. A. (2007). Livelihood strategies of food-insecure poor, female-headed families in rural alabama. Psychological Reports, 101(3 Pt 2), 1031.

29

Appendix A: Food Issues Summary

30

Appendix B: Alignment between the Office of Sustainability and the Calgary Poverty Reduction Initiative