Cs7 p19 nelson understanding traditional food behaviour
Understanding Traditional Food Behaviour and Food Security In Rural First Nation Communities: Implications for Food Policy Connie H. Nelson Mirella L. Stroink PURPOSETo better understandthe context of localfood behaviour fromthe perspective ofFirst Nationcommunity members.
CHN4 Data Sources Survey Findings from three First Nation communities in Northwestern Ontario METHODS Study 1: Ginoogaming 20 respondents from a gardening workshop 14 women, 5 men, mean age 32 Survey assessed: physical health, life satisfaction, foods eaten, food knowledge, food values (healthiness, price, convenience, localness), and social capital
METHODSStudy 2: Aroland 24-35 respondents 14 men and 7 women, mean age 44 Survey assessed: eating patterns (fish, blueberries, wild rice, grouse), food insecurity, perceived contamination of the foods, health, life satisfaction, connectedness to land and nature, social support, purpose, nutrition and exercise.METHODSStudy 3: Aroland and Eabametoong 18 respondents from each community Aroland: 14 men, 3 women, mean age 44; Eabametoong: 12 men, 4 women, mean age 32 Survey was the same as study 2 except that moose eating replaced grouse.
Research Question 1:What are the patterns of association among local food behaviour andvarious indicators of health and well-being? 1. Local Food Behaviour and Health Study 1: Ginoogaming Fishing and HuntingLife Satisfaction .49*Social Capital .50* Study 2: Aroland Fish Eating Fish Eating Fish Eating Spring Summer FallLife Satisfaction .49* .48*Sense of Purpose .72** .67**
1. Local Food Behaviour and Health Study 3: Aroland and Eabametoong Eabametoong: proportion of local diet as meat was correlated with lower food insecurity. Aroland: eating fish, moose, and blueberries in several seasons were associated with better nutrition, health, weight, and exercise, and with lower food insecurity.1. Local Food Behaviour and HealthThe benefits of participation in local food extends beyond diet, exercise, and physical health to include a sense of inner purpose, life satisfaction, and social capital.
Research Question 2:To what degree is local food behaviour occurring in the studiedcommunities? 2. Levels of Local Food Behaviour Study 1: Ginoogaming Most frequent sources of food: (1) grocery store, (2) convenience store, (3) fishing & hunting Study 2: Aroland For 58% of the sample, local food is less than 20% of diet Study 3: Aroland and Eabametoong No significant differences between communities on local food consumption
2. Levels of Local Food Behaviour Fish, moose, and berries are important to the local diet with variation by season. However, store- bought food seems to account for at least half of the diet in these communities.Research Question 3:What are the factors that limit and support local food behaviour?
3. Factors that Limit and Support Local Food Behaviour Study 1: Ginoogaming – knowledge and values Fishing and hunting were associated with knowledge of fishing/hunting and with valuing cheap, tasty, easy, and local / culturally relevant foods. 3. Factors that Limit and Support Local Food Behaviour Study 2: Aroland – perceived contamination Percent frequency of response: Not at all A little Somewhat Quite Very much affected affected affected affected affectedFish 19.4 19.4 36.1 19.4 5.6Blueberries 40 12 20 16 12Grouse 36 36 28 0 0Wild rice 40 20 40 0 0
3. Factors that Limit and Support Local Food Behaviour Study 2: Aroland – connection to land & culture Fish-winter Fish-spring Fish-summer Fish-FallConnection to .47* .37 .46* .52*NatureConnection to .22 .23 .65** .49LandConnection to .39 .29 .63** .51land via foodAboriginal .25 .66** .44 .24participation 3. Factors that Limit and Support Local Food Behaviour Consumption of local food is associated with having the required knowledge, with valuing easy, tasty, local and culturally relevant food, with not perceiving the food to be contaminated, and with feeling connected to nature, traditional lands, and culture.
CONCLUSION Participation in local food brings multiple benefits. Despite the dominance of the market-based food system, local food behaviour continues to occur. Knowledge, values, perceived contamination, and connection to land affect local food behaviour.POLICY IMPLICATIONS These results suggest policy developments that could facilitate local food behaviour.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS Education: Support place-based, lifelong, inter- generational learning systems that foster knowledge of local food activities and build supportive food values. Strengthen experiential learning opportunities that reveal the role of food in connecting to land, nature, and culture as well as the resulting impacts on health.POLICY IMPLICATIONS Natural Resource Management: Support ecosystem-based community management of natural resources on traditional lands. Recognize that the perception of contamination affects local food behaviour; demonstrate that the protection of local food sources is a guiding meta-priority in all industrial activities.
SUPPORTIVE POLICY SHIFTS Build stream-lined food inspection and processing facilities adapted to remote communities so that local food (including meat) can be traded. These should support livestock, small-scale food growing, and forest food sources. By nurturing local and regional trade through established grocery stores, ensure that reasonably priced, healthy, and high quality food is available at local stores. Develop policies that mitigate the impact of climate change on food production, as the north is particularly susceptible.Thank you!