Food banks are ad hoc, charitable orga-nizations that collect and distribute donat-ed foods to the needy. They rapidly prolif-erated in Canada in the 1980s as commu-nities tried to respond to problems ofhunger in their midst. Demands for chari-table food assistance have continued to risein recent years, more than doublingbetween 1989 and 1998.1 Although con-cerns about the adequacy and appropriate-ness of this response to income-relatedfood problems abound,2-8 food banks arenow regarded as a ‘necessary communityresource.’9

The assistance provided by food banks islargely contingent upon the quality andquantity of donations from the public andfrom producers, processors and retailers.When funding permits, food banks maypurchase foods to augment the nutritionalquality of the donations (e.g., ref. 10).Incentives for companies to donate foodcan include corporate pride, enhanced cus-tomer loyalty, product exposure, and costsavings incurred from diverting unsaleableproducts from landfill sites.11 Industrydonations include products deemedunsaleable because of manufacturingerrors; damage during shipping, handlingand storage; or because the products areperishable and no longer of retail quality ornearing their expiry dates. The level ofreliance on these donations varies widely

between food banks, depending on theirproximity to large-scale food processingand retail operations and their access toalternative sources of food.

The supply-driven nature of food banksraises many questions about the qualityand quantity of food available to thosewho seek assistance, but this has been thesubject of little study. As part of a largercollaborative project designed to developpractice guidelines for emergency hamperprograms in Toronto, a survey was con-ducted to assess the food distributed andgain an understanding of consumers’ per-spectives on this food. Key findings aresummarized here.

METHODS

Food assistance in Toronto is coordinat-ed by Daily Bread Food Bank; they supplyfood to 70 emergency hamper programsthat in turn provide assistance to approxi-mately 135,000 people per month.12 Overfour consecutive weeks in June and July,1998, 18 randomly selected programs wereeach visited once and participants wererecruited on a ‘first come, first serve’ basis,as they came for food. A final sample of102 consumers was achieved, reflecting an80.3% participation rate. The householdcharacteristics of study participants weresimilar to those of participants in DailyBread Food Bank’s 1998 client survey.12

Survey participation was voluntary,anonymous, and by informed consent.Ethical approval was obtained from theUniversity of Toronto Office of ResearchServices. The survey was interviewer-administered and asked participants fortheir appraisals of the quantity, quality,and safety of the food they received. Thecontents of 85 participants’ hampers were

also recorded, noting any visible damage tofoods and the expiry dates of all dairyproducts. In two agencies, long line-upsfor assistance made it logistically unfeasibleto record hamper contents.

The energy and nutrient composition ofhamper contents was estimated using the1996 version of the Canadian DietaryInformation (CANDI) System for foodintake analysis.13 A theoretical estimate ofthe number of days of food provided byeach hamper was established by comparingthe total energy of hamper contents withan estimate of the daily energy needs of therecipient household, calculated by sum-ming current average daily energy require-ments14 for each individual in the house-hold. Similarly, the potential nutritionalcontribution of the hampers was estimatedby comparing hamper contents to the sumof the recommended intake levels (RNIs)for each nutrient for each household mem-ber.14 Statistical analyses were performedusing SAS/PC Version 6.10 for Windows(SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One third of participants received lessthan a 3-day supply of food (the programs’stated target), with amounts ranging from1 to 14 days’ supply (Table I). The esti-mated nutrient contribution of the ham-pers also varied widely, with calcium, vita-min A and vitamin D most commonlyprovided in amounts less than 3 days,reflecting the limited supplies of fresh veg-etables and dairy products. Hamper sizewas inversely correlated with family size(r=-0.47, p=0.0001), and over half ofhouseholds comprised of four or more per-sons received less than a 3-day supply. Thesmall amounts of food obtained by some

382 REVUE CANADIENNE DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE VOLUME 90, NO. 6

Charitable Food Assistance: What are Food Bank UsersReceiving?

Adrienne C. Teron, BASc, Valerie S. Tarasuk, PhD

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty ofMedicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, OntarioCorrespondence and reprint requests: ValerieTarasuk, PhD, Department of Nutritional Sciences,Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3E2, Tel: 416-978-0618,Fax: 416-978-5882, E-mail: valerie.tarasuk@utoron-to.caAdrienne Teron was supported in part by a LifeSciences Undergraduate Student ResearchFellowship. The project was funded by Daily BreadFood Bank with a donation from Kraft Canada.

households beg the question of what rolefood banks play in helping consumersmeet their food needs. Reports of fooddeprivation among families using foodbanks8 suggest that for some, at least, theassistance is insufficient.

Sixty-seven (78.8%) of the 85 hampersassessed contained at least one damaged oroutdated item (Figure 1), and these itemscomprised 9.0% of the foods recorded.The majority of survey participantsappeared willing to accept visibly substan-dard products, as long as they perceivedthe food to be safe (Table II). However,over half of the survey participants had atsome time received food that they believedwas unsafe to eat (Figure 2). Most saidthey had discarded the food, but six peoplereported consuming it despite safety con-cerns. Though not a focus of this survey,the visibly substandard nature of somefoods must also contribute to the feelingsof embarrassment and degradation somereport in association with food bank use.2,8

Problems of poor food quality and limit-ed selection are not unique to Toronto-area food banks.2,15,16 They are inherent inthe ad hoc, donor-driven nature of this sec-ondary food system. Concerns about foodsafety have been compounded by therecent enactment of ‘Good Samaritan’ lawsin several provinces, diminishing donors’and food bank operators’ responsibility forthe health and safety of the food distrib-uted.17 Concerns about food quality haveprompted many food banks to improvetheir food handling procedures (e.g., ref.15), but the culling and sorting of foodsrejected by our retail system is a resource-intensive activity, particularly for cash-strapped organizations largely reliant onvolunteer labour and donated facilities.Although food banks continue to be theprimary response to hunger in Canadiancommunities, our findings indicate thatneither the amount nor the quality of foodassistance available to people using foodbanks should be taken for granted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The survey presented here grew out ofour collaborative work with LaurieRicciuto and Barbara Davis, and our analy-sis has been strengthened by their insights.

We are also indebted to the staff of DailyBread Food Bank for making this projectpossible, and to Sumer Chauhan forresearch assistance.

REFERENCES

1. Canadian Association of Food Banks.HungerCount 1998. Emergency Food Assistancein Canada. Toronto, ON: Canadian Associationof Food Banks, 1998.

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

3. Poppendieck J. Dilemmas of emergency food: Aguide for the perplexed. Agriculture and HumanValues 1994;11(4):69-76.

4. Riches G. Food Banks and the Welfare Crisis.Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment, 1986.

5. Riches G. Hunger in Canada: Abandoning theright to food. In: Riches G (Ed.), First WorldHunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics.London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997.

6. Tarasuk V, Davis B. Responses to food insecurityin the changing Canadian welfare state. J NutrEduc 1996;28(2):71-75.

7. Tarasuk VS, Maclean H. The institutionalizationof food banks in Canada: A public health con-cern. Can J Public Health 1990;81:331-32.

NOVEMBER – DECEMBER 1999 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 383

CHARITABLE FOOD ASSISTANCE

TABLE IEstimated Number of Days of Energy and Selected Nutrients

Provided by Food Hampers (n=85)

Mean ± SD (Median) Minimum-Maximum Proportion of Hampers with <3 Days’

(days) (days) Supply (%)

Energy 4.24 ± 2.12 (3.93) 1.16 - 13.96 33Protein 6.70 ± 2.85 (6.34) 2.27 - 17.14 7Vitamin A 6.98 ± 8.49 (3.39) 0.47 - 33.98 42Vitamin D 4.53 ± 5.01 (3.14) 0.00 - 22.00 48Vitamin C 7.84 ± 5.47 (6.27) 0.92 - 27.37 14Folate 6.69 ± 3.28 (6.15) 1.95 - 16.24 11Vitamin B12 10.61 ± 6.92 (9.32) 0.52 - 36.41 9Thiamin 10.03 ± 6.82 (8.01) 2.06 - 34.29 6Riboflavin 5.94 ± 3.39 (4.80) 1.74 - 20.22 13Niacin 10.56 ± 5.86 (9.16) 2.74 - 30.84 1Calcium 4.00 ± 2.32 (3.40) 0.86 - 12.93 39Magnesium 7.78 ± 4.08 (7.15) 1.92 - 22.16 11Iron 8.92 ± 5.93 (7.28) 1.79 - 31.84 6Zinc 4.25 ± 2.21 (3.80) 0.86 - 13.85 34

Figure 1. Prevalence* of damaged and out-dated food items in the 85 foodhampers examined.

* For each product description, the percentage represents the propor-tion of hampers examined which contained at least one such item.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Percent of hampers including item(s)

Unlabelled Can

Product Past Date

Damaged Package

Dented Can

At Least One Damaged or Dated Product

384 REVUE CANADIENNE DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE VOLUME 90, NO. 6

CHARITABLE FOOD ASSISTANCE

8. Tarasuk VS, Beaton GH. Household food inse-curity and hunger among families using foodbanks. Can J Public Health 1999;90(2):109-13.

9. Jacobs Starkey L, Kuhnlein H, Gray-Donald K.Food bank users: Sociodemographic and nutri-tional characteristics. Can Med Assoc J1998;158(9):1143-49.

10. Villalon L. Comptoir alimentaire de Mapleton,Nouveau-Brunswick. Can J Diet Prac Res1998;59(2):75-82.

11. Cooper J. Partnerships for change. CanadianGrocer 1997;3(9):13-17.

12. Daily Bread Food Bank and North York HarvestFood Bank. Who goes hungry? The GreaterToronto Area in 1997-98. Toronto, ON: DailyBread Food Bank, 1998.

13. Nova Scotia Heart Health Program, Nova ScotiaDepartment of Health, and Health and WelfareCanada. Report of the Nova Scotia Nutrition

Survey. Nova Scotia Department of Health,1993.

14. Scientific Review Committee. NutritionRecommendations. Ottawa: Health Canada,1990.

15. Kennedy A, Sheeshka J, Smedmor L. Enhancingfood security: A demonstration support programfor emergency food centre providers. J Can DietAssoc 1992;53:284-87.

16. Jacobs Starkey L. An evaluation of emergencyfood bags. J Can Diet Assoc 1994;55(4):175-78.

17. Kainer M, Pearlston K. Liability of Food Banks.Notes for presentation to the Annual Meeting ofthe Canadian Association of Food Banks.Toronto, ON: 1997.

Received: December 11, 1998Accepted: June 24, 1999

TABLE IIConsumers’ Views on Receiving Substandard Products (n=102)

Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptability Dependent Upon: Missing Responses*

Dented Cans 48.5% (49) 18.8% (19) 20.8% (21)- condition of can 19.9% (10)- absence of obvious spoilage 2.0% (2) - type of food

Damaged Packaging 21.6% (22) 15.7% (16) 57.8% (59) - inside packaging being sealed 02.9% (3) - absence of obvious spoilage2.0% (2) - absence of evidence of rodents

Past-Date Dairy Products 12.4% (12) 46.4% (45) 11.3% (11) - whether product is frozen 518.6% (18) - absence of obvious spoilage1.0% (1) - whether for self or for child7.2% (7) - number of days past the date3.1% (3) - other

Past-Date Canned Goods 31.7% (32) 38.6% (39) 19.8% (20) - absence of obvious spoilage 18.9% (9) - whether for self or for child1.0% (1) - number of days past the date

* Missing responses were most commonly due to language barriers, but four participants were unable to respond to the past-date dairy products questionbecause they did not eat dairy products.

Figure 2. Foods participants had previously received from a food bank butwhich they considered unsafe to eat. (n=57)

Damaged Package

Unlabelled Can

Spoiled Perishable

Dented Can

Past Expiry Date

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Number of Recipients Reporting Concern