Impacts of food poverty highlighted by B.C. welfare challenge participants
Ted Bruce was a few days into a one-week challenge to live on a food budget similar to someone on welfare when a sense of stress began to set in.
“About three or four days in, I went oh boy, I might be out of food by day six or seven here,” Bruce recounted in a phone interview with the Georgia Straight. “That’s I think kind of the real, gut-wrenching sense that you have is that I may run out of food.”
For Bruce and other participants in the Welfare Food Challenge, which was organized by the anti-poverty group Raise the Rates, that glimpse of stress only lasted for a few more days. But the kind of chronic stress that low-income people can experience in the face of stretched food budgets and poor nutrition, and the physiological impacts this can have on the body, have the public-health professional concerned.
As the executive director of population health for Vancouver Coastal Health, Bruce said his goal in taking part in the challenge, which wrapped up Tuesday (October 23), was to raise awareness of the degree that poverty contributes to making populations sick.
“We’ve seen lots of studies that show that people in low-income situations, people who live in deprived neighbourhoods, have higher rates of chronic disease, and higher rates of hospitalization,” he explained.
“People in low-income areas, the rate of hospitalization for diabetes is 2.4 times that of people in the higher economic areas. So that’s a startling use of hospital care related to low income.”
For challenge-taker Brent Mansfield, eating a diet based largely on white rice and oatmeal for a week had the greatest impact on his energy levels, leaving him lethargic and with “a foggy head”.
As the co-chair of the citizen’s advisory committee the Vancouver Food Policy Council, Mansfield said the council now hopes to establish a working group to look at issues related to food equity.
The advisory committee has been working with the city on its municipal food strategy, which Mansfield said will look at efforts such as establishing more community gardens, and expanding opportunities for urban agriculture. Mansfield noted that while he wants to see local efforts like city farms expanded, he also believes broader policy changes are needed to address systemic issues that contribute to food poverty.
“Right now, with the social assistance rates and what they’re at, people can’t make good choices, even if they wanted to—and they may not have time or energy to be able to participate in broader things that would develop their own capacity to grow and cook healthy food,” he said in a phone interview. “So we need to be looking at all points of the spectrum.”
Paul Taylor, the executive director of the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House, said that much of the food that’s available on a charitable basis in the area isn’t suited to a range of health needs.
“I work in a community where people are disproportionately affected with a variety of things that compromise their health,” he told the Straight following a news conference at the neighbourhood house on East Hastings Street Tuesday. “The food that’s typically available through a charity model is food that’s high in starch, high in sugar, high in preservatives, overly-packaged, overly-processed.”
“For me the biggest part is that people have money in their wallet, so that they can go out and purchase the food and things that they need to keep them alive,” he added.
Organizers with Raise the Rates renewed their call Tuesday for increases to welfare rates, and for a provincial poverty-reduction strategy.
“Poverty costs money,” Bill Hopwood told reporters. “It costs the health service…it costs education, it costs children who didn’t get enough iron. It affects their whole life.”
The current income assistance rate for a single person expected to work in B.C. is $610 a month. According to the calculation of Raise the Rates, that leaves just over $100 a month for food, after housing, bus tickets and other basic expenses are covered.
The last increase to B.C. income assistance rates was in 2007. In June, the B.C. government announced changes to income and disability assistance, including allowing all expected-to-work welfare clients a $200 monthly earnings exemption, and an $800 monthly earnings exemption for individuals receiving disability assistance.






@branvan - a shitton, obviously, or why else would there be extra staff at the LDB on cheque issue days. That doesn't make them bad though...just people who need a little bit of relief from the drudge.
Welfare rates don't allow anyone to eat healthy food and stay well. This challenged proved it AGAIN.
Such poverty is our shame and we all pay for it dearly - I will vote for the party that WILL increase welfare rates AND set up a poverty reduction plan with guts. And if it means we need more ways to get more $$$ into the provincial coffers, so be it.
Funny how 7 people dissagree with branvan3000s comment. Its a legitimate question/concern. I have lived in gastown for 10 years and I can assure you I have seen my fare share of people on welfare. Guess what? MANY smoke, drink and do drunks. Certainly not all, but most.
gone without food.I would love to find a part time job but there is no work
for people without medical problems let alone with.No company will hire someone if they can't guarantee that they will be okay to make it to work.
I used to make $40 to 50k but not now,I am thankful for 906$ per month
but after high housing costs there is nothing left for food-or anything.I think the truth is being "tucked under the carpet"
Some of those people will be unable to live without government support despite their own efforts. These people ought to be identified and supported at a level that is more reasonable, but maybe not in the exact location they would choose. I don't, for example, think it is a wise use of funds to create social / subsidized housing for those that cannot work in the middle of Kitsilano or Point Grey where property is very expensive.
On the other hand, these people and those with mental and physical disabilities aside, welfare is not intended as a way of life, but a way to help you through until you can get going supporting yourself. Booze, other drugs and cigarettes are pleasantries that aren't advancing a recipient's progress toward self sufficiency and are not a decent argument for increasing rates. Diabetics will have trouble enduring a high carb diet for six months, others can adapt.
Sometimes working and pulling your own weight and not smoking nor drinking then life just happens, you become disabled and unable to work.
You are right that welfare was not meant to be a lifestyle but a temporary cash injection for someone who is about to bounce back to work.
Is that the reality though? I mean, is there enough unskilled labour work around to pay the bills really?
I am coming to the idea that there should be a basic income right even if the person is the proverbial lazy welfare slob. I would much rather said slobs have (barely) enough cash to have a clean flop with food and cigarettes, wasting their lives away but doing no harm to others, than the current set up which is an invitation to fraud, crime, and abuse, for example, having babies in order to up the monthly payout. IMO that is a real scenario that creates a more or less permanent underclass with all the negatives that go with it.
I honestly think that it would be more humane and fiscally cheaper to institute some sort of basic income guarantee so that you can work or not work and still have a place to live and food to eat.
Sure that idea will gall and irritate those who think dem bums should be liftin' a shovel. But I truly believe that humans generally speaking would prefer to be useful than useless and that relatively few people would willingly do nothing if there was something better to do.
It is senseless to expect people getting $100 a month food allowance to take part in nutrition courses put on by welfare; they probably have very few, if any, assorted cooking utensils ( or food) with which to boil, fry or bake. Better to show them all where they can obtain produce,groceries and meat at a discount etc. or how to start a food co-op where they can pool their money, buy in larger quantities and then divvy up the items fairly.
Re: a comment saying the poor always manage to smoke, drink, do drugs etc. ...you forgot to say how they get their smokes. Yep, I've watched how they do it....as soon as they see a person toss his smoke , they scramble for the dead-ends; they 'shop' the outdoor ashtrays near businesses , hospitals etc. for bits and pieces of smokes. Sanitary??? Not on your life. Sad? Very.
Why should a person have to beg for food from the government that purports to be there for its citizens? It's not a sin to smoke. The stress of living nearly on the street would drive almost anyone to smoke.Even our returned soldiers are facing these same issues as the government even denies them benefits to which they are entitled. Our government has to wake up and start living up to its promises to be 'of the people, for the people'.
You said:
" But I truly believe that humans generally speaking would prefer to be useful than useless and that relatively few people would willingly do nothing if there was something better to do."
Well R U, the problem is that what YOU think is something better to do does not mesh with what a lot of other people think is something better to do.
Like dope.
I know. But then again, so? I haven't crunched the numbers but it seems to me that it costs more to deal with welfare-inspired crime, fraud, and spawning than to have Stevie Stoner in a bachelor pad fried to the gills watching Family Guy until he dies of boredom. Yes I know it's paying him to be a bum, but, so? Better for society that he be a harmless bum than a thief.
And, let's be optimistic to. There will be some who use that free time to better themselves, make art, go to school, volunteer.
Right? Not right? Or is the principle of the thing just too gross?
In Norway nobody has any issues with being on the dole if you have to. They all pay for it through sales tax and consider it their right to get some food security. Nobody here wants to stay on welfare, and the can't anyways. Besides the money they receive all goes back into the immediate economy when they spend the money on local stores.
If there's a problem with money cut Christy McSparkles PR staff in half, bring back the BC bank tax Taylor axed in order to get on the board of TD when she left office, and decentralize most management especially Translink and have it run by the community. We have plenty of money just MBAs are blowing it on management salaries and advertising. Power should be horizontal peer to peer in the community not vertical despots running everything like a personal campaigning fiefdom.
You could run a makeshift free school to pay everybody on welfare to learn how to code python, build android apps, anything all using the MIT free opencourseware site and some used laptops running linux or bsd
Most people are not aware of how money is created or issued within banking.If one conducts any research/investigation in the ways of money, he/she would be astonishingly devastated by their prior ignorance to such matters and the invisible adverse effect it has on them, let alone others within the bottom echelon of their community. Despite the seemingly exponential technical growth,imagine the overall limit this puts on human innovation and progress.
Hint:look up "fractional reserve banking", for starters. You will learn money(initially created as the valueless means of exchange)is created/issued out of thin air. Federal reserve bank/Bank of Canada, lend currency backed by the people as collateral, the birth certificate bond,is evidence of this fact. If the people are the source behind the creation of money, why don't you and I demand and insure that the people have the basic necessities to live as dignified human beings?
The answer in part is due to the need we as humans refuse to look at within ourselves, which is: attempt to attain certainty to a world that is inherently uncertain and ever changing.This breeds and results the strong desire to CONtrol one and other. The fact is,the current money system is born from this innate misunderstanding of how this world works. This money system, is a system of control before anything else.
Health,education,food,shelter(including basic utilities). Should be considered separate from the current money system. Such necessities should not be considered as commodities to be bought and sold. Human beings and true 'freedom' are not commodities. Each being is but a piece of the whole, like a cell of an organism. For example, how can the human organism function efficiently, if blood is pumped into one side and not the whole?
How can we be educated on the things of this world, if our institutions of learning are based on charging for that very information/knowledge required to lead a life of balance, prosperity and sustainability, etc.
Let's assume you and your spouse have a home and 3 kids. Your unemployed sister and BIL and their 3 kids come to stay until they find a job. During this time they look online for a few minutes a day, but then play video games the rest of the time.
How long will you allow them to do this before you start getting angry,and tell them to start going to businesses and putting out resumes, speakig with managers, looking for Help Wanted signs in windows.In the meantime, they could also mow your lawns, wash dishes, vacuum, and anything else around the house to not be such a burden.
That is how many people see welfare recipients. They are the unwanted houseguest, that just don't care.
Welfare is supposed to be a hand up not a way of living.
If people on welfare can afford to smoke or drink, they are getting too much money.
If they informing prospective employers they may not be able to make it to work everyday, they should be kicked off benefits.
They should be required to prove they are searching for jobs and get businesses to sign forms, when applications are submitted. A feedback of their attitude by businesses would be helpful too. Someone going smelly and unkempt to an interview is unacceptable. they are just trying not to get hired.