Conference Board of Canada's Food Strategy: What participants are saying

Citizen
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 5:20pm

Two parts of the Conference Board of Canada’s process leading up to the publication of the draft Canadian Food Strategy have been an open invitation to complete an online survey, and a series of by-invitation consultation meetings in 12 cities (most in January-February 2013) where participants fill in a questionnaire about proposed desired outcomes.

Food Secure Canada welcomes comment on your experience of this work to date, and how it could be more fully representative of the food priorities for all Canadians.

Comments

Submitted by Citizen on Wed, 2013/02/27 - 5:21pm.
It is unclear where the process goes from here. These consultations seemed relatively open and accessible, but a lot of the decision making will be happening at the Toronto gathering in April. While it is unfortunate that this will ultimately be decided only by a small group of people who can afford to participate, it was good to be in a room with other social organizations and the industry side. There are too few opportunities to engage in dialogue with these very different players in the food system. There are multiple and very different visions. I’m not sure if there is a way to transcend them. In the preliminary results we were shown, surveys highlighted social and environmental issues as the most important. Key issues raised in the meeting were a concern that the findings so far did not represent the importance of international trade; a lack of understanding of the concept of food security; and the importance of increasing food literacy, i.e. cooking skills as an important component of a food strategy.

Submitted by Citizen on Wed, 2013/02/27 - 5:22pm.
The process was unlike any other consultation I have attended: the goal was to get us to fill out, in writing, a questionnaire, which we could have filled out in our own time at home on the internet. The whole point of getting together with other people is to have discussion. It was VERY organised and designed to reduce verbal dissent. My top concerns about the process: • The funders: the response was that without them at the table no policy could ever be implemented (not true, if government makes policy, we all have to follow it whether we like it or not) and that this was the ONLY policy that had any hope of being accepted by the federal government, so we should engage with it. • The questionnaire: the phrasing of the questions was raised throughout the process. We were encouraged to write notes about how we would rephrase them as that was the only way to address them. Another concern was that the 'I disagree with this statement' was represented by a '1' and not a zero. The zero meant 'I have no opinion/ I don't know enough'. This was not explained at the start and no-one ever reads the instructions so everyone was checking the zeros instead of the one. After a question about this, there was the sound of a lot of people erasing zeros and replacing them with 1's. So the results they will get will likely be skewed by this factor. • The meeting format: There are of course dozens of other concerns but all of them could be addressed if this was truly a consultation, but it isn't. It's a lecture. Participants in the meeting did not like the questions they had to respond to and did not understand why it was so expensive to participate in the process or to attend the conferences. They wanted more discussion. They asked whether this was just a marketing ploy or research exercise for Big Food. My top concerns about the content: • Why the export focus? The success of agriculture in Nova Scotia is based on small diversified farms. • What about the domestic market? If we imported less, that would amount to more of an impact on farmers than getting them to export more.

Submitted by Citizen on Thu, 2013/02/28 - 4:46pm.
An Open Letter to the Conference Board of Canada’s Centre for Food in Canada and Its Investors Drs. Jean-Charles Le Vallée and Michael R. Bloom Centre for Food in Canada, The Conference Board of Canada February 28, 2013 Dear Drs. Bloom and Le Vallée, The Vancouver Food Policy Council (VFPC) would like to thank you for your invitation for a few of our members to attend the meeting you hosted on February 25. While we applaud your efforts to visit communities across Canada we were very disappointed in various aspects of the ‘consultation’ session. It was not a good use of people’s time and expertise to be there to simply fill out a paper copy of an online survey that has been on your website for months. Your request for participants to rank the various pre-determined outcomes outlined in the survey did not facilitate any discussion of collaborative opportunities or concerns regarding the Canadian Food Strategy Consultation Primer (dated January 3, 2013), but rather it seemed you simply wanted endorsement of the vision and direction that you had already laid out. Your attempt to create “a food strategy for all Canadians” is admirable, however the VFPC questions whether the Conference Board and its investors truly represent all Canadians in this process. The Canadian Food Strategy Consultation Primer circulated to attendees before the consultation meeting clearly prioritizes the interests of the food industry investors. The VFPC sincerely supports a more vibrant food economy in Canada, however we have concerns about the form of economic development called for, one that is increasingly industrialized, technologized, de-regulated and oriented primarily to global markets. In contrast we think a Canadian food strategy should encompass a wide array of public values that serve the health and well-being of the majority of Canadian people and the natural environment upon which we depend for our nourishment and livelihoods. The VFPC asks that the Conference Board of Canada join with many others across the country in calling for a government-coordinated Canadian food strategy. We believe the Government of Canada, through such mechanisms as an all party caucus, a cross-ministerial committee, or another aegis agreed upon by the stakeholders, is the proper body to be leading a national process that engages citizens and stakeholders to create a common vision and public priorities for Canada`s food system. This process needs to clearly respect the jurisdictions and regional differences of each of Canada`s provinces and territories, and similar mechanisms and processes are much needed at all levels of government. This work also needs to build upon the existing work on national food policy including the People`s Food Policy Project of Food Secure Canada, which has already put significant effort into consulting diverse stakeholders in numerous communities in Canada, as well as the work of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Another important report that should be taken into careful consideration is that of Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. His report on Canada is now publicly available and on March 4 he will be presenting it to the UN Council on Human Rights. His report highlights a variety of hunger, health, aboriginal rights, and food systems (both land and water-based) issues, many of which are absent or under-represented in the Conference Board`s food strategy up until now, and calls for many of the same solutions that we have suggested here. The VFPC is one of over 50 groups across Canada that will be organizing community events on March 4 to further the dialogue on the critical issues he raises. We seek your assurance that our participation in the February 25th session will not in any way - in your reports, or by other means - be construed as an endorsement of either the process or the content of the Conference Board of Canada’s attempts at a national food strategy. We hope that you will consider redirecting your efforts to work more collaboratively with a wider array of food system stakeholders as you move forward in the planning of the 2nd National Food Summit. Sincerely, Brent Mansfield, Co-Chair cochairs@vancouverfoodpolicycouncil.ca 604-837-7667 On behalf of the Vancouver Food Policy Council

Submitted by Citizen on Fri, 2013/03/08 - 12:46pm.
The process was clearly very carefully designed, despite bringing leaders in the Nova Scotia food movement together, to refuse discussion or insightful contribution. The room was full of bright, passionate, knowledgeable minds and yet our task was to individually complete a written survey. Imagine the connections, collaborations and work that could have been done in those 3 hours were the Conference Board of Canada not there! Those present did their best to bring forward a wide range of concerns, including the flawed process, the impact of having this food strategy be funded by companies including Coke, the absence of even a mention of climate change, and the clear focus on scaling up and export markets. As the session continued, each concern was met with the response, “Write it on the survey. Write it on the survey.” Concerns were not given space to be discussed.

Submitted by Tom M on Thu, 2013/03/14 - 1:04pm.
This process was started over a year ago. I was dismayed at the structure and content of the questionnaire, which I filled in on-line. I called one of the Conference Board senior managers on this project to express my displeasure and trying to find out if it was worth it to attend a conference in person. I was surprised to have a very good 15-20 minute discussion after which I decided that the goal was more profit for Conference Board members. I share the view that the deck is stacked in favour of the industrial agriculture Conference Board funders and that the needs and desires of food literate people, and the health of Canadians, weigh little in the Conference Board decision making process.

Submitted by Citizen on Mon, 2013/03/18 - 2:31pm.
The process before the meeting showed openness to additional people attending, and at the meeting there was a great group of people in the room with all kinds of expertise. However an opportunity was lost: it would have been more valuable to have a conversation than to spend the time filling in the questionnaire. It did help to have space to comment while filling in the questionnaire, which you did not have online. Some of my key concerns were about the process. The survey tool is flawed: • A lot of the language (e.g. “optimal”) was subject to interpretation – your response depended on, and would differ, depending on how you defined certain words. • There were a lot of “double barrelled” questions where you could only give one answer. • The ratings were based only on your perception of importance. There was no way to say whether or not you thought the item was pointing in a positive or negative direction. • There was no opportunity to add issues or missing pieces. Your only opportunity was to ask for clarification in what was there. • Respondents were asked what sector they were from but not what region so there will not be a way to break down the results regionally. This is problematic in a country this size. Another process question is about what is to happen to this material next. Although the consultations seemed to have broad representation, it seemed as though a lot of the work will be done at the April conference in Toronto which only a few people can afford to attend. Although it seemed the meeting facilitator had received quite a lot of constructive feedback, it was not clear how this will be used. My key issues are access to food, healthy food, and small farm sustainability. I saw the first two reflected in the material but not the third. It seemed as if all farms were lumped together and there was an assumption that “bigger is better.” The key issues voiced by the group were about the process and where it was going. Some questions were raised about how certain issues were treated e.g. global food security. There was not a lot of imagination shown about solutions in this regard: for example, nothing was offered about fair trade or support for indigenous producers. I came away with a sense of wasted opportunity for conversation. Although I was heartened by the general feeling of agreement in the room about the flaws in the process, and also about some of the preliminary findings we were shown that had a focus on health and environmental issues rather than industry priorities, I remain concerned about how these matters will “translate” at and after the April meeting in Toronto.

Submitted by Susan Roberts on Mon, 2013/04/08 - 9:18am.
I tried to complete the survey and hilite the People's Food Policy but found there was no space nor opportunity to bring forward the 5 key messages of the PFP or to explain the social, environmental, regenerative and equitable elements of a values based food system. The survey seemed to be corporate driven and export focused!! I did not attend the session in Calgary to which I was invited. I am located outside Edmonton and could not justify a three hour drive for a two hour consultation, a process about which I was skeptical. It is critical that we get in there with the PFP and the message of food sovereignty.

Submitted by Citizen on Wed, 2013/04/17 - 7:13pm.
INDUSTRY VOICES DOMINATE AT CANADIAN FOOD SUMMIT Fellow Canadians, have you eaten today? If you did -- and even, or especially, if you didn't for lack of physical or economic access to food -- you should know that behind closed doors sits a group of industry leaders claiming to be non-partisan, objective, independent and representative. They are hammering out a national food strategy for Canada. On April 9 and 10, the Conference Board of Canada hosted their 2nd Canadian Food Summit in Toronto, an event focusing on, in their own words, "constructive ways to make the most of our opportunities, resources and talent to achieve the great economic potential of the food sector and meet the full range of Canadians' food needs." Conference participants included an interesting array of representatives from government, civil society and industry -- with industry interests most prominently featured in all of the presentations, panels, and plenaries. Representatives and voices came from Maple Leaf Foods Inc., Weston Bakeries, Nestle Waters, Loblaw Companies Limited, McCain Foods Limited, H.J. Heinz Company of Canada, and several biotech companies including CropLife Canada, Cargill Limited, and Syngenta Canada Inc. It's worth mentioning that April 9 was also the pan-Canadian Day of Action against genetically modified Alfalfa, as 38 communities rallied to protest its commercial release (one just down the road from the Food Summit at St. Lawrence Market). The cost of a ticket to the Summit ranged between $695 for a non-profit or small business to $1,225 for a corporate or government representative, making the event inaccessible for some of the voices most needed at the table for consultation -- anyone who experiences hunger, those with small farm or food enterprises, students and youth, and those without disposable income for mid-week events that take them away from day jobs. To increase the representation in the room, the J.W. McConnell Foundation funded 10 non-profit organizations to attend -- people who made full use of their entrance badges to ask the difficult questions in each and every plenary session, and were among the few to stay until the bitter end (by which point most of the industry players had long since gone home). The Summit purported to be a platform to "engage delegates in refining the draft Canadian Food Strategy," which is being developed by the Centre for Food in Canada (CFIC). It costs $11,400 annually to join the Centre for Food in Canada's Steering Committee as a participant investor, which buys you passes to biannual meetings and special events, access to research findings, and the right to offer input on the choice of research and meeting topics. If you hope to have more say, you can contribute $50,000 annually to become a Champion Investor, which grants you the right to define the research agenda for CFIC, access research results before public release, and advise CFIC in its planning and decision making. So where does that leave the average Canadian in the Canadian Food Strategy? Clearly, you are not setting the agenda. Read more . . . http://rabble.ca/news/2013/04/industry-voices-dominate-canadian-food-summit