Changes in household food insecurity rates in Canadian metropolitan areas from 2007 to 2012.
Sriram, Urshila ; Tarasuk, Valerie
Household food insecurity, defined as inadequate access to food due
to financial constraints, is a growing public health concern. It
affected 12.6% of Canadian households in 2012, representing a
significant increase from 11.3% prevalence observed in 2008. (1) In
Canada, household food insecurity is associated with heightened
nutritional vulnerability (2) as well as compromises to individual
health and well-being. (3-12) Adults in food-insecure households report
poorer physical and mental health outcomes, including higher rates of
diabetes, heart disease and mental illness. (4-10) The experience of
food insecurity also leaves a permanent mark on children, making them
more susceptible to such conditions as depression and asthma later in
life. (3, 11, 12)
There has been considerable research to examine the conditions that
give rise to household food insecurity in Canada. Analyses of national
population health survey data have revealed that the probability of food
insecurity rises as income declines, but risk is also a function of
income source (i.e., reliance on social assistance, Employment Insurance
and Worker's Compensation), household structure (i.e., the presence
of children or lack of a partner), lack of home ownership, Aboriginal
status, and low education. (1, 8-10) In addition, recent research has
highlighted the protective effect of the guaranteed annual incomes
currently provided to Canadian seniors. (13, 14) With few exceptions,
(15) however, Canadian research into the determinants of food insecurity
has been focused on understanding associations at the household level.
With the consistent measurement of food insecurity on the Canadian
Community Health Survey (CCHS) since 2005, we have begun to chart trends
in food insecurity nationally and provincially. (1, 16) Yet we still
have little understanding of what drives prevalence rates, and therefore
limited evidence upon which to develop interventions. In the United
States, analyses of inter-state variation in food insecurity rates have
served to identify state-level policies that impact household
vulnerability and provide valuable direction for intervention. (17-19)
However, analogous studies are not feasible in Canada because of our
small number of provinces and territories. Although Census Metropolitan
Areas (CMAs) are not political entities, analysis of contextual factors
at this level is more viable. Understanding how CMA rates of food
insecurity are affected by shifting economic conditions can inform
strategies for intervention.
Drawing on data from the CCHS from 2007 to 2012, this study was
undertaken to 1) estimate the prevalence of household food insecurity by
CMA, 2) compare prevalence rates within CMAs over time, 3) compare CMA
prevalence rates with provincial rates of food insecurity, and 4) assess
the effect of local area economic characteristics on changes in CMA food
insecurity rates.
METHODS
The CCHS is an annual, population-representative health survey of
approximately 65,000 individuals aged 12 years and over living in
private dwellings in Canada. Excluded from the sampling frame are people
living on Aboriginal Reserves, institutional residents, full-time
members of the Canadian Forces and residents of certain remote
locations. Although CCHS data have been collected and released annually
since 2007, Statistics Canada also produces files combining two years of
data (i.e., 2007-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012) to match previous biannual
cycles of the survey.
Using geographic boundaries from the 2006 Census, 33 CMAs have been
defined in the CCHS. A CMA consists of one or more neighbouring
municipalities situated around a core and has a minimum total population
size of 100,000. The 33 CMAs and the nine provinces in which they are
situated comprise the focus of this study.
Data from the 2007-2012 annual components of the CCHS were used to
estimate the prevalence of food insecurity within each CMA and its
corresponding province, as well as examine the relationship between CMA
characteristics and food insecurity rates over time. Prince Edward
Island was the only province excluded from the analyses, as it does not
contain a CMA. Household food security status over the previous 12
months was determined from participants' responses to the 18-item
Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM). (20) The module was
designated as core content on the CCHS in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, but
optional in 2009-2010. Only two provinces, New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island, elected not to include the measure for their population.
Thus, prevalence rates are available for all CMAs except Moncton and
Saint John for 2009-2010.
For this study, households whose respondents provided no
affirmative responses to the HFSSM were classified as food secure, while
those with one or more affirmative responses were considered to be food
insecure. This classification scheme includes marginal, moderate and
severe food insecurity, (16) recognizing the heightened vulnerability of
individuals in households reporting any indication of this condition.
(10, 21) Thus, our estimation of food insecurity prevalence encompasses
a more comprehensive spectrum of the food-insecure population than the
coding method originally proposed by Health Canada. (20)
Changes in the prevalence of household food insecurity within CMAs
were first examined by comparing estimates from 2011-2012 to those from
2007-2008. Adjacent years were pooled to maximize the sample size for
each CMA and we applied two-sample tests of proportions to identify
significant increases or decreases in prevalence. A similar analysis was
conducted to assess changes in provincial prevalence rates over this
period. As separate tests were carried out for each CMA or province,
corrections for multiple comparisons were not required. Data from
2009-2010 were omitted to enable comparison of all 33 CMAs over this
period.
The impact of CMA-level economic characteristics on changes in food
insecurity prevalence was examined through fixed-effects linear
regression. Data on CMA-level economic characteristics were available
from 2007 through 2012 and included annual peak unemployment rate,
rental vacancy rate, and average number of Employment Insurance (EI)
beneficiaries per month. Summary statistics and data sources for these
variables are presented in Table 1. CMA fixed effects were included to
control for unobserved, stable characteristics of CMAs that could bias
estimated associations between economic predictors and food insecurity.
To track yearly changes in the prevalence of food insecurity within
CMAs, variables for survey year were added to the fixed-effects model.
Our analytic sample included food insecurity rates for all 33 CMAs from
2007 to 2012, but with data missing for the CMAs of Moncton and Saint
John for 2009 and 2010.
A second model was conducted with the addition of income
distribution statistics available for 20 select CMAs: the percentage of
persons below the low-income measure after tax (LIM-AT) and the average
low-income gap ratio (Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, CANSIM Table
202-0802). The gap ratio represents the average difference between
household income and the LIM-AT among low-income persons, expressed as a
percentage of the LIM-AT.) As no significant associations were observed
for these income variables, they were omitted from the final model.
All analyses were carried out using STATA version 12.1. CMA food
insecurity rates were generated using survey commands with household and
bootstrap weights provided by Statistics Canada. Coefficients of
variation were used to confirm the reliability of these estimates.
RESULTS
Substantial variability in the prevalence of household food
insecurity was observed across CMAs in 2011-2012, with rates ranging
from a high of 19.9% in Halifax to a low of 9.0% in Quebec City (Table
1). Within provinces, rates also varied widely between CMAs. While the
prevalence of household food insecurity in Ontario in 2011-2012 was
11.8%, CMA rates ranged from 17.3% in Barrie to 9.3% in Hamilton (Table
2). Similarly, the prevalence of food insecurity in Quebec was 13.0%,
while CMA rates ranged from 14.8% in Montreal to 9.0% in Quebec City
(Table 2).
Between 2007-2008 and 2011-2012, there was considerable fluctuation
in CMA food insecurity rates. Significant increases were observed in
Halifax, Montreal, Peterborough, Guelph, Calgary and Abbotsford, but the
food insecurity rate in Hamilton dropped significantly over this period
(Table 2). Five provinces showed significant changes in food insecurity
prevalence from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta (Table 2). In many
cases, provincial patterns paralleled those observed in CMAs (e.g., food
insecurity increased significantly in Halifax and in Nova Scotia
overall). However, the magnitude and direction of prevalence changes
among CMAs in the three largest provinces were more variable in
comparison to provincial rates.
Food insecurity prevalence within a CMA was positively associated
with peak unemployment rate, but not significantly related to the rental
vacancy rate or the average number of EI beneficiaries per month (Table
3). A 1-percentage-point increase in peak unemployment rates led to a
0.78-percentage-point increase in the prevalence of food insecurity
(Table 3). Coefficients for year variables showed a decline in the
average rate of food insecurity among CMAs from 2007 to 2010 followed by
a rise in 2011 and 2012 (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Our results document marked differences in the prevalence of food
insecurity across CMAs and highlight substantial intraprovincial
variation. Considerable fluctuation in the prevalence of food insecurity
over time was also observed within individual metropolitan areas. Food
insecurity prevalence rates within and between CMAs appeared much more
variable than provincial rates. Some of this volatility can be
attributed to the smaller survey samples and consequently greater
instability of CMA prevalence estimates (as indicated by the wider
confidence intervals around these estimates). However, we detected
significant changes within CMAs over time where no such changes were
observed provincially, and vice versa. These findings suggest that
provincial estimates of food insecurity do not necessarily reflect the
conditions in individual CMAs and point to the importance of continued
surveillance to monitor the prevalence of food insecurity locally.
Examining the contribution of metropolitan area characteristics to
changes in food insecurity rates over time highlighted a strong positive
effect of peak unemployment rate, a finding consistent with US studies
of state-level variation in food insecurity (17-19) and variation in the
national prevalence over time. (22) High unemployment rates can exert
upward pressure on the prevalence of food insecurity because residents
are less able to garner sufficient income to meet their food needs.
Although average unemployment rate was also significantly associated
with food insecurity in this study (data not shown), the use of peak
rather than average unemployment rate yielded a stronger association
because it provides a better estimate of the share of the labour force
experiencing job loss and related income shocks in a given year. (22)
The strong positive association between food insecurity prevalence
rates and peak unemployment in CMAs underscores the centrality of
employment conditions to this problem. Almost two thirds of
food-insecure households in Canada are reliant on income from salaries
or wages. (1) An in-depth examination of this phenomenon, drawing on
data from CCHS 2007-2008, revealed the particular vulnerability of
low-waged workers and households dependent on one rather than multiple
earners. (23) The importance of employment was also evident in a
follow-up study of food insecurity among a large sample of low-income
families in Toronto; families' food security improved significantly
with a gain in the number of household members with paid work. (24)
Policy initiatives to expand employment opportunities, improve the
quality and stability of employment, and increase compensation benefits
for disadvantaged workers would appear to be critical in reducing the
prevalence of food insecurity within CMAs.
The lack of a significant association between the number of
Employment Insurance (EI) beneficiaries in CMAs and food insecurity
prevalence likely reflects the relatively small number of households
affected by fluctuations in this measure. While food insecurity is more
prevalent among households reliant on EI or Workers' Compensation
than those reliant on salaries or wages, (1, 8-10) the former comprised
less than 3% of food-insecure households in Canada in 2012. (1) EI
beneficiaries accounted for less than half of all unemployed
individuals, (25) suggesting that this measure may miss those segments
of the population most vulnerable to food insecurity.
Our failure to detect significant associations between food
insecurity rates and measures of low income may be due to minimal
fluctuations in these variables over the six years of observation.
However, it likely also reflects subtle differences in what is being
captured by these measures. Though closely linked to household income,
(1, 8-10, 16, 20) the material deprivation denoted by food insecurity
reflects the interplay of household resources (e.g., income, assets,
access to credit) and household expenditures (e.g., shelter, food, other
necessities), as well as household debt.
The observed decline in CMA food insecurity rates from 2007 to 2010
and the subsequent rise in 2011 through 2012 do not track provincial
estimates of food insecurity measured over the same period. (1) However,
this pattern was observed after adjustment for metropolitan area
economic characteristics and is not directly comparable to unadjusted
provincial trends. It is also important to note that this yearly trend
refers to the average prevalence across CMAs and may not reflect changes
within each individual CMA. One possible explanation for the rise in CMA
food insecurity rates in 2011 and 2012 may be a lagged effect of the
2008-2009 economic recession. The slow job market recovery which
characterized the post-recession period, coupled with Canada's
declining social safety net, would have increased financial strain among
low-income households, leaving them more vulnerable to food insecurity.
(26, 27) Another explanation stems from a recent US study which
highlighted strong effects of annual inflation (as measured by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI)) and relative food price on changes in the
national prevalence of food insecurity. (22) Although post-recession
increases in inflation and food prices have been charted nationally and
provincially in Canada, (28) these economic measures are not available
across all CMAs. Post-hoc analyses within a small sample of CMAs with
available CPI data showed no significant association between inflation
and CMA rates of food insecurity; however, this may be due to
insufficient sample size and limited years of data (analyses not shown).
This suggests that more years of follow-up data are required to fully
understand the relationship between temporal trends in CMA food
insecurity rates and the economic impacts of this recession.
Our study was also limited by the lack of data on costs of living
and infrastructure at the CMA level over the time period of interest. As
a result, we were unable to explore the effect of potentially important
explanatory factors, such as housing costs and characteristics of the
local food environment (i.e., food prices and food retail access).
Multi-level modeling of CMA characteristics among a subset of 20 CMAs
suggests that housing affordability exerts an important influence on
household food insecurity. (29) However, we lacked the data to carry
this variable into the current analysis. Our examination of factors
affecting temporal trends was also limited by the number of years of
available data for CMAs with comparable measures of food insecurity.
Although the HFSSM was included as optional content on the CCHS in 2005,
Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan
opted out of the module, so the data were excluded from this study.
As with other studies, our findings are not generalizable beyond
the unit of analysis, which in this case is CMAs. Nonetheless, given
that 69.7% of the Canadian population resides in the 33 CMAs that
comprised our analytic sample, (30) we would argue that our results are
relevant to discussions on reducing the prevalence of food insecurity in
this country. More research is needed, however, to determine how shifts
in unemployment affect prevalence rates nationally as well as in
individual provinces and territories.
CONCLUSION
The current study makes a unique contribution to research on
household food insecurity in Canada by examining trends in food
insecurity rates across metropolitan areas and identifying contextual
factors of particular importance to this problem. Given the
extraordinary burden of ill health associated with household food
insecurity and the growing prevalence of food insecurity nationally,
there is a pressing need for evidence-based interventions to address
this problem. We found that the rate of unemployment in a CMA
contributes significantly to the observed prevalence of food insecurity.
Thus federal, provincial and municipal policy initiatives designed to
strengthen employment opportunities for low-waged workers may be an
effective strategy to reduce household food insecurity in metropolitan
areas.
REFERENCES
(1.) Tarasuk V Mitchell A, Dachner N. Household Food Insecurity in
Canada, 2012. Research to identify policy options to reduce food
insecurity (PROOF). Toronto, ON, 2014. Available at:
http://nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.
ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/foodinsecurity2011_final.pdf (Accessed
November 9, 2014).
(2.) Kirkpatrick SI, Tarasuk V. Food insecurity is associated with
nutrient inadequacies among Canadian adults and adolescents. J Nutr
2008;138:60412. PMID: 18287374.
(3.) Broughton MA, Janssen PS, Hertzman C, Innis SM, Frankish CJ.
Predictors and outcomes of household food insecurity among inner city
families with preschool children in Vancouver. Can J Public Health
2006;97:214-16. PMID: 16827410.
(4.) Muldoon K, Duff P, Fielden S, Anema A. Food insufficiency is
associated with psychiatric morbidity in a nationally representative
study of mental illness among food insecure Canadians. Soc Psychiatry
Psychiatr Epidemiol 2012;48:795-803. PMID: 23064395. doi:
10.1007/s00127-012-0597-3.
(5.) Normen L, Chan K, Braitstein P, Anema A, Bondy G, Montaner J,
et al. Food insecurity and hunger are prevalent among HIV-positive
individuals in British Columbia, Canada. J Nutr 2005;135:820-25. PMID:
15795441.
(6.) Gucciardi E, DeMelo M, Vogt J, Stewart D. Exploration of the
relationship between household food insecurity and diabetes care in
Canada. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2218-24. PMID: 19720843. doi:
10.2337/dc09-0823.
(7.) Marjerrison S, Cummings E, Glanville NT, Kirk S, Ledwell M.
Prevalence and associations of food insecurity in children with diabetes
mellitus. J Pediatr 2011;158:607-11. PMID: 21126743. doi:
10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.10.003.
(8.) Che J, Chen J. Food insecurity in Canadian households. Health
Rep 2001;12:11-22. PMID: 15069808.
(9.) Vozoris N, Tarasuk V. Household food insufficiency is
associated with poorer health. J Nutr 2003;133:120-26. PMID: 12514278.
(10.) Tarasuk V, Mitchell A, McLaren L, McIntyre L. Chronic
physical and mental health conditions among adults may increase
vulnerability to household food insecurity. J Nutr 2013;143:1785-93.
PMID: 23986364. doi: 10.3945/jn.113. 178483.
(11.) Kirkpatrick SI, McIntyre L, Potestio ML. Child hunger and
long-term adverse consequences for health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
2010;164:754-62. PMID: 20679167. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.117.
(12.) McIntyre L, William J, Lavorato D, Patten S. Depression and
suicide ideation in late adolescence and early adulthood are an outcome
of child hunger. J Affect Disord 2013;150:123-29. PMID: 23276702. doi:
10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.029.
(13.) Emery JH, Fleisch V, McIntyre L. How a guaranteed annual
income could put food banks out of business. SPP Research Papers
2013;6:1-20.
(14.) Emery JH, Fleisch V, McIntyre L. Legislated changes to
federal pension income in Canada will adversely affect low income
seniors' health. Prev Med 2013;57:963-66. PMID: 24055151. doi:
10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.09.004.
(15.) Emery JH, Fleisch V, Matheson J, Ferrer A, Kirkpatrick SI,
Tarasuk V, et al. Evidence of the association between household food
insecurity and heating cost inflation in Canada, 1998-2001. Can Public
Pol 2012;38:181-215. doi: 10.1353/cpp.2012.0016.
(16.) Tarasuk V Mitchell A, Dachner N. Household Food Insecurity in
Canada, 2011. Research to identify policy options to reduce food
insecurity (PROOF). Toronto, ON, 2013. Available at:
http://nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.
ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Household_Food_Insecurity_in_Canada2012_ENG.pdf (Accessed November 9, 2014).
(17.) Tapogna J, Suter A, Nord M, Leachman M. Explaining variation
in state hunger rates. Fam Econ Nutr Rev 2004;16:12-22.
(18.) Bartfeld J, Dunifon R. State-level predictors of household
food security among households with children. J Policy Anal Manag
2006;25:921-42. doi: 10.1002/pam.20214.
(19.) Gunderson C, Waxman E, Engelhard E, Satoh A, Chawla N. Map
the Meal Gap 2014: Technical Brief. Chicago, IL: Feeding America, 2014.
Available at: http://
www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-mealgap/2012/2012-map-the-meal-gap-tech-brief.pdf (Accessed November 9, 2014).
(20.) Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Income-related
Household Food Security in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, 2007.
Report No. H164-42/ 2007E. Available at:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/income_food_sec-sec_alim-eng.php (Accessed November 9, 2014).
(21.) Coleman-Jensen A. U.S. food insecurity status: Toward a
refined definition. Soc Indic Res 2010;95:215-30. doi: 10.1007/s
11205-009-9455-4.
(22.) Nord M, Coleman-Jensen A, Gregory C. Prevalence of U.S. Food
Insecurity is Related to Changes in Unemployment, Inflation and the
Price of Food. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 2014. Report No. ERR-167. Available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ media/1489984/err167.pdf (Accessed March 2,
2015).
(23.) McIntyre L, Bartoo A, Emery J. When working is not enough:
Food insecurity in the Canadian labour force. Public Health Nutr
2013;17:49-57. PMID: 22958521. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012004053.
(24.) Loopstra R, Tarasuk V. Severity of household food insecurity
is sensitive to change in household income and employment status among
low-income families. J Nutr 2013;143:1316-23. PMID: 23761648. doi:
10.3945/jn.113.175414.
(25.) Canadian Employment Insurance Commission. 2012/13 EI
Monitoring and Assessment Report Ottawa, ON: Canadian Employment
Insurance Commission, 2014. Catalogue No. CEIC-001-05-14E. Available at:
http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ reports/ei/monitoring2013/index.page (Accessed
Novermber 9, 2014).
(26.) Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Theme Report #6:
Mending Canada's Frayed Social Safety Net: The Role of Municipal
Governments. Ottawa, ON: Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2006.
Available at: https://www.
fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Mending_Canadas_Frayed_Social_Safety_Net_
The_role_of_municipal_governments_EN.pdf (Accessed November 9, 2014).
(27.) Yalnizyan A. The Problem of Poverty Post-recession. Ottawa,
ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2010. Available at:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/reports/docs/Poverty% 20Post%20Recession.pdf (Accessed November 9,
2014).
(28.) Statistics Canada. The Consumer Price Index, December 2012.
Ottawa, ON: Consumer Prices Division, Statistics Canada, 2013. Catalogue
No. 62-001-X Vol. 91 no. 12. Available at:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-001-x/62-001x2012012-eng.pdf (Accessed
November 9, 2014).
(29.) Sriram U, Tarasuk V. Assessing the influence of metropolitan
area economic characteristics on household food insecurity in Canada. J
Hunger Environ Nutr (In press).
(30.) Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Estimates:
Subprovincial Estimates, 2006-2013. Ottawa: Demography Division,
Statistics Canada, 2014. Catalogue No. 91-214-X. Available at:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214x/91-214-x2012000-eng.pdf (Accessed
November 9, 2014).
Received: November 10, 2014
Accepted: March 7, 2015
Urshila Sriram, MSPH,' Valerie Tarasuk, PhD
Authors' Affiliation
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON
Correspondence: Urshila Sriram, Division of Nutritional Sciences,
Cornell University, 244 Garden Ave, Savage Hall, Room 417, Ithaca, NY
14850, Tel: [telephone]647-784-1728, E-mail: us54@cornell.edu
Funding sources: This research was supported by a Canadian
Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) programmatic grant in Health and
Health Equity (FRN 115208).
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
Table 1. Data source information and summary statistics for census
metropolitan area (CMA)-level economic characteristics; Statistics
Canada, 2007-2012
Economic characteristic Source
Mean (SD) *
Peak unemployment Labour Force Survey (CANSIM
rate ([dagger]) (%) Table 282-0116) ([section])
Rental vacancy rate Canada Mortgage and Housing
(%) ([double dagger]) Corporation (CANSIM Table
027-0035)
Average number of Employment Insurance Statistics
Employment Insurance (CANSIM Table 276-0031)
beneficiaries per
month (1000s)
Economic characteristic 2007 2008 2009
Mean (SD) *
Peak unemployment 6.4 (1.5) 6.6 (1.7) 8.9 (2.3)
rate ([dagger]) (%)
Rental vacancy rate 2.8 (2.1) 2.5 (2.4) 3.4 (2.3)
(%) ([double dagger])
Average number of 7.16 (12.43) 7.35 (12.45) 12.60 (20.66)
Employment Insurance
beneficiaries per
month (1000s)
Economic characteristic 2010 2011 2012
Mean (SD) *
Peak unemployment 8.6 (1.8) 8.0 (1.6) 7.7 (1.7)
rate ([dagger]) (%)
Rental vacancy rate 3.2 (1.9) 2.7 (1.7) 3.1 (1.9)
(%) ([double dagger])
Average number of 11.79 (19.34) 9.46 (15.51) 8.50 (14.02)
Employment Insurance
beneficiaries per
month (1000s)
* Represents annual average values for economic characteristics
across all 33 CMAs. Each CMA was weighted equally.
([dagger]) Refers to the highest monthly unemployment rate in a given
calendar year.
([double dagger]) Based on privately-initiated rental apartment
structures of three or more units.
([section]) Table was terminated and replaced by CANSIM Table
282-0135 on January 28, 2015. CMA unemployment rates in Table
282-0135 are based on 2011 census boundaries and differ slightly from
the values in Table 282-0116 which were used in this analysis (based
on 2006 census boundaries).
Table 2. Prevalence of total household food insecurity (FI) by
province and census metropolitan area; Canadian Community Health
Survey, 2007-2008, 2011-2012
2011-2012
Total Food-insecure
households ([dagger]) households (%)
(000s)
Newfoundland & 190.6 12.0
Labrador
St John's 82.9 11.1
Nova Scotia 339.4 17.3
Halifax 161.0 19.9
New Brunswick 270.0 16.1
Moncton 62.1 17.8
Saint John 52.1 14.4
Quebec 2957.4 13.0
Saguenay 66.0 12.4
Quebec City 315.3 9.0
Sherbrooke 84.3 8.6
Trois-Rivieres 67.9 11.6
Montreal 1571.7 14.8
Ontario 4460.7 11.8
Ottawa-Gatineau 467.0 10.3
Kingston 59.2 10.7 ([double
Peterborough 43.7 15.9
Oshawa 129.9 13.2
Toronto 2102.4 12.0
Hamilton 286.5 9.3
St. Catharines- 152.0 11.1
Niagara
Kitchener 180.6 13.9
Brantford 50.2 13.2
Guelph 58.6 16.4
London 183.4 10.4
Windsor 116.8 13.1 ([double
Barrie 68.0 17.4
Greater Sudbury 57.6 9.4
Thunder Bay 44.2 13.9
Manitoba 422.0 12.3
Winnipeg 298.9 11.5
Saskatchewan 372.0 12.2
Regina 88.6 13.6 ([double
Saskatoon 111.4 12.7
Alberta 1299.7 12.0
Calgary 479.8 12.1
Edmonton 453.2 13.1
British Columbia 1611.3 11.9
Kelowna 75.5 14.2 ([double
Abbotsford 59.3 14.8
Vancouver 941.0 10.4
Victoria 14.0
2011-2012 2007-2008
95% CI Total Food-insecure
households households (%)
(000s)
Newfoundland & (10.5, 13.6) 177.9 15.1
Labrador
St John's (8.6, 14.2) 73.2 13.3
Nova Scotia (15.8, 19.0) 338.8 14.0
Halifax (16.9, 23.3) 149.7 13.3
New Brunswick (14.8, 17.5) 266.8 14.5
Moncton (14.7, 21.5) 54.2 15.9
Saint John (11.4, 18.0) 49.3 10.2
Quebec (12.3, 13.8) 2961.7 10.2
Saguenay (10.0, 15.5) 68.2 9.2
Quebec City (7.2, 11.2) 301.0 10.8
Sherbrooke (6.4, 11.5) 81.5 9.0
Trois-Rivieres (8.6, 15.2) 61.8 11.4
Montreal (13.5, 16.1) 1538.4 10.0
Ontario (11.3-12.5) 4208.8 12.0
Ottawa-Gatineau (8.8-12.0) 434.9 11.0
Kingston (7.5-15.1) 56.5 12.1
Peterborough (12.1-20.4) 41.7 10.0
Oshawa (10.3-16.7) 118.0 11.1
Toronto (10.8-13.2) 1973.2 12.5
Hamilton (7.6-11.4) 258.1 12.4
St. Catharines- (9.0-13.7) 147.0 12.2
Niagara
Kitchener (11.1-17.3) 172.7 11.8
Brantford (10.4-16.6) 48.7 14.1
Guelph (13.2-20.2) 48.0 10.8 ([double
London (8.3-13.0) 174.9 11.2
Windsor (8.5-19.7) 118.8 14.1
Barrie (13.3-22.3) 71.4 3.0
Greater Sudbury (6.9-12.7) 56.5 11.2
Thunder Bay (10.9-17.7) 44.7 15.0
Manitoba (10.9-13.9) 394.5 12.7
Winnipeg (9.6-13.8) 277.6 14.2
Saskatchewan (10.8-13.8) 344.3 9.7
Regina (9.4-19.2) 79.5 11.0
Saskatoon (9.8-16.3) 95.9 10.7
Alberta (10.9-13.1) 1172.2 9.6
Calgary (10.1-14.4) 416.1 8.1
Edmonton (11.0-15.5) 397.8 10.6
British Columbia (11.0-12.9) 1501.7 11.2
Kelowna (10.0-20.0) 60.8 11.8 ([double
Abbotsford (11.0-19.7) 63.7 8.3
Vancouver (9.1-11.8) 849.9 10.5
Victoria (11.1-17.6) 132.2 12.0
2007-2008
95% CI [DELTA]
FI (%)
Newfoundland & (13.8, 16.6) -3.1 **
Labrador
St John's (10.9, 16.4) -2.2
Nova Scotia (12.8, 15.3) 3.3 **
Halifax (10.9, 16.0) 6.6 **
New Brunswick (13.4, 15.7) 1.6
Moncton (13.1, 19.0) -1.9
Saint John (7.6, 13.8) 4.2
Quebec (9.6, 10.8) 2.8 ***
Saguenay (7.1, 12.0) 3.2
Quebec City (8.9, 13.0) -1.7
Sherbrooke (6.6, 12.1) -0.4
Trois-Rivieres (9.1, 14.3) 0.1
Montreal (9.2, 11.0) 4.7 ***
Ontario (11.5, 12.6) -0.2
Ottawa-Gatineau (9.5, 12.7) -0.7
Kingston (9.4, 15.3) -1.4
Peterborough (7.4, 13.8) 5.8 *
Oshawa (8.6, 14.2) -2.1
Toronto (11.4, 13.7) -0.5
Hamilton (10.5, 14.6) -3.1 *
St. Catharines- (9.9, 15.0) -1.1
Niagara
Kitchener (9.6, 14.4) 2.1
Brantford (10.5, 18.6) -0.9
Guelph (7.8, 14.9) 5.6 *
London (9.3, 13.6) -0.8
Windsor (11.5, 17.1) -0.9
Barrie (10.1, 16.5) 4.4
Greater Sudbury (9.1, 14.1) -1.9
Thunder Bay (12.6, 18.1) -1.1
Manitoba (11.4, 14.1) -0.4
Winnipeg (12.3, 16.4) -2.7
Saskatchewan (8.8, 10.6) 2.5 **
Regina (9.0, 13.3) 2.6
Saskatoon (8.6, 13.4) 2.0
Alberta (8.9, 10.4) 2.4 ***
Calgary (6.8, 9.6) 4.0 **
Edmonton (9.1, 12.2) 2.5
British Columbia (10.5, 12.0) 0.7
Kelowna (7.5, 17.9) 2.5
Abbotsford (6.0, 11.4) 6.5 **
Vancouver (9.4, 11.7) -0.2
Victoria (9.8, 14.4) 2.1
([dagger]) Includes all households with a response to the Household
Food Security Survey Module.
([double dagger]) Use with caution (coefficient of variation 16.6% to
33.3%).
* p < 0.05; ** p <0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Fixed-effects linear regression analysis of the impact
of economic characteristics on census metropolitan area food
insecurity rates (N = 194);Canadian Community Health Survey, 2007-2012
Regression 95% CI
coefficient
Peak unemployment rate * (%) 0.78 (0.41, 1.15)
Rental vacancy rate ([dagger]) (%) -0.01 (-0.34, 0.32)
Average number of EI beneficiaries per -0.02 (-0.10, 0.07)
month (1000s)
Year 2007 1.63 (0.28, 2.97)
Year 2008 1.34 (0.04, 2.65)
Year 2009 0.38 (-0.70, 1.46)
Year 2010 ref
Year 2011 1.24 (0.13, 2.34)
Year 2012 2.31 (1.17, 3.45)
Additional parameters
rho (fraction of variance due to CMA 0.431
([double dagger]))
* Refers to the highest monthly unemployment rate in a given year.
([dagger]) Based on privately-initiated rental apartment structures
of three or more units.
([double dagger]) CMA = census metropolitan area.
