On behalf of Sudbury ’s Do the Math Challenge Organizing Committee I would like to thank you for joining us today to raise awareness of the short falls of Ontario ’s social assistance program. The committee is made up of a group of Sudburians who recognize the reality of food insecurity in our community and are committed to do what we can to ensure that sufficient, healthy food is available to all. The committee is a true representation of our community, including individuals who are receiving social assistance, those with low-income occupations, and others who, while this is not currently a personal struggle, see the effects of inadequate income and lack of food where they work, at leisure activities and in their own neighbourhoods. The committee members have either experienced food insecurity or know that through only a few unfortunate events we, too, could be faced with the question, “Do we have enough food for our family today?” The goal of this committee is to eliminate hunger and achieve food security in Sudbury.
Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food. Food security exists when people are able to meet their dietary needs and satisfy their food preferences for an active and healthy life1. Food security exists when people are able to access to food in a manner that preserves human dignity. Food security exists when food is produced in a manner that preserves the environment as well as the income and dignity of farm workers.
However, the Do the Math Challenge aims to raise awareness that many Canadians do not experience food security but rather its opposite: food insecurity. While Canada remains one of the world’s most prosperous countries, its unequal distribution of wealth remains a significant issue2. In Canada , food insecurity is not defined by the scarcity of food but by the barriers which limit accessibility to food. While there is no scarcity of healthy food in Canada —there’s plenty of food to go around—access to this healthy food remains inequitable. Poverty is one of the major factors limiting many Canadians’—and Sudburians’—access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food and Canadians experience food insecurity and at varying degrees of severity. For example, some households may eat less at times when money is scarce. Others may purchase less healthy foods because those foods are cheaper. Parents may decide to go hungry so that their children will not. And, in the worst case scenario, food insecurity does make children go hungry.
Approximately 10% of Canadian households were identified in 2004 as experiencing either moderate or severe income-related food insecurity3. Households with social assistance as their main source of income were at an even higher risk. With limited income and facing high housing, health and child-care costs, some Canadian families find they have little money left to buy food.
In Sudbury , food is expensive. According to the Sudbury and District Health Unit’s 2009 Nutritious Food Basket, a monthly basket of basic, healthy food costs a single person household $272. Given that such a household receives $592.00 a month from Ontario Works, that household will only have $320 remaining to pay for rent, utilities, and other necessities.
Children find themselves in a similar position. A basket of basic, healthy food costs a single-parent, two-child household $774. Such a family receives $1682.00 a month from Ontario Works. After feeding themselves, the family is left with just over $900 a month for rent, utilities, school supplies, and other necessities.
Of course, Sudbury ’s harsh winters make housing, clothing and transportation a priority. Food purchases often are reduced, as if they were a luxury one could do without. But healthy eating is not a luxury. I think we can all agree that it is a basic human right.
Sudbury’s emergency food providers such as food banks, soup kitchens and other free meal programs are essential in limiting the hunger that these families face. These food providers are being turned to at an increasing—and increasingly alarming—rate. For example, HungerCount 2009, a report by Food Banks Canada, indicates that food bank use in Ontario increased by 19% between March 2008 and March 2009. In March 2009 alone, Ontario food banks assisted 374, 230 individuals of which 43% received social assistance as their primary income. Most disturbingly, 38%--that is, 142,207—were children. With the increased need, food banks are struggling to keep up.
There are numerous negative consequences of food insecurity. Individuals in food insecure households are more likely to experience poor health4. Diabetes, obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and depression—food insecure individuals are more likely to suffer from these. Healthy food is essential to lowering the risk of chronic disease and illness. The reduction of food insecurity in Ontario through increasing food allowances to those on social assistance would likely be cost effective as it would result in a healthier population, lightening the load on—and the costs of—the health care system.
Food insecure individuals, including children, not only experience physical and mental health disease but also education difficulties and social isolation. Food insecurity compromises the ability to learn and development of social skills5. Even if a child does not experience hunger, experiencing food insecurity—that is, eating less than one would normally choose or eating less nutritious foods—can limit that child’s learning potential. More than this, a child’s food insecurity poses a risk factor for that child’s mental well-being6. As if this were not enough, childhood behaviours such as aggression, depression, inattention or hyperactivity have been shown to increase with increasing food insecurity7. These challenges can contribute to decreased success in school and future work, demonstrating that food insecurity can contribute to another generation in poverty8.
For many, food insecurity is experienced privately as a secret struggle to maintain the health and dignity of their family. Yet food insecurity should not be an individual’s or a family’s struggle. Rather, secure access to healthy food is a basic human right. As such, it is the responsibility of our community, our society and our government to safeguard our citizens from hunger. The human right to secure access to healthy food is a priority that should rank above the rights of corporations, trade deals and markets. Together Sudburians can work together to develop a healthy community with members with the means to share together in making our city a better place to live.
The aim of the Do the Math Challenge Organizing Committee and the Challenge participants is to raise awareness of food insecurity in our community. The participants do not claim that we will know what it feels like to be live with the reality of food insecurity but rather we wish to bring this issue into the open where it can be recognized and a discussion about potential solutions can become a priority. We invite the community to share with us in this experience through the blogs and public forums. While food insecurity is a complex problem, we can take steps to reduce and eliminate it. In a country as prosperous as ours, there is no place for food insecurity or hunger and we believe that we can achieve zero hunger in Sudbury , Ontario and even across Canada . We believe that Sudburians agree with us – we just need to make our voices heard. There are opportunities to bring long-term solutions to our communities. As a start, we need to show support for the Put Food In the Budget Campaign. Please join us in asking the Ontario government to introduce a $100 Healthy Food Supplement for all adults on social assistance.
1. World Food Summit – 1996 – internationally accepted definition of food security, adopted in the Canadian Action Plan for Food Security, 1998.
2. HungerCount 2010 – Despite its prosperity, Canada has the 19th highest rate of poverty out of 29 countries with similar economies.
3. 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey.
4. Vozoris and Tarasuk, 2003
5. Jyoti et al. 2005
6. Slopen et al. 2010
7. Whitaker et al. 2006
8. Chilton et al 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.