3 min read
Written by Marc Xuereb
The article below is from the Summer 2011 newsletter of Put Food in the Budget. To view the entire special issue newsletter dedicated to this issue, see http://putfoodinthebudget.ca/eNews/backgrounder_final.pdf.
The Put Food in the Budget campaign recognizes that Campbell Canada has developed Nourish as a nutritional food product.
Food banks may welcome the Nourish food product as they welcome all donations. Our major concerns are as follows.
Campbell’s claim that Nourish can make a ‘serious dent in hunger’. Campbell’s established an initial donation goal of 200,000 cans of Nourish for all of Canada. 850,000 people use food banks in Canada every month, 400,000 of those in Ontario. 200,000 cans will not be enough for even one meal in a month for every person in Ontario who goes to food banks. We are not aware of the ultimate donations goal of the Nourish campaign.
Given the number of people who go to food banks in Ontario every month we believe an ‘impossible’ level of public donation of Nourish food products is required to make a ‘serious dent in hunger’.
Dignity is the missing ingredient in Campbell’s Nourish food product. Campbell’s claim that Nourish is a ‘complete meal in a can’ creates the false impression that it is an adequate substitute for fresh whole foods. It also introduces the idea that ‘special’ food can be developed for people with low incomes. This adds further to the social exclusion experienced by people with low incomes. Nourish may be a good food product for humanitarian disasters where normal food distribution is temporarily disrupted.
But it is neither a substitute for fresh whole foods, or for the dignity of preparing the food of your own choice. Campbell’s intention to donate Nourish to food banks is positive. We question however the relative effectiveness of asking the public to pay for donations of Nourish in contrast with other strategies. We have done a calculation (see back page) that shows that each taxpayer in Ontario paying a monthly amount in taxes equal to purchasing 2 cans of Nourish per month, and re-distributing the additional tax revenue to people who use food banks would provide food for more meals and allow greater choice than the purchase of Nourish.
Finally we are concerned that Campbell’s marketing of Nourish may unintentionally contribute to ‘rebranding’ poverty as hunger in the eyes of the public. The major reason people go to food banks is because they have little or no money left after paying rent. People on social assistance and people in low wage jobs go to food banks — so either their social assistance or their wage is inadequate to pay for rent and food. The Nourish campaign may give the mistaken impression that public donations to food banks is ‘enough’.
The Put Food in the Budget campaign believes the ‘hunger’ problem is an income/poverty problem, not a food supply problem, and that there is a broad collective responsibility to reduce poverty through adequate incomes, not only through personal charity.