Food banks ought not to be necessary, according to a column in today's Globe and Mail written by Elaine Power of the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen's University, Kingston.
When they were begun in the midst of a severe recession in the early 1980s, they were supposed to be temporary. The real fix, it was argued, was adequate social assistance so all people can afford food and housing.
Instead they have steadily grown every year, through recessions and booms, summer and winter, spring and fall.
Yet, Power says citing government-funded surveys, many people remain hungry, partly because they are too ashamed to ask for food, partly because the food offered is insufficient or inappropriate to their dietary requirements.
Food banks have also become a convenient dumping ground for food-processing companies. It "solves" their surplus or quality challenges and makes them look good.
I agree wholeheartedly with Power. My daughter worked for a time at a food bank and provided some revealing insights. One is that attention is focused on increasing donations and recipients, not on helping wean people off assistance.
This results in ever-larger facilities with bigger and better trucks, freezers, etc. And, I learned a few years ago, the local food bank approached centres for housing seniors, encouraging them to ask for free food.
Power is also right in concluding that "tackling poverty means wresting with diverse ideas about causes and solutions.
"It's time to begin that political conversation," she says. "But first we have to remove the obstacle that food banks have become."
