Photo Credit: Jodie Aldred Photography for Arrell Food Institute
By Mya Kidson
As consumers become increasingly aware of the ways in which the agriculture sector contributes to growing carbon emissions as well as a decline in soil health, we have witnessed a heightened demand for local, sustainably cultivated and ethically sourced food. Such businesses – popularly varied alternative food businesses - include organic health-food stores and farmers’ markets. But although they positively enforce moral values, they often lack consumer diversity beyond upper- or middle-class consumers.
Dr. Evan Fraser, Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, and Kelly Hodgins, College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, found various barriers for individuals and families living with lower incomes. These barriers were not only monetary (the increased costs of food products or the need to have a car to access some locations), but also social (the lack of culturally diverse foods, limited labelling or signage in languages other than English, and packaging and portions not well designed for those without a well-equipped kitchen). All of these social factors combine to communicate that these spaces are designed around the needs of mostly white, English-speaking, middle-upper-class shoppers. Job loss and economic instability during the pandemic has also made food access and affordability more difficult, exacerbating much of these pre-existing barriers.
“This research was motivated out of a concern that healthy and sustainable food might be out of reach to low-income consumers,” says Fraser. “We were driven to explore the issue around accessing alternative food systems.”
Hodgins says an ideal food system can balance three components: environmental sustainability, ethical labour, and affordability and access for all. However, while alternative food businesses provide ethical and sustainably sourced products, it’s often hard to ensure access to individuals with limited disposable income.
Food networks can be thought of in a three-tiered cost hierarchy — the topmost tier being alternative food outlets. The second tier comprises conventional grocery stores that typically provide globally imported food as well as a mix of unhealthy and healthy options. The bottom tier consists of community food services such as food banks that provide food to those in need.
“Unfortunately, options become more unhealthy and less abundant as you travel down the hierarchy,” says Hodgins. “And while it’s true that alternative food businesses are more exclusive due to the higher costs of a lot of products within them, this isn’t the only barrier impacting who shops there.”
Given that their values had them focused on ensuring environmental sustainability and fair labour standards, Hodgins found that most business owners weren’t aware that their business had a problem with exclusivity, or, that they were in a position to do a lot about that.
Following this research, Food Secure Canada expanded on the findings by creating a complementary research project which included interviews with lower-income individuals to get another take on this issue.
“My hope is that this research will spark a greater conversation surrounding alternative food outlets,” Hodgins says. “Perhaps this could enable the further diversification of alternative food business consumers.”
Adds Fraser: “In some ways, the observations made by this research are being addressed by the City and county’s successful $10 million Smart Cities Project called Our Food Future, where the goal is to improve sustainability and nutrition of our food system while creating jobs and reducing food insecurity.”
Both studies are important for addressing social injustice issues that surface with alternative food businesses. Hodgins’ hope is that this study will help enable a movement to improve resources that increase the diversity of consumers able to shop at alternative food outlets.
This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).