> > 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

Absolutely.  I couldn't agree more.  Promoting health means promoting
possibilities for people who are currently in poverty - and that
means stopping the poverty.

David