Search results
20 hours ago · Similar to findings from other large population-representative samples from Canada and the United States, Note 20, Note 21, Note 22, Note 23 the current study documented a levelling off in the prevalence of household food insecurity after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, followed by an increase in 2022. Various pandemic-related support measures, along with low price ...
Aug 13, 2021 · The paper will benchmark Canada through a review study of food safety best practices by juxtaposing (i) stated aspirations with, (ii) actual performance in leading Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) jurisdictions.
- Sylvain Charlebois, Mark Juhasz, Janet Music, Janèle Vézeau
- 4
- 2021
- 13 August 2021
In January 2019, the Safe Food for Canadians Act/Safe Food for Canadians Regulations ( heretofore identified as SFCR ) came into force across Canada, and brought a more streamlined process to food safety practice in Canada.
- 770KB
- 45
- HPCDP Journal Home
- Browse
- Household food insecurity through the lens of the Canadian Income Survey
- Household food insecurity through the lens of the Canadian Community Health Survey
- Comparing the results of the two surveys
- What accounts for the difference?
- Other comparators
- Where do we go from here?
Download in PDF format (540 kB, 5 pages)
Published by: The Public Health Agency of Canada
Date published: October 2022
ISSN: 2368-738X
•Past issues
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
Valerie Tarasuk, PhD; Andrée-Anne Fafard St-Germain, PhD; Timmie Li, MSCom
https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.42.10.04
Author reference
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
January 2022 marked the first public release of food insecurity data from the CIS with results for 2018 and 2019,Footnote 18 followed in March by updated estimates for CIS 2018 and 2019, plus results for 2020.Footnote 28 Based on CIS 2018, 6 099 000 people (16.8% of the population) in the 10 provinces were living in food-insecure households.Footnot...
In February 2022, prevalence estimates from CCHS 2019 and 2020 were published.Footnote 29 Data are not available for all 10 provinces in CCHS 2019 because British Columbia declined to measure food insecurity during this cycle. CCHS 2020 results were based on online interviews conducted in September to December 2020 in the 10 provinces. In a departu...
To summarize, the analyses of CIS and CCHS both indicate that the prevalence of household food insecurity in Canada was lower in 2020 than it had been before the pandemic. This finding contradicts earlier reports of escalating food insecurity triggered by the pandemic,Footnote 25Footnote 30 but the decline is plausible given federal income supports, wage subsidies and various interventions to cap or reduce living costs during this period.Footnote 31
However, the results from CIS and CCHS provide very different impressions of the size of the problem of household food insecurity in Canada, both before and during the pandemic. The number of Canadians living in food-insecure households based on CCHS 2017–2018 is 1.7 million less than the number based on CIS 2018, and the latter estimate does not include data for the territories. The different units of analysis reported for 2020 complicate comparisons for that year, but, assuming Canadians under 12 years of age have a similar rate of food insecurity to those 12 and older, the CCHS results suggest that fewer than 1 in 10 Canadians were affected by household food insecurity in 2020,Footnote 29 whereas this ratio is closer to 1 in 6 based on the CIS results.Footnote 28
Household food insecurity is similarly correlated with other indicators of social and economic disadvantage in the CCHS and the CIS,Footnote 18Footnote 29 suggesting that the surveys are capturing a similar problem. A detailed examination of household-level prevalence estimates for moderate/severe food insecurity from CIS 2018 and CCHS 2017–2018 revealed that between-survey differences in population weight calibrations and the imputation of missing responses accounted for only a small fraction of the discrepancy.Footnote 18 The authors suggested part of the explanation could lie in the higher response rate to CIS 2018 (77.4%, vs. 61.5% in CCHS 2017–2018), a phenomenon attributed to the fact that the CIS is a supplement to the mandatory Labour Force Survey.Footnote 18 While both surveys adjust for nonresponse, they do this differently, and the effects of the adjustments are impossible to gauge.Footnote 18 Additionally, some survey participants might respond differently to the HFSSM depending on whether these questions are posed in the context of questions about health and health behaviours (i.e. CCHS) or questions about employment and household economics (i.e. CIS), although any such effect is difficult to identify, let alone quantify.
The discrepancy between CCHS 2017–2018 and CIS 2018 estimates pales in comparison to the discrepancy between the estimates from CCHS 2020 and CIS 2019 and 2020. Assuming children under 12 years of age have a similar prevalence of food insecurity to those 12 and older, there is more than a six-percentage point difference in the estimates from CIS 2019 and CIS 2020 compared to CCHS 2020, even though these surveys cover a similar time period. The much lower prevalence in CCHS 2020 may relate to the very low response rate for this survey (24.6%, vs. 80.3% for CIS 2019 and 76.6% for CIS 2020),Footnote 29 but more analyses are required to assess this potential bias. The response rate draws into serious question the population representativeness and reliability of results from CCHS 2020.
Since its adoption by Health Canada, the HFSSM has been included in one other cross-sectional population survey conducted in the 10 provinces: the 2010 Survey of Household Spending (SHS 2010). This survey also yielded a higher prevalence of food insecurity than the CCHS. Because of an error in the administration of the 8 child-referenced items of the HFSSM on SHS 2010, household food insecurity status was determined using only the adult scale, but this yielded a weighted prevalence of 16.6% (95% CI: 15.6–18.5; estimated by the authors using the master datafile). The decision of the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island not to measure food insecurity on CCHS 2010 precludes estimation of a prevalence for all 10 provinces that year, but the national prevalence estimate from CCHS 2011 (including the territories) was 12.3%.Footnote 32
The prevalence estimates from SHS 2010 and CCHS 2011 are not perfectly comparable, but their differences are unlikely to explain the large discrepancy. The omission of child-referenced items from SHS 2010 would only bias that estimate downward, and the inclusion of the territories in CCHS 2011 would, if anything, lead to a slightly higher prevalence than for the provinces alone. A comparison of prevalence estimates from CCHS 2010 and 2011 for provinces with data for both years indicates only one statistically significant difference: an increase in Quebec from 2010 to 2011.Footnote 32 This suggests that if we had data for all 10 provinces from CCHS 2010, the prevalence would probably be lower than the estimate from CCHS 2011. The magnitude and direction of the discrepancy between CCHS 2011 and SHS 2010 is consistent with the observed difference between pre-pandemic estimates from CCHS and CIS, adding credence to the idea that the prevalence of household food insecurity may be underestimated on CCHS.
As Canada begins to emerge from the pandemic and the income supports and wage subsidies implemented to deal with this crisis begin to be dismantled, it is more important than ever that we monitor the prevalence and severity of household food insecurity. Only through reliable, annual, national measurement of this problem can we begin to understand the impact of current federal and provincial/territorial government responses to it, set targets for food insecurity reduction and develop effective, evidence-based intervention strategies. With the HFSSM now included on both the CIS and CCHS, we have an important choice to make. The recent data releases indicate clearly that these two surveys are not interchangeable.
The finding that different population surveys yield different prevalence estimates is not unique to Canada. Similar discrepancies are common in the US, inarguably the world leader in food insecurity measurement. The HFSSM and its derivatives appear on several surveys there, but population prevalence estimates are derived from the Current Population Survey, selected for its large sample size, state-level representativeness and timeliness for annual reporting.Footnote 33
We recommend that the CIS be used as the survey vehicle for all food insecurity monitoring in the future, because the consistently higher response rate of CIS suggests that this survey yields a more population-representative estimate of food insecurity than the CCHS. Given the serious health implications of household food insecurity, it is imperative that the population prevalence not be systematically underestimated.
The CIS has three other important advantages over the CCHS. First, it is designed to furnish prevalence estimates annually, enabling monitoring that can never be achieved with the CCHS, given the practice of only including the HFSSM as mandatory content on alternate cycles of that survey. Second, the timely release of data tables from the CISFootnote 28 and regular updating of prevalence rates for moderate/severe food insecurity on the Poverty Dashboard mean that stakeholders and policy makers can use the results of this survey to inform decisions in real time.Footnote 34 We maintain that marginal food insecurity should be included in the Dashboard estimates,Footnote 16 but knowledge users can obtain this prevalence from the data tables.Footnote 28 Third, the monitoring of food insecurity via a population-based survey specifically designed to gather information on income, labour market activities and other financial circumstances facilitates policy analyses and program evaluations to inform the development of effective interventions to address food insecurity.
Sep 8, 2021 · While food insecurity levels from 2019 to 2020 remained flat overall, food insecurity improved for some sub-populations while worsening for others. In particular, the report reveals a deepening divide across racial and ethnic lines.
Sep 8, 2021 · In 2020, 10.5 percent (13.8 million U.S. households) were food insecure, meaning they had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members because of a lack of resources.
People also ask
Why is food safety important in Canada?
How did food insecurity change in 2020?
What changes have been made to food safety in the United States?
Does Canada have a food safety value chain?
How can Canada support inspection for food safety?
Do Canadian food businesses perceive risk in adulterated food?
China, Myanmar and Indonesia, along with Ghana, have made the most significant improvements since 2012. On the other hand, the index also highlights 20 countries that have experienced a gradual...
