Government Releases “What we heard” Report on Food Policy: What Does it Mean?

There is finally some noise about food policy as the government publishes its What We Heard report from its 2017 public consultations. This is not a policy document, it is a report back, but how the government frames what they heard, and where the volume is turned up, down or off, is significant, and gives us some indication of where they’re headed.

The food movement along with Indigenous Peoples have some wins to celebrate, such as the need to emphasize governance and reconciliation, environment and food security. But other concepts like the right to food and sustainable diets that are good for the planet and for people, fail to get traction. There are some troubling omissions - was there really no mention of fruits and vegetables or moving from meat to plant-based diets, or consideration of labour concerns?

Overall, the report talks a lot about breaking down silos and recognising the linkages in our food system, but the follow-through in the report itself is patchy, perhaps inevitably at this stage of “listening”. It is encouraging that both the opening section on principles and the concluding section on new cross-cutting priorities to a great extent reflect approaches and mechanisms that the food movement has championed. However, there is no guarantee that they will be in the eventual policy, or determine hard choices and budgetary decisions.

The four thematic chapters (renamed as Food Security, Health and Food Safety, Environment and Economic Growth) are still often wish lists of competing or contradictory policy ideas, and there is no indication yet of how difficult choices will be made. Yes, civil society advocacy has been relatively successful in framing and introducing key policy ideas, but there is much work still to be done.

Wins for the Food Movement and Indigenous Peoples

Instead of food “affordability”, the report recognises that food security is a better approach to making sure all Canadians can eat well and that’s a significant reframing of the theme. Addressing food security as an income and poverty issue gets attention, while the right to food and food sovereignty do not have the same traction. Other specific policy proposals championed by the food movement like school food, local and community-based solutions, local procurement for schools and hospitals, and the need for consistent data on food insecurity also got noticed.

The unique history and role of food for Indigenous peoples is repeatedly acknowledged, with recognition of food as a pathway to reconciliation, rights and land-based approaches, attention to the needs of remote communities and the need to protect and champion country and traditional foods. A distinctions-based approach is introduced as a new cross-cutting priority. Nutrition North is no longer heralded as the only solution for the crisis of northern food insecurity

A multi-stakeholder external advisory body is highlighted within a new cross-cutting governance priority. The National Food Policy Council proposed by FSC and others is specifically mentioned and this whole section draws heavily on language from that proposal.

“Environment” has replaced the more limiting thematic title of Conserving Our Soil Water and Air, which is both more straightforward and does not marginalize other important issues like biodiversity. There is valuable recognition of the need to protect agricultural land, champion new farmers, monitor the use of pesticides and reduce food waste, all of which are policies we championed.

In the growth theme there is welcome recognition of fostering local and regional (and organic) food markets, and a (rather weak) section on balancing economic growth with environmental and other priorities.

Disappointments and Disappearances

Adopting a rights-based approach as the anchor of Canada’s new food policy would be a gamechanger (leaving aside for now that Canada already has obligations through its international treaty commitments). Decoding the lukewarm inclusion of the right to food in this report, it seems that civil society has not yet won that argument..

The Health and Food Safety theme of the report is disappointing from a civil society perspective. While one cannot argue with reducing food fraud or improving food literacy, there is no real analysis of the connection between food and the health of people and the planet. The Healthy Eating Strategy and the role of government instruments like taxation and subsidies in changing the food environments faced by Canadian consumers are barely mentioned.

In terms of Environment there is a focus on the impact of climate change on food production but much less on the impact of agriculture on climate change. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that a narrow trade agenda could make our food system less sustainable.

Given the momentum behind the growth target of $ 75 billion for agri-food exports by 2025, proposed by the Barton report and subsequently supported by new governmental bodies, instruments and budgets, it is no surprise that it headlines the Economic Growth section. This report hardly begins to address if or how this target could be achieved in ways that would be compatible with health, equity and respect for the Earth.

Finally, trade unions and others have drawn important attention to the role of labour in our food system (one in 8 jobs) including the use and abuse of migrant workers upon which we depend. This is, astoundingly, almost completely ignored.

These are all issues we shall be discussing at our Assembly as we plan next steps.