A qualitative study of community kitchens as a response to income-related food insecurity

Abstract/Resume

A variety of self-help and community development strategies have recently emerged to address problems of hunger and food insecurity at a local level. One such strategy is community kitchens. Loosely defined as community-based cooking programs, "kitchens" are groups of people who regularly come together to prepare food for themselves and their families. This study employed grounded theory methods to examine the potential of community kitchens to enhance food security among those with constrained resources. Insights gained from participant observations of ten kitchens in progress were augmented by in-depth interviewing of a sample of participants and facilitators. Study findings suggest that, in some cases, community kitchen participation may enhance coping skills and provide valuable social support. However, the programs have limited potential to resolve food security issues rooted in severe and chronic poverty because they do not alter households' economic circumstances in any substantial way. (Can J Diet Prac Res 1999; 60:11-16)

Toute une serie de strategies d'entraide et de developpement communautaire ont ete recemment proposees pour lutter contre la faim et l'insecurite alimentaire au niveau local. La mise sur pied de cuisines communautaires est l'une d'entre elles. Definies assez librement comme etant des programmes de preparation collective de repas, les -cuisineso sont des groupes de personnes qui se reunissent regulierement pour preparer des aliments pour elles et leur famille. Nous avons utilise des methodes theoriques eprouvees pour examiner le role des cuisines communautaires dans l'amelioration de la securite alimentaire chez des personnes aux ressources limitees. Les donnees recueillies a la suite de l'observation des participants de dix cuisines en action ont ete augmentees par des entrevues aupres d'un echantillon de participants et d'animateurs. Les resultats permettent de croire que, dans certains cas, la participation a des cuisines communautaires peut accroitre les habiletes d'adaptation et fournir un soutien social precieux. Cependant, les programmes ont un potentiel limite pour resoudre les problemes de securite alimentaire lies a la pauvrete grave et chronique, parce qu'ils ne modifient pas les conditions economiques des menages de fa,on appreciable. (Rev can prat dietet 1999; 60:11-16)

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the 1980s and '90s, hunger has emerged as a significant social problem and a serious public health concern in Canada. The principal indication of hunger has been the steadily increasing demand for charitable food assistance which is occurring on a scale not witnessed since the Great Depression (1). This demand has been linked to persistently high levels of poverty, unemployment and underemployment, and to the erosion of publicly-funded social programs for the poor and unemployed (1-4). Although initially viewed as temporary, emergency relief operations, food banks now appear to be accepted as a "necessary community resource" (5). Yet questions abound about the capacity of a charitable model of emergency food relief to resolve chronic food problems rooted in poverty. Specifically, there are concerns about the poor quality and limited quantity of food donated for distribution through this system, the demeaning nature of food charity, and the way in which food banks have served to depoliticize hunger, detracting attention from the underlying social, political, and economic issues (2,4,6-8).

A variety of self-help and community development initiatives have recently emerged, as health professionals and community workers have sought to identify more effective community-based strategies to address hunger (9). One such strategy that has recently and rapidly grown in popularity is community kitchens. They have been described as part of a "grassroots self-help movement," and are seen as a means to empower those vulnerable to hunger and food insecurity through the provision of skills, resources, and support (10). However, they have been the subject of limited research to date.

METHODS

To examine the potential for community kitchens to affect income-related food insecurity, a qualitative research study was undertaken. The term "income-related food insecurity" is used to denote inadequate or insecure access to sufficient, nutritious, personally-acceptable food arising in the context of scarce resources(1). The purpose of this qualitative examination of community kitchens was not to evaluate the effectiveness of individual programs but rather to identify generic issues that might inform future thinking about community kitchens as a response to income-related food insecurity. The study was initiated in 1995, after obtaining ethical approval from the University of Toronto Office of Research Services. The study focused on kitchens initiated by public health departments, community service agencies, and food action projects as community-based interventions with the explicit goal of enhancing food security among low-income households. A combination of participant observations and indepth interviews with kitchen participants and facilitators was used to explore the issue from multiple perspectives. Contemporary grounded theory methods guided the research process (11,12). As is typical with this approach to qualitative research, data gathering and analysis occurred concurrently, so that emerging insights from the early observations and interviews guided the selection of kitchens for subsequent observations and helped to refine the scope of questions explored with interview participants.

An open-ended, descriptive, exploratory research approach was necessary, given the paucity of literature on community kitchens in Canada and the diverse nature of programs being conducted under this label. Indeed, the first task in this research project was simply to describe what community kitchens are. The next task was to develop an analysis of community kitchens in relation to income-related food insecurity, which was grounded in empirical data. With the assistance of 23 local public health and food security networks in Toronto and neighbouring regions, ten community kitchens were identified for inclusion in this study. In each kitchen, participant observations were conducted in one cooking session, and in some cases, also in a corresponding pre-planning session. To encourage free and easy interaction with program participants, the observer did not make notes while in the kitchens, but recorded detailed observational notes immediately after each visit.

Focused, in-depth interviews were conducted with 14 participants and six facilitators selected from six of the kitchens observed. These six kitchens were appropriate for the interview sample because they encompassed the range of operations observed. Within selected kitchens, only participants who had low incomes and some history of participation were recruited into the interview sample. To ensure continuity between the observational data and the interviews, the same person who had been responsible for participant observations in the kitchen conducted the interviews.

The 14 participants interviewed ranged in age from 17 to 53 years. The duration of their involvement in community kitchens ranged from four months to five years. All but one were women, and all had at least one child living with them. Eight households relied on social assistance and six received employment income, although in two of these households, wages were supplemented by social assistance.

Each interview was taperecorded with the interviewee's knowledge and consent. Interviews with kitchen participants explored their experiences of and reasons for participating in a community kitchen and the importance of specific aspects of the kitchen in relation to their household food needs and concerns. The interviews with kitchen facilitators and coordinators focused on descriptions of program organization (including goals, methods by which kitchen participants are recruited, and financial operations of the kitchens) and the interviewees' perceptions of the kitchens' strengths and limitations. The interviews generally followed an interview guide, but the exact wording and order of questions varied between interviews, depending on the direction individuals' responses took. In addition, all interview participants were invited to discuss other issues they felt were pertinent to our understanding of community kitchens.

From a review of observational notes, kitchen profiles were developed, comprising a description of key program elements, key differences and similarities. The interview tapes were transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were reviewed in their entirety to identify central content-related categories and conceptual themes. Because of their different vantage points, participants' and facilitators' interviews were treated separately through this initial phase of analysis.

The transcripts for each group were coded according to the categories and themes, and sorted by codes, with the aid of a computer program (The Ethnograph, v 4.0, 1995, Qualis Research Associates, Amherst, MA). The sorting facilitated the comparing and contrasting of different individuals' remarks on particular issues, which in turn yielded insight into factors influencing participants' experiences of the kitchens.

The final stage of the analysis was a systematic integration of the interview material and kitchen profiles, to identify key features of the kitchens in relation to participants' experiences of these programs. From this analysis, the role of community kitchens in enhancing the food security of low-income households was elucidated. A written summary of the research was then discussed with four people who work with community kitchens in this region. Their feedback helped to refine the analysis further and to pinpoint issues of particular relevance to community workers.

RESULTS

This section examines the potential for community kitchen participation to affect household food insecurity, paying particular attention to the economic and social issues that appeared to shape participants' experiences of these programs. Where brief excerpts from the interview transcripts are presented to illustrate key points, pseudonyms are used to ensure participants' anonymity.

What is a community kitchen? - Community kitchens can be loosely defined as community-based cooking programs in which small groups of people (called "kitchens") meet regularly to prepare one or more meals together. Within this general framework, there is wide variation in models of operation. The kitchens observed differed in the relative emphasis they placed on quantity food preparation, cooking instruction, and communal dining - factors that shaped the opportunities for social interaction within the kitchens and structured their potential to affect participants' food security. At the core of these differences lie three distinct models of participatory programming around food: collective kitchens, communal meal programs, and cooking classes.

Collective Kitchens - Most of the kitchens observed functioned as collective kitchens, characterized by the pooling of resources and labour to produce large quantities of food. Small groups usually meet twice a month, once to plan the menu and develop the shopping list, and then a second time to prepare four to five main-dish meals that are divided up and taken home for later consumption. The quantity of food prepared is determined not by the number of participants but by the sizes of their households. For example, a group of four participants might cook five different dishes for 15 to 20 people. The volume of cooking means that collective kitchens tend to be small; those observed had no more than four participants. As a food security strategy these kitchens are designed to help participants meet their families' food needs through the collectivization of food preparation and the economy of scale associated with largevolume food purchasing and preparation. Additionally, participants may acquire shopping and cooking skills that enhance their ability to manage independently, but this is not the primary focus of the kitchens.

Cooking Classes - In some community kitchens, groups gathered to watch individual members demonstrate the preparation of one or two dishes. Participation in these cooking sessions was limited to minor supportive roles (e.g., opening a can, chopping some onions) or structured experiences (e.g., filling an eggroll). The group members sampled the featured dishes and usually took home a small amount of food. However, the goal of food preparation was not to produce food for group members and their families so much as to expose members to new foods and different methods of food preparation. This model works on the premise that enhanced food preparation skills will enable participants to use their food dollars more effectively and to prepare more varied, nutritious, low-cost meals at home. Communal Meal Programs - In community kitchens that function as communal meal programs, participants gather periodically to prepare and consume a single meal together. This approach is exemplified by one kitchen, which was part of a project to provide support to "high risk" mothers. The group gathered every two weeks for lunch. Pairs of participants took turns planning the menu and coordinating the meal preparation, while others assumed supportive roles, helping to prepare vegetables, set the table, wash the dishes, etc. Facilitation, childcare, and food costs were covered by the project grant. The kitchen was a particularly popular program, with 12 women usually in attendance, each with at least one child in tow. Communal dining enabled participants to work together and socialize informally. Often kitchen participation led to involvement in other support services and groups available through the project. In community kitchens such as this, participants may gain some foodrelated skills and benefit from the occasional receipt of a free or reduced-cost meal, but the kitchen is primarily a mechanism to provide social recreation and support. Funding and Resource Issues - Costs are incurred directly or indirectly for food, childcare, transportation, and staff for community kitchen facilitation or coordination. Approaches to and perspectives on financing varied dramatically among the kitchens observed. All had some form of financial support from project grants, agency funds, or local donations, although the amount and security of this funding varied. All the kitchens had a paid facilitator or coordinator, and most included some arrangement for childcare. In most kitchens the food was partially or fully subsidized, and some kitchens used donated foods (usually from the local food bank). The amount of money participants were required to contribute ranged from nothing to one dollar per portion of food, although in some cases, their ability to benefit fully from the programs also depended on the availability of transportation and home freezers.

The Social Nature of Community Kitchens - Regardless of the specific model of operation, the cooperative nature of food preparation in community kitchens means that participation is fundamentally a social experience. For participants whose opportunities to socialize with other adults are limited by childcare responsibilities and low incomes, community kitchens were valued social "outings." Elizabeth expressed this most clearly: "Out of the house, change of environment, new people, new experiences, ... [being a part of a community kitchen] was doing something that wasn't on my own. And it was companionship, and I was dying for that. I still basically am, so I come to the kitchen."

Some kitchens included both low- and middle-income participants, reflecting the coordinating groups' decisions not to restrict participation in ways that might segregate and stigmatize low-income participants. However, for women marginalized by extreme and chronic poverty and difficult life circumstances, kitchens comprising individuals with shared struggles were invaluable in breaking down social isolation. "When you're a single mum on [welfare] with no money, although you know there's other mums like that out there, because you hear about them, you're not really connected with them. I find that through the community kitchen you really get a sense [that] you're not alone. You're not alone with having no money for childcare, no money for food, no money for entertainment..... Thinking other women are struggling with the same things I am, I don't have to feel so stupid or whatever."

The highly social atmosphere in community kitchens lends itself to the sharing of ideas and information. As Jen explained, "It's kind of like in the olden days ... a quilting bee. You know how women sit around and work together and make a quilt? The same kind of thing: you work together and make a meal, just sharing titbits of information that come out of conversation." Some participants said they had learned strategies to minimize food costs (e.g., watching advertisements and purchasing foods on sale, saving manufacturers' coupons to redeem for discounts, or purchasing low-cost foods, damaged packaged goods, and aged perishable foods), but others spoke of always having been frugal. Indeed, the collective food preparation, bulk buying, and quantity food production that characterized collective kitchens appeared to be natural extensions of some participants' ongoing food management practices. For example, one woman described how she and a neighbour would get together to cook. Their activities were not as "organized" as the collective kitchen's, but the principles of pooled labour and resources were applied similarly.

While all the kitchens provided social recreation, a few were constructed to offer much-needed social and personal support to women whose lives were characterized by particularly difficult and isolating situations. The community kitchens that appeared most effective in this regard comprised participants with similar struggles. The cooking sessions were designed to include ample time for casual social interaction among participants and to foster an atmosphere of mutual support. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these kitchens had the benefit of a facilitator or coordinator with strong counselling and referral skills. This person understood that providing personal support to participants in crisis and to those with special needs was a central part of her job. Not surprisingly, these particular kitchens also appeared to attract and sustain the participation of individuals with serious problems of food insecurity.

Kitchens as Strategies to Enhance Household Food Resources - One way in which community kitchens may alleviate income-related food insecurity is by augmenting household resources. In kitchens where the food was partially or completely subsidized, financial benefits accrued directly from participation, because the receipt of free or reduced-cost food offset some of a household's food costs. In this sense, the programs acted as a form of income transfer. In collective kitchens where participants covered most or all of the food costs, however, the assessment of cost benefits was more complicated. Participants were required to compare the meals cooked collectively with meals they would prepare on their own. Some described collective kitchen meals in terms of improved food quality and variety. A few noted the economy of scale arising from quantity food purchases. Marianne explained that "[t]he meals are better.

Some of the things that we cook or eat I might not buy or whatever in my home. And some of the things that we cook maybe I couldn't afford if I had to pay the entire price, you know, to go to a grocery store and get all the ingredients."

The savings associated with collective food preparation for any one participant depend on the displacement of food costs by the community kitchen meals. This is a highly individual matter. In one collective kitchen that operated with only a partial subsidy for the purchase of staples, two long-term participants were interviewed; Jean claimed that her family spent less on food as a result of her participation, but Greta insisted that she could prepare meals as cheaply at home. As she put it, "When it comes to making money stretch, I think I've got it down pat." A single mother of five, Greta said she came to the kitchen because it was a night out of the house with childcare provided.

The fact that the subsidization of food costs was a panicularly important determinant of kitchen participation underscores the case-specific nature of cost-benefit questions in relation to household food insecurity. Kitchens requiring participants to contribute one dollar per portion simply were not accessible to very poor families. Two of the collective kitchens had begun with full subsidies from government start-up grants, but as the funding expired, organizers began seeking participant contributions for an increasing proportion of the food costs. The introduction of fees was regarded as a natural transition to self-sufficiency, but in fact it transformed the programs. In one kitchen, participants who perceived themselves as unable to afford the new fees withdrew and were systematically replaced by higher-income participants. In describing one woman's departure, another said, "I heard her husband told her she couldn't come any more 'cause it was too expensive." Another participant explained, "Our two new [members] feel that their husbands are making a good enough wage that they can participate properly." Lack of affordability also explained members' sporadic attendance at some community kitchens. Another kitchen where the food subsidy had recently been withdrawn, claimed ten members, but only two of these attended regularly. As one of these women explained, "Pat and I are always regulars ... we always come, like every month. But everyone else, they change. Sometimes they come; it depends on their money .... Because like with Christmas coming up, a lot of people are just saving." For these women, "saving" meant not attending the kitchen.

The economic benefits of community kitchen participation - whether due to program subsidies or the economies of scale associated with bulk food purchasing - are severely limited by the scope of operations. Of the three different models of operation observed, quantity food preparation occurred only in collective kitchens. However, most collective kitchens cooked only once a month, preparing four or five meals. In some instances, the dishes prepared needed to be augmented with other foods (e.g., pasta or rice, a vegetable) at home in order to constitute a complete meal. The amount of food any one participant would take home from such a program was thus likely to provide less than 17% of her family's supper meals and less than 5% of her family's food needs for the month.

Kitchen Subsidies and Stigma Concerns that costs would pose a barrier to participation for very low-income families prompted organizers in one community to develop a sponsorship structure for collective kitchens. Most were "partnered" with community groups who donated up to $50 a month per kitchen for food. In some cases, the donor group also made cooking facilities available to the kitchen, but when this was not possible, a second "space partner" was also identified. A part-time staff person employed by the local health unit managed the solicitation and coordination of donated facilities and funds. In some kitchens, participants supplemented the subsidy with additional contributions (e.g., $1 to $2 per family member per cooking session). Three kitchens opted to reject the subsidy and finance themselves, but many worked with only the subsidy. Whereas programs elsewhere that require participants to bear the brunt of food costs appear to struggle to attract and keep low-income participants, the kitchens in this community were well attended - and sometimes even had waiting lists. With five years of successful operation and 20 collective kitchens, this "community partner" model of funding was clearly viable and sustainable.

The ongoing provision of full subsidies raises questions about the possibility that kitchen participation will be stigmatized in the same way that use of food banks and other charitable food assistance programs has been. Interestingly, kitchen participation did not appear to be a source of shame or embarrassment for members of subsidized programs. Several women interviewed had prior experience using food banks, and a few indicated that sometimes they still needed to use them. All were adamant that attending community kitchens was preferable. Not only was attending the kitchens Ca lot less humiliating than going to the food bank," but the food was better.

The participatory aspect of community kitchens is a crucial difference between these and other food programs. In the community where most kitchens were supported by community partners, the promotional literature revealed that while the kitchens were clearly targeted at people experiencing income-related food insecurity (e.g., those *struggling to put food on the table"), the subsidies were not publicized. The programs were thus not represented as charities, but instead portrayed more positively as participant-led programs and ways to collectivize cooking.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study raise some important questions about the capacity of community kitchens to enhance the food security of low-income households. The inaccessibility of unsubsidized community kitchens to families living in severe poverty suggests that such kitchens are not useful strategies to address the very serious problems of income-related food insecurity. Even when programs are completely subsidized, the limited scale of operations means that the material benefits of participation are likely to be minimal. Our study also suggests that while some individuals acquire more economical food management skills through community kitchen participation, others are already very frugal. This finding is consistent with other research documenting the considerable knowledge, skills, and resourcefulness of poor women in feeding their families (13-17), and it helps to explain the limited economic benefits of community kitchen participation reported elsewhere (14). The participatory aspects of community kitchens make them potentially important sources of social interaction and support for those isolated by poverty and other problems. Indeed, Crawford and Kalina (14) found that interaction and support were a key benefit of the kitchens. Perhaps because food and cooking are typically seen as the core of community kitchen activities, the social aspects of the programs we observed in our study often appeared to be underdeveloped. To realize this potential fully, it is imperative that kitchen facilitators possess strong group facilitation and counselling skills, and that their role goes beyond those of nutrition educator or kitchen supervisor. That Fernandez (18) has drawn similar conclusions from her study of collective kitchens further strengthens these findings.

Considerable evidence supports our conclusion that the depth of poverty among many food-insecure families poses a significant barrier to their participation in such programs as community kitchens. Poverty among Canadian families is growing (19), and income-support programs for low-income groups have been seriously eroded in many jurisdictions (20). Numerous local and regional studies have documented that social assistance benefit levels are inadequate (17,21-25). It is thus not surprising that most food bank users are social assistance recipients struggling to manage on very low incomes (2,5,26). A recent study of food bank users in Montreal reported that their expenditures on food were well below the estimated minimum expenditure required for an adequate diet (5).

Clearly, the poverty that underlies hunger in Canada is real and needs to be recognized in the design of programs purporting to build household food security. If people marginalized by poverty and difficult life circumstances are to participate in community kitchen programs, they must be subsidized. However, even if this were to happen, it would be unrealistic to expect these programs to have a major impact on income-related food insecurity. Where community kitchens can be supported through sustainable community partnerships, the programs enable the transfer of resources (i.e., small charitable donations) within communities without stigmatizing or demeaning recipients. This is perhaps the most important contribution community kitchens can make to food security.

RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE

A growing number of nutritionists and dietitians are working to design and implement programs that respond to problems of income-related food insecurity in their communities. However, there is very little research to inform practice in this area. This study, while limited in scope, has elucidated key issues to be considered in the development and evaluation of participatory, community-based food programs. Specifically, our findings draw attention to the importance of program subsidies, skilled group facilitation, and individual-level support in community kitchens for poor, marginalized groups. The study findings also highlight the limited potential for small-scale food programs to effect substantial changes in household food security among very low-income groups. This reinforces the need for advocacy to bring about policy and program changes that will address the underlying issues of poverty and unemployment.

Acknowledgment of previous publication

An earlier version of this work was published in Ricciutelli L, Larkin J, O'Neill E, eds. Confronting the cuts: a sourcebook for women in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc, 1998:187-94. It was entitled "Community Kitchens: `You Get a Bunch of People Cooking Together and You're Gabbing Away ....

This research was supported by a grant from the Dean's Fund, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto.

[Reference]

References

[Reference]

Davis B, Tarasuk V. Hunger in Canada. Agriculture and Human Values 1994;11 (4):50-7.

[Reference]

Riches G. Hunger in Canada: abandoning the right to food. In: Riches G, ed. First World hunger, food security and welfare politics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997.

Riches G. Food banks and the welfare crisis. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1986.

Tarasuk V, Davis B. Responses to food insecurity in the changing Canadian welfare state. J Nutr Educ 1996;28(2):71-5. Jacobs Starkey L, Kuhnlein H, Gray-Donald K. Food bank users: sociodemographic and nutritional characteristics. Can Med Assoc J 1998;158:1143-9.

[Reference]

Hobbs K, MacEachern W, McIvor A, Turner S. Waste of a nation: poor people speak out about charity. Can Rev Soc Policy 1993;31:94-104.

[Reference]

7. Riches G. Responding to hunger in a wealthy society: issues and options. J Can Diet Assoc 1989;50(3):150-4. 8. Tarasuk V, Maclean H. The institutionalization of food banks in

Canada: a public health concern. Can J Public Health 1990;81:331-2. 9. Kalina L Building food security in Canada: a community resource for action on hunger. Kamloops, BC: Kamloops FoodShare, 1993. 10. Norman D. Eliminating hunger in a society with surplus food. O N E Bull 1993;10(1):10-2.

11. Charmaz K- "Discovering" chronic illness: using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med 1990;30:1161-72.

12. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press, 1967.

[Reference]

13. Campbell CC, Desjardins E. A model and research approach for studying the management of limited food resources by low-income families. J Nutr Educ 1989;21 (4):162-71. 14. Crawford SM, Kalina L. Building food security through health promotion: community kitchens. J Can Diet Assoc 1997;58(4):197-201. 15. Fitchen JM. Hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in the contemporary United States: some observations on their social and cultural context. Food and Foodways 1988;2(3):309-33.

16. Tarasuk V, Maclean H. The food problems of low-income single mothers:

an ethnographic study. Can Home Economics J 1990;40(2):76-82. 17. Travers KD. The social organization of nutritional inequities. Soc Sci Med 1996;43(4):543-53.

18. Fernandez N. Editorial. ID Connections, CHEA's Development Newsletter 1997 Mar:2-7.

[Reference]

19. National Council of Welfare. Poverty profile 1995. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1997. 20. National Council of Welfare. Welfare incomes 1995. Ottawa, ON:

Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1997. 21. Donovan U, Clemens R, Kosky S, et al. Thames Valley Region food security survey. London, ON: Middlesex-London Health Unit, 1996. 22. Nova Scotia Nutrition Council. How do the poor afford to eat? An examination of social assistance food rates in Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Nutrition Council, 1988.

23. Kirkham J, Laframboise P. Obstacles and opportunities for London's G.W.A. clients. Pt 1. London, ON: Department of Social Services, Policy cc Planning Division, 1993.

24. Peterborough Social Planning Council. A report on hunger in Peterborough. Peterborough, ON: Peterborough Social Planning Council, 1996.

[Reference]

25. Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee. Is there food for all ... in Windsor-Essex County? Technical report. Windsor, ON: Windsor-Essex County Food Security Steering Committee, 1997. 26. Tarasuk V, Geduld J, Hilditch S. Struggling to survive: women in families using food banks. In: Ricciutelli L, Larkin J, O'Neill E, eds. Confronting the cuts. A sourcebook for women in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Inanna Publications and Education Inc, 1998.

[Author Affiliation]

VALERIE TARASUK, PhD, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; RANDI REYNOLDS, BA, MHSc Candidate, Graduate Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto