guaranteed annual food

i really like the idea of locally grown and healthy.i watch the little old guys'n gals in the DTES wither away to  nothing. men and women getting liver cancer from constantly eating bad food.

at one point, one of the bar restaurants had switched out real potatoes for powdered because the cook was lazy and didn't want to peel them....you could see peoples skin colour change, they looked grey...

i am lucky, my partner is a butcher and we eat canadian grown and well.i would so be in support of measures to improve quality of food and food for all.

I'm not against the idea of locally grown food but I think that there are short falls that need to be addressed and I'm still not seeing how it fits in to the access to food debate.

Merely creating more local agriculture operations on a large scale is exceptionally wasteful unless it's part of a comprehensive plan to transition the agriculture industry.  Canada already produces plenty of food, so much so that it's among the world's leading exporters of a number of agricultural products.  Food is already being produced, edible healthy food.  You may consider that growing locally is more environmentally friendly but that's only if the increase in local production is met by a decrease in conventional production.  Otherwise it's using more resources to produce something we already have and creating a greater environmental burden.

And it still begs the question of how this creates better access to food, we already have plently but people still go with out.  Money or food cards still seem to be the most sensible way to go to ensure that those who have difficulty accessing the abundance of food that is available may better do so.  I could be wrong but I would imagine that most low income people it is lack of money that keeps them from getting the food they need.

Out of curiousity how would the co-op model work?  I could see some low income people benefiting from it but I also imagine that for others it would still be quite inaccessible.

I'm not saying export is bad, but I'm saying that it demonstrates excatly what you say production beyond our capcity to consume.  I'm not sure that increased production is a solution to hunger when we already produce so much.

You'll have to forgive me for being vague because it's been a few years since I've looked at the numbers (I can try to track them down later if you wish).  If I recall correctly Canada is among the world leaders for exporting wheat and selected live stock products.  A healthy diet also requires fruits and vegtables, I'm hard pressed to believe that there's a shortage of either but I'll see what data I can find over the weekend.

I seem to have boxed myself into a corner invoking trade the way that I did, but with my research background in school it's where my head went first.  But if Canada's climate is more suited to vegetables than fruit it's likely even with more localised production there would be some need to import from those south of us.  It still doesn't change my unlying arguement that without a comprehensive approach to adapting the agriculture industry we're simply creating redundant supply by encouraging local production and ignoring conventional agriculture.  It is somewhat complicated now by the fact that it would require international coordination to accomplish anything but that's a reality that needs to be addressed.

With respect to the handle it's nothing so sinister, just my first initial and the first three letters of my last name.  Although considering the possible word associations maybe it's troubling that that is where I gravitated.  Although on another forum where I use the same handle it was commented that it made one person think of pesto.  It is what you make of it I suppose.

Actually I had a few minutes free so I looked it up quickly, seems I may have been wrong to about our production capicity.  Seems Canada produced enough for 218.77 grams or 7.72 ounces of vegetables per person per day and 61 grams or 2.15 ounces of fruit per person per day in 2007.  Trends seem to suggest that in may have been an off few years for fruit production or that Canada may be scaling back it's capicity.  This is according to statistics from Stastistics Canada and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.  Anyone have any idea about what the recommended guide lines for consumptions are?

Concerns regarding redundant supply still stand considering our ability to import.

ETA: Thanks Heywood.  Glad you appreciate my words.  Also thankful to you for pointing out the weaknesses in my presentation.  I tend to make more sense when given the proper checks.

Pineapples  (bromeliads) we can grow indoors/ in a green house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineapples

But OMG loss of fruit trees in Golden Horseshoe...

http://people.becon.org/~pals/

Perfect. So don't eat my potatoes, unless I chose to sell them to you.

I had an illuminating discussion one time with a manager at the London Food Bank.  Her husband is also known as the only Federal Liberal left in my part of SouthWestern Ontario.

"Why don't food banks try and connect with local farmers?"

"I've never thought of that."

The conversation was quite a bit more detailed than that but the end result is the same: there is no infrastructure in place to process or deliver locally grown food locally. 

There are a lot of vegetables that can be grown and stored for long periods of time.  We grow a variety of cabbage that stays "fresh" for over six months.  Same for carrots, squash, turnips, onions, garlic, etc.  If you stroll through even a big box store these food items are cheap and often Canadian or Ontario grown.  I don't see a lot of overarching consumer interest in this food. 

So while I'm supportive of the idea behind helping low income people buy food... it's not just as easy as e-vouchers vs paper.  The political and business interests in the food industry are numerous and deeply entrenched, and that's why logical ideas like helping people buy food that's cheap to grow and transport and process - supplying farmers with a steady market and local people with jobs in the food sector beyond handing someone another cup of Tim's and a breakfast burrito through a drive through window - is more of a fantasy than a reality. 

Heywood... fruit can be grown in Ontario beyond Niagara.  The entire north shore of Lake Erie from Niagara to Windsor could support an insane variety of soft fruit production.  Guess how many peach farmers are left in this area? 

To be honest, I'd be much more in support of an idea that creates local food processing\manufacturing.  That would create jobs, a market for farmers, and then people would have a steadier income with which to whet their own appetites.  But competing in an overall food marketplace that rewards salt\suger\fat\cheap imports is extremely difficult. 

I suggest people begin asking food related questions of their provincial and federal representatives, and especially the departments of agriculture, which are tasked with answering these questions or finding routes through the food maze.  Maybe you'll have better luck discerning what those useless bureaucratic assholes are doing on the public dole in the interests of the public's food.

How come Britain has as a policy that all school kids will have access to two pieces of hard fruit a day (think apples)?  That's a government program.  Ontario tries this in places, I believe, but it's certainly not widely adapted.  Perhaps our Premier doesn't know there are apple orchards in Ontario.   

Farmpunk, I'm a bit unclear on your post.  Are you suggesting that the manufacturers of junk food would be displeased with the government providing money for people to purchase healthy food? Or are you alluding to a different party? 

Ward wrote:

So the synthesis will be the "ration card" to buy the good things that growooo in Ontario.

No.  People fortunate enough to have sufficient income can buy imported foods while those that require assistance are restricted to local produce.  That's unnesscessarily restrictive and quite unfair.

Tigana brings up a rather interesting point with green house pineapples.  We could feasibly grow more fruit in Canada, however given the current economy it's seems to be much cheaper to grow them else where and import them here.  This is probably largely due to the degree that oil is subsidised (or insufficiently taxed, I'm not sure which) in North America.  If the cost of oil were more reflective of the social impact of processing and consuming it then it may indeed be more cost effective to switch over to more localised food production, even for goods that don't seem to grow too well here.

Of course ultimately that would result in a higher cost of food which would mean ensuring fair access to food is very important to consider before advocating for a localised food supply.

No that helps a lot.  My second question was just asking if there was any one other than junk food producers that might be against subsidies for healthy food.

Oh forgot a few others.  There's various community kitchen models that are geared towards lower income people.  They don't necessarily have to do with growing food but with cooking and processing food in groups in order to save money through bulk buying and dealing and preserving produce that's in season and the cheapest.  So for instance a canning group can get the equipment like jars in bulk and get the say the tomatoes in bulk when they in season and the cheapest.  Since it's down as a group every single person doesn't have to get a canner and it's shared.  These types of models also provide a social and community benefit as well and people can participate that don't have the skills to begin with.

Similar things can be done with cooking in general. Once a week people might get together and make big batches or chili or stew or whatever with each participant being able to part of it home for meals.  Community kitchen models can not only provide access to food at better prices but help people learn how to prepare and store food safely.

Thank you ElizaQ very illuminating.  I agree that a multifaceted approach works best and any improvement is better than doing nothing but considerations still need to be made for the people that continue to be missed by the various solutions proposed.

Unionist, the food insurance idea seems interesting.  If I understand your suggestion correctly, it doesn't really do much for people who were never able to afford proper access to food but it does add for a bit of stability to ensure that more people don't end up in that position.  I suppose that using private insurance takes some of the burden off the government.  However, I am concerned that insurance companies may make claim requirements so restrictive that it may mitigate the usefulness of the insurance.  The issue is perhaps whether one trusts the government or private enterprise better to provide such a service efficiently and fairly.  My fellings are rather mixed on this.

One wonders how much our society has been shaped by people seriously following through on things that were originally presented as jokes.  By the looks of things perhaps quite bit.  Be careful with that wit, it's sharp it may hurt some one.

 Quite clever actually now that I've given it a second read.  A tad embarassed that I missed the joke the first time around.