Sherrie Tingley wrote:
>
> On Health Promotion on the Internet, Stirling,
> Alison[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
>
> Alison,
>
> > I just found that the following message from David Seedhouse, replying
> > to Blake Poland, had not been successful in getting posted to this list.
> > In the spirit of keeping this lively discussion flowing, I am copying it
> > here.
>
> I must say I am following this discussion closely and I think I am starting
> to understand a lot of my concerns with HP.
>
> Maybe if I lay them out it will help;
>
> School feeding programs as a response to poverty.
>
> They do not feed children in the summer and on week-ends, it does not make
> sense to me if people truly believe that people do not have enough food to
> feed their children that they also think that children can go with out
> steady food.
>
> Then when I read some of the programs I learn that some of the objectives
> are to "get mothers in the habit of feeding their children breakfast"
>
> So, these programs are not really meant to address a lack of money but a
> lack of skills among parents.  And I wonder if there is any proof that
> women who live in poverty have low skills in terms of nutrition or
> remembering to feed their children.
>
> Thus for me, David's stuff makes sense, these programs reflect a certain
> set of values among the people who support them.  And they are not my
> values and beliefs.
>
> Now we have a whole bunch of funded CAPC and Prenatal nutrition programs in
> Ontario, really only the Metro Toronto ones have done any work around the
> pregnancy supplement in social assistance rates with their local
> municipalities.
>
> Why?  Is it that they agree with the government that women waste the money
> given them?  Isn't healthy public policy part of the work they do?  Are
> they not funded by a totally different level of government and thus secure?
>
> Anyway, please continue the discussion as I am learning a lot, I have
> managed to get my hands on a copy of David's book:
>
> Health Promotion - Philosophy, Prejudice and Practice
> published by John Wiley and Sons
>
> It makes great reading!
>
> Thanks again,
>
> S
>
> > That isn't the way I see it.  I find that most of the 'voices' are
> > equally vague about the purpose of health promotion.
>
> > I think we need to be honest.  I do not believe that conceptual
> > fuzziness for political reasons makes any long-term sense.  I think
> > we need to make it clear that health promotion is not only disease
> > prevention but _is_ to do with work towards 'other social goals'
> > and on social conditions that are debilitating for reasons other
> > than that they may cause disease.
> >
> > Please re-read Part Three of my Health Promotion book - and get past
> > my criticisms of 'woolly thinking'.  What matters is how we progress
> > theoretically and practically - I'd much prefer a debate on positive
> > ways forward for health promotion, of which my Fondations Theory is
> > one option.
> >
> > Let's carry on with this.
> >
> > Thank you Blake
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> >
> >
> > David
>
> --
> Sherrie Tingley
> [log in to unmask]

I am so glad you raised these points.

There are many, many problems related to feeding programs in Canada.
Here are a just few that jump to mind:

-  The first is that the existence of these programs is absolutely
unnecessary in Canada.  We have enough wealth here for everyone to be
well fed.  Feeding programs for children exist because there has not
been adequate redistribution of wealth (through many routes) to ensure
that families with children get enough money to ensure that they can
feed their own children.

- Adults also need food.  Separating adults and children in feeding
programs is counter-productive to any goals of social cohesion.  Why do
we feed children and pregnant women only?  Because we assume that
children are not guilty of being poor and deserve a fair chance.
Conversely, one can infer that we believe that their parents ARE guilty
of being poor and got what they deserve (i.e., literally and in the most
patronizing way, no dinner).

- This separation is also counter-productive to population health
goals.  To have a healthy baby, a woman must be adequately nourished
when she conceives.  Good nutrition that begins after pregnancy is
detected is a help, but nowhere near as good as beginning one's
pregnancy in good health.

- Feeding poor women when they are pregnant, then cutting them off once
they have passed the lactation stage is a fairly explicit expression of
misogyny in public policy that recognizes women as baby-producers, not
citizens with rights of their own to adequate food and some dignity.

- Feeding programs for children presume that poor (and particularly
welfare-poor) parents should not be allowed to feed their own children.
This has many implications, particularly around food and culture
issues.  It also assumes that parents are not feeding their children
adequately for some reason other than plain old poverty (and considering
the problems with our job market, particularly for the young adults who
are the majority of parents of young kids, this is grossly unfair).  I
cannot imagine anyone presuming to step in to feed the children of
anyone but the welfare-poor, unless the programs were universal, like
the old school-lunch or school-milk programs.  Can you imagine what
would happen if someone suggested that instead of improving the TAGS
program, there would be government-funded feeding programs for the
children of the fishers in Newfoundland?  I think the fisheries unions
would be up in arms over the intrusion into their right to decide for
themselves what they feed their children.  And I think that the general
public would understand their outrage.

In terms of supporting parents to take the best possible care of
themselves and their children, I cannot think of a worse strategy.  This
is a pretty clear sign that the rest of us think you the parent can't do
your job.

- Feeding programs takes the edge off the guilt that might otherwise
push Canadians to demand better employment and income support policies
that would ensure that income and prosperity was more fairly
distributed.

All that being said, if I were that poor, I might be grateful that my
kids could get food elsewhere.  It is very troubling that parents in
Canada are put in the position of being so poor that they have to submit
to this kind of humiliation for themselves and their kids.  (What is it
like to be a kid in the feeding program, anyway?)

It should be frightening to us that feeding programs have become an
entrenched part of our social safety net.  The food banks used to make a
lot of noise about being around temporarily only, but the wave of need
seems to have drowned out their objections.  And they can hardly close
when the welfare system can't fill in the gap.  Now that the welfare
system has ceased to be the support of last resort, feeding programs
are.

Surely we can raise the standard a little higher, at least to the point
where the poorest family can feed itself adequately?

Statistics Canada's most recent Survey of Consumer Finances showed a
very clear move from 1995 to 1996 in the gap between the richest fifth
of the population and the poorest.  This sort of gap cannot be filled
with a nutritious breakfast.

Let's keep this discussion up.

regards,

Joanne