Short on family doctors? Nurse practitioners can help

Troy Media
-
0
Short on family doctors? Nurse practitioners can help

Emmanuelle Faubert and Krystle Wittevrongel, Troy Media

Nearly one in eight Albertans don’t have access to a family doctor.

That makes for roughly 600,000 of our fellow citizens who don’t have a physician regularly following up on their health and tracking its evolution.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Health Minister Adriana LaGrange have made two announcements – one on Alberta Health Services reform and one regarding nurse practitioner clinics – that aim to address this issue.

And while this is far from the first time a government has promised a reform that would give every Albertan access to a primary care professional, there are good reasons to believe this time could be different.

Both announcements have made clear that going forward, nurse practitioners will be able to open their clinics and help provide family health coverage for Albertans in the same way as family physicians do.

Nurse practitioners are equipped to do much more than simply assist doctors. As part of their training, they learn how to assess, diagnose, and treat multiple conditions, order diagnostic tests, prescribe certain medications, and make referrals to specialists. In many ways, their area of competency intersects with numerous duties that were once the exclusive domain of family doctors.

But while nurse practitioners have proven expertise in performing such tasks, which are part of their scope of practice, the lack of a compensation mechanism has meant they couldn’t get paid for their work if they performed those acts in a clinic.

Given the current shortage of family doctors, recognizing these nurse practitioners’ specialized training and enabling them to provide the care they are trained to provide in their very own clinics can bring care to those who need it while allowing family doctors to focus on more complex cases.

That is precisely the issue Minister LaGrange addressed in announcing the province’s plan to help set up nurse practitioner clinics. To enable nurse practitioners to establish such facilities, the provincial government is introducing a new compensation mechanism so that they can get paid for performing these medical acts.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Susan Prendergast, head of the Nurse Practitioner Association of Alberta, applauded the government’s proposal for reform, saying, “The proposed changes have the potential to position Alberta as a leader in primary care.”

It’s important to note that the idea of setting up nurse practitioner clinics isn’t untested, either.

Ontario pioneered in the field, opening the country’s first nurse practitioner clinic in 2007. The project has been so successful that 25 such clinics operate in the province today.

In Quebec, the SABSA co-operative opened over a decade ago as a research project aiming to show local politicians the effectiveness of the nurse practitioner clinic model in more specialized care, focusing on the treatment of hepatitis C and HIV-positive patients from vulnerable communities with limited access to the traditional health system.

The success of the SABSA co-operative has been astounding, with over 4,000 patients now receiving care from the clinic’s health professionals. The latest data shows that the clinic’s staff is able to meet a full 95 percent of its patients’ needs. The other five percent is covered by an on-call doctor with whose help the clinic can create pathways of care by directing patients to the appropriate health professional.

Given this success, Quebec plans to open 23 more nurse practitioner clinics within the next five years, bringing the province’s total to 30.

There’s no reason such success couldn’t be replicated here in Alberta. And for the 600,000 of us who don’t have access to a family physician, the Smith government’s plan to do just that is a breath of fresh air.

Emmanuelle B. Faubert is an economist and Krystle Wittevrongel is a senior policy analyst and Alberta project lead at the Montreal Economic Institute.

Judge’s ruling adds uncertainty to plastic ban regulations in Canadian food sector

Troy Media
-
0
Judge’s ruling adds uncertainty to plastic ban regulations in Canadian food sector

Sylvain Charlebois

A Federal Court judge recently declared the federal government’s decision to categorize plastic items as toxic to be both “unreasonable and unconstitutional.” This ruling has introduced further regulatory uncertainty for the food industry as it grapples with its dependence on plastic.

While waste management primarily falls under provincial jurisdiction, the classification of plastic items as toxic played a significant role in enabling the federal government to move forward with prohibiting certain single-use plastic products. These regulations, slated to take effect on December 20th, will effectively ban the sale of plastic checkout bags, utensils, food service items, stirrers, and straws in Canada.

In the decision made public this week, the Federal Court asserted that federal law cannot apply a generic toxicity label to a broad category of plastic-manufactured products, deeming it excessively inclusive. In essence, this ruling underscores the fact that not all plastics are created equal.

For Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Minister Steven Guilbeault, this verdict is a lesson in the consequences of allowing doctrine to guide cabinet decisions. Consequently, an appeal is likely to follow.

Nevertheless, for the food industry, the battle to reduce its reliance on plastic is far from over. The industry acknowledges the necessity for change and adaptation to align with our collective sustainability goals. However, from the outset, many observed that Ottawa’s approach to climate and plastics was not only an overreach on provincial jurisdiction but also ideologically driven, often lacking practical logic.

The repercussions of phasing out plastics in the food industry could be profound, particularly in terms of our access to fresh produce. Canada imports approximately $7 billion worth of fruits and $3.5 billion in vegetables annually, and international trade plays a crucial role in ensuring affordable food for Canadians.

While we export our food globally, we also depend on global markets for our sustenance. Therefore, the economics of food packaging hold immense significance both domestically and internationally. Surprisingly, many foreign suppliers providing produce to Canada remain unaware of our policy directions and their potential implications. Over the years, several food manufacturers, including Nestle, have exited the Canadian market for various reasons, leading to the withdrawal of some brands. Our policies could further deter key suppliers that support our health and sustainability objectives.

A few years ago, a comprehensive analysis led by Dr. Martin Gooch, a prominent expert in supply chain management and food waste in Canada, forecasted that ineffective packaging had the potential to result in an increase of nearly half a million metric tonnes in food losses and waste compared to current levels. This would amount to a value of $2.5 billion. It’s important to emphasize that this projection is on the conservative side.

Notably, the most substantial losses are expected in perishable goods susceptible to damage or requiring specialized packaging. Plastic packaging is crucial in prolonging the shelf life of products sensitive to ethylene, a natural ripening agent produced by fruits and vegetables. Take carrots, for instance, which can be adversely affected by ethylene emitted by adjacent produce, leading to a shortened shelf life, altered appearance, and diminished taste. A decline in the appeal of produce at the retail level ultimately results in reduced consumer interest.

Replacing plastics won’t be easy, but it can be done. A comprehensive approach would recognize the diversity of plastic materials and involve the active participation of provinces and cities. Ottawa’s approach has been divisive and, more importantly, patronizing and resented by various stakeholders seeking to contribute positively to environmental efforts. Furthermore, Ottawa must acknowledge that our food industry operates within a larger system that includes partners beyond our borders.

Significant changes to our packaging policies can and will impact our nation’s food security. Plastics have facilitated the transportation of food over long distances, ensuring freshness and safety while minimizing waste. While all companies aim to contribute positively to the environment, they also prioritize competitiveness. Policies should strive to create a level playing field while remaining grounded in scientific evidence.

Especially at a time when food prices are a significant concern for many, ECCC must proceed with caution. While eliminating plastics from our lives is a commendable goal, it is essential to treat industry stakeholders and Canadians with respect and recognition of their intelligence.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

‘Food Bucks’ one solution to Canada’s growing food insecurity crisis

Daily Herald Contributor
-
0
‘Food Bucks’ one solution to Canada’s growing food insecurity crisis

With over 18 percent of Canadian families experiencing food insecurity, Food Bucks could help alleviate the crisis

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Food insecurity numbers in Canada have reached astonishing levels, making it hard to believe the extent of the crisis.

According to the latest Who’s Hungry report from Daily Bread and North York Harvest food banks, the number of people depending on food banks in Toronto has doubled compared to the previous year, with one out of every 10 individuals currently relying on them.

Food bank usage has hit an all-time high this year, with over 2.5 million visits recorded between April 2022 and March 2023, marking a staggering 50 percent increase from the previous year. Alarmingly, there are no signs of this trend slowing down. The Hunger Count, released last month by Food Bank Canada, revealed that over two million Canadians now rely on food banks.

Even Statistics Canada has joined the chorus of alarming food insecurity statistics, indicating that 18 percent of Canadian families experienced some degree of food insecurity in 2022. Regardless of where you look, the data is undeniably grim.

While some have pointed fingers at Ottawa, provinces, or grocers for our society’s predicament, the reality is that our current situation results from a combination of various factors, many of which have nothing to do with Canada. Issues such as disrupted supply chains, the conflict in Ukraine, and the impact of climate change on global regions have all contributed.

In fact, when compared to many other countries, Canada is faring relatively better. For example, in Australia, the Foodbank Hunger Count 2023 reports that 3.7 million households, equivalent to 36 percent, have experienced varying levels of food insecurity in the past year. Earlier this year in the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) revealed that food insecurity had risen to 25 percent.

Challenges have arisen even in the United States, the land known for affordable food. Feeding America, the largest domestic hunger relief and food rescue organization in the country, released a report showing that about 49 million individuals, or one in six Americans, sought assistance from hunger relief programs in the last year, a ratio higher than Canada’s.

Despite exporting over $85 billion worth of agri-food products, seeing so many Canadians going hungry is disheartening. The facts are clear, but our path to reducing food insecurity remains less so. Food banks are a testament to the resilience of the human spirit, performing remarkable work with limited resources. However, they are designed to provide temporary relief, not a permanent solution.

Many reports include a comprehensive list of recommendations, such as expediting the construction of more affordable housing and swiftly implementing the Canada Disability Benefit, guaranteeing a minimum income. However, these mechanisms require additional capital, increased government involvement, and added bureaucracy. Canadians already pay a substantial amount of taxes and may not be eager to fund new costly programs that could become permanent, especially as servicing our debt continues to rise.

Nevertheless, one program could offer much-needed assistance to people in need without straining existing not-for-profits or significantly adding to public expenditure. Nova Scotia, Montreal, and British Columbia have successfully launched community food coupon programs. These programs aim to support low-income households in acquiring fresh, nutritious, locally sourced food, enhancing food literacy, and encouraging healthier food choices.

Notably, these programs provide participating households with regular allocations of an alternative currency, known as “food bucks,” that can only be redeemed at farmers’ markets. Unlike grocery rebates, which have cost Ottawa over $2.5 billion without assurance that the money was spent on food, these coupons can only be used to purchase food and support our farmers.

The costs associated with implementing these programs are minimal. Nova Scotia’s program costs approximately $350,000, while Montreal’s received support from Desjardins totalling $50,000. In contrast, British Columbia’s program, launched in 2021, requires about $1 million a year to assist 10,000 households. The province has the second-lowest food insecurity rate in the country, at 16.9 percent, according to Statistics Canada, despite soaring real estate prices.

If Canada needs one program that can make a substantial impact right now, offering the best value for our investment, it would undoubtedly be such a program.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

CDC’s modest milk price increase a win for Canadian consumers

Troy Media
-
0
CDC’s modest milk price increase a win for Canadian consumers

Sylvain Charlebois

The recent decision by the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) to recommend a modest 1.77 percent increase in farm milk prices is a commendable move that should be celebrated by consumers. Every year, the CDC announces the compensation for dairy farmers operating under our supply management regime, and this year’s adjustment is a modest yet meaningful one.

The genesis of this increase can be attributed to the CDC, which advocated for this raise in farm milk prices for 2024. Evidently, both farmers and the Commission astutely gauged the prevailing circumstances.

One interesting aspect of this development is the three-month delay in implementing the price increase, now scheduled for May 1, 2024. The CDC’s decision to postpone the scheduled milk farmgate price increase was influenced by the ongoing challenges faced by the food industry in maintaining stable food prices.

This modest increase represents a significant departure from the substantial raises of previous years. In February 2022, a record-breaking 8.4 percent increase was imposed on consumers, followed by a 2.5 percent increase in September 2022. In February of this year, dairy farmers received another 2.2 percent increase. Consequently, this recent announcement stands as the lowest increase we have witnessed in recent years.

Inflation has taken its toll on consumers at the grocery store, with double-digit food inflation rates. Dairy manufacturers have been grappling with unprecedentedly heightened input costs stemming from the CDC’s previous decisions. However, the projected dairy inflation crisis has not materialized to the same extent at the grocery store, with most dairy product prices closely following the general food inflation rate.

According to Statistics Canada, retail prices for fluid milk have surged by an average of eight percent since February 2022, following the infamous 8.4 percent increase. Cream prices have risen by three percent, while butter prices increased by seven percent during the same period. The price increases for cheese and yogurt did not exceed 10 percent since February. Ironically, during that same period, non-dairy alternatives like soy milk increased by 11 percent and margarine by a staggering 43 percent. Nonetheless, questions about the credibility of this data from Statistics Canada linger.

The debate around supply management and dairy farming in Canada has generated strong opinions, some of which are certainly valid. Canadian farm milk ranks among the most expensive in the Western world. Dairy farmers received quotas for free many years ago, estimated to be worth well over $25 billion. Shielded by high trade barriers and the ability to discard excess milk without full public disclosure, the industry remains conspicuously opaque from a social responsibility perspective, with added compensation from Ottawa.

Each farm receives hundreds of thousands of dollars, all under the pretense that Ottawa believed dairy farmers would suffer financial losses due to ratified trade deals. However, dairy farmers have not incurred any financial losses; the system’s complexity even baffles politicians, influenced by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, who readily support the farming group’s arguments. Ultimately, it is the consumers who bear the cost.

Nonetheless, we must emphasize the resilience of the supply management system. Canadians have access to a consistent supply of high-quality dairy products, and that’s the truth. As observed in recent months, prices have largely tracked inflation. In the United States, where a federal supply management scheme is absent, the dairy section has experienced volatile price fluctuations, at times exceeding 100 percent. The enduring legacy of supply management is the stability it affords.

The challenge, however, lies in the fact that our dairy sector is not particularly competitive, primarily due to the absence of a competitive imperative for dairy farmers. They appear to pay limited attention to consumer trends, at least not to the extent required. The onus of innovation falls on dairy manufacturers, who must navigate the terrain of rising input costs, a challenging task when consumers are becoming increasingly price-conscious.

Many may harbour hopes of a new system, but given the fiscal and political complexities entwined with the existing regime, Canadians will likely be tethered to it for the foreseeable future.

Despite supply management, Canada may face losing half of its dairy farms by 2030. This may prompt policymakers to prioritize competitiveness, potentially involving the development of export quotas while supporting the younger generation of dairy farmers who possess a better understanding of the evolving global landscape. Their market may extend beyond Canada’s borders.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Shrinkflation has infiltrated the Halloween candy aisle this year

Troy Media
-
0
Shrinkflation has infiltrated the Halloween candy aisle this year

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Halloween has been at the forefront of children’s thoughts for weeks now, but for most parents, the preparations for the big night and the purchase of candies for eager trick-or-treaters are just beginning.

The average household is poised to allocate anywhere from $25 to $40 for Halloween candies. But with the escalating cost of living and the holiday landing on a Tuesday this year, the total expenditure remains uncertain. Regardless of the final tally, it’s clear that this money won’t stretch as far as it once did.

Enter “shrinkflation,” a silent and subtle disruptor that has infiltrated the Halloween candy aisle this year, affecting the purchasing power of Halloween enthusiasts. This phenomenon often escapes notice until you unwrap the package.

For instance, Reese’s, a perennial favourite, now comes in bite-sized portions that might appease toddlers but leave the rest of us yearning for more. The ever-popular “Rockets” have been reduced to incredibly miniature sizes, and some Halloween M&M packages contain just two pieces! As Halloween is a once-a-year celebration and candies grace the shelves only briefly, these shrinkflation strategies are more conspicuous and startling to consumers this year.

It’s customary to disregard minor reductions in product sizes as they happen gradually over time. Manufacturers frequently diminish quantities while maintaining steady prices, driven by the mounting cost of production.

For instance, cocoa futures have reached a 44-year high, primarily due to production issues in Western Africa and other global regions. Consequently, significant buyers have had to renegotiate contracts and pay more, impacting the cost of Halloween chocolate. It is anticipated that cocoa futures will continue influencing chocolate prices in the months ahead, solidifying shrinkflation as an ongoing concern.

Another hurdle facing Halloween candy is the surge in sugar prices, reaching their highest levels since 2011. Further, a labour dispute has disrupted a Vancouver-based plant owned by Lantic-Robers since September 28. Reports of shortages are already surfacing, and commercial bakers are being encouraged to curtail their purchases. If this labour dispute persists, consumers may soon find themselves asked to limit their purchases as well. Such a situation should discourage stockpiling, especially during a period of significant food inflation.

Now, when it comes to chocolate and sugar, both are considered non-essential commodities. While the impact on Halloween candy is undeniable, there’s no need for alarm. However, many food businesses, bakeries, and manufacturers regularly rely on these ingredients. So expect price adjustments in the months ahead, affecting upcoming holidays such as Christmas, St. Valentine’s Day, Easter, and more.

In a peculiar turn of events, a substantial portion of people’s budgets is expected to be directed toward costumes this year, more so than in previous years. In fact, experts predict that many Canadians will increase their overall Halloween spending, with Barbie-themed costumes gaining popularity. The Barbie craze has captivated both children and adults, inspiring extravagant costumes that contribute to the uptick in Halloween expenses.

Ultimately, Halloween is all about enjoyment and indulgence, and the smaller candies may just encourage children to knock on more doors this year in pursuit of their favourite treats. While it’s essential to remain mindful of shrinking portions and rising prices, the joy of Halloween remains undiminished.

After all, when it comes to candy, a little extra effort to collect it may not be such a bad thing. So, let the spooky season commence, and savour the thrill of Halloween with a grin as big as any candy bar!

Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Low food inflation alone won’t fix food industry’s trust crisis

Troy Media
-
0
Low food inflation alone won’t fix food industry’s trust crisis

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

Food inflation in Canada has dropped to 5.9 percent, a nearly one percent decline since August. On the surface, this may seem like a reason to celebrate, with grocery trips becoming somewhat less burdensome on our wallets. However, the pressing question remains: do Canadians genuinely believe the data released by Statistics Canada?

A quick glance at social media commentary reveals Canadians’ skepticism toward the numbers churned out by Ottawa. Trust seems to be at an all-time low, and many rely on their gut feelings rather than official statistics. Even though the data indicates that food inflation is at its lowest since January 2022, the gap between general inflation and food inflation has shrunk to 2.1 percent, and several food items have become more affordable, Canadians remain unconvinced.

Interestingly, Canada boasts the second-lowest food inflation rate among G7 countries, trailing only the United States at 3.7 percent. But it appears that no matter how reassuring these statistics might be, Canadians want none of it.

Skepticism and cynicism now dominate public sentiment toward the food industry, and it’s not hard to see why. Recent events, such as the legal disputes between major grocery chains, Metro, Loblaw, and Weston, only serve to exacerbate the public’s distrust.

Metro has taken legal action against Loblaw and Weston, claiming they “falsely implicated” it in a price-fixing conspiracy regarding bread. This scandal, infamously known as the “bread cartel,” allegedly persisted for 14 years between 2011 and 2015, yet the Competition Bureau’s investigation, which began in 2015, is still ongoing. While one company, Canada Bread, admitted guilt and paid a substantial fine this summer, the infighting between grocers continues. This ongoing turmoil harms the industry’s image and further erodes consumer trust.

Against this backdrop, the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity released its annual public trust report, a survey designed to gauge Canadians’ trust in the Canadian food industry. While the report addresses critical issues like inflation, food affordability, and sustainable industry practices, it overlooks pressing concerns affecting public trust today.

Notably, it says nothing about perceived profiteering, persistent farm waste, especially in dairy, trust in data provided by Statistics Canada, or potential collusion within the industry. This omission is unfortunate, as these issues are central to rebuilding public trust.

There is currently no concrete evidence of grocers, manufacturers, or other industry players profiteering. Nevertheless, 82 percent of Canadians believe that profiteering is somehow associated with rising food prices, according to a recent survey. This perception poses a significant challenge that the industry must address promptly.

The legal disputes between grocers and a public trust report largely funded by the industry only add to Canadians’ skepticism about the food industry. Trust in the sector is fragile, and it is essential that every stakeholder, from government bodies to industry leaders, work diligently to rebuild it.

Ottawa’s efforts to stabilize food prices by encouraging grocers to lower prices are commendable, but the real issue at hand is trust. The food industry can no longer take Canadians’ trust for granted. Rebuilding trust will require transparent communication, greater accountability, and a commitment to addressing the public’s concerns, whether they relate to perceived profiteering, farm waste, confidence in data sources, or potential industry collusion.

It’s time for the food industry to not only deliver quality products but also to prove that it deserves the trust of Canadian consumers. Food inflation might be on the decline, but restoring faith in the industry is the true measure of success.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

How generative AI is changing the future of customer service

Troy Media
-
0
How generative AI is changing the future of customer service

The transition from overworked customer service staff to AI will happen quickly

Jana Boone, Troy Media

Since the emergence of ChatGPT, AI has suddenly become the talk of the town, with tech companies racing to deliver the best artificially intelligent chatbot. So much so that, by 2024, AI investment is predicted to reach more than US$500 billion.

Businesses aiming to engage clients online through quick and simple conversations are taking note. Chatbots can help close deals and keep customers happy by giving them individualized responses based on their unique requirements.

A recent study predicted that the percentage of customer interactions handled by AI in call centers will rise from two per cent in 2022 to more than 15 per cent by 2026, then double to 30 per cent by 2031. It’s fair to say the increase could be much higher given the quick adoption of and rapid developments in AI over the past few years.

Excellent 24/7 customer service has been demonstrated by companies like AirBnB. They have an Urgent Support Line which gives hosts and guests a quick way to contact a group of highly skilled safety and crisis professionals in a matter of seconds when they are encountering specific time-sensitive circumstances. As a result, customers today naturally expect a flawless experience. A brand’s retention rates can be significantly impacted by poor service. Accordingly, Forbes estimates that poor customer service costs companies US$62 billion annually.

Reuters reported that ChatGPT is the fastest-growing consumer application of all time. Businesses are pondering how AI-powered tools can help ensure a seamless customer experience, such as by responding to customer questions in a personalized, conversational way. This will undoubtedly increase customers’ appetites for more.

Through the use of generative AI, businesses can contact customers with individualized product suggestions, allowing them to leverage a customer’s web browsing and shopping habits, as well as demographic data. These suggestions may be delivered to the user on a website, mobile app, email, or text message.

Combining ChatGPT’s eloquence and language ability with traditional chatbots is the newest key to success. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT will change the perception of chatbots from being cumbersome, impersonal, and flawed to being built using algorithms that are so precise that the old, traditional methods are now entirely out of date.

We’ve all encountered clumsy chatbots with few options for dialogue that produce painfully robotic phrases. Low-functioning chatbots are already being phased out, but as a result of this experience, standards will now soar to new heights and the transition from overworked staff to AI will happen quickly.

Furthermore, marketing campaigns specifically tailored to each consumer may be made with the aid of generative AI, which can analyze customer data to find patterns and categories. When a potential customer feels like they are communicated to personally by a brand, they will likely see the ad as authentic rather than just another campaign to skip past. The likelihood of these ads being successful can be increased by targeting particular client groups according to their demographics, interests, or past purchases.

When a product is being developed, the decisions behind it may be informed by AI’s capacity to discover customer behaviours and trends more quickly than a human could. If that happens, a majority of businesses will likely use generative AI to develop customized campaigns that increase engagement and customer retention rates by utilizing this data to better understand the demands of their customers.

Using AI may improve customer service for organizations by improving customer awareness, enabling quicker responses to queries, and producing experiences that are customized to each customer’s requirements and expectations.

Businesses can also track how their whole customer experience strategy is working, leveraging AI to determine whether a consumer is happy with their product by using automated sentiment analysis operating natural language processing. As a result, they are able to enhance their customer relationship management tactics and give their client-facing workers more beneficial training and feedback.

In the race to stay competitive and best-in-class, leaders, teams, and consumers will all be impacted by the transformation of customer-facing business processes brought about by generative AI technologies. It’s all about ChatGPT right now, but this is just the start of what AI can do for businesses.

Jana Boone is Senior Vice President of Marketing at Bottle Rocket.

Will California’s $20 minimum wage become a blueprint for Canada?

Troy Media
-
0
Will California’s $20 minimum wage become a blueprint for Canada?

Sylvain Charlebois

Troy Media

The ongoing debate surrounding increasing the minimum wage is not unique to the United States; it is a topic that has drawn attention worldwide, including in Canada.

California has taken centre stage in this discourse with a bold move to significantly increase wages for its fast-food workers. Commencing on April 1, 2024, California’s half-million-strong fast-food workforce will witness a surge in their minimum wage to $20 per hour, representing a staggering 23 percent increase from the $16.21 average hourly wage in 2022.

While this initiative may appear well-intentioned, aimed at enhancing the quality of life for low-wage earners, it is imperative that we critically examine the potential consequences that may arise from such a significant policy shift.

While undoubtedly advantageous for workers, the wage hike will undeniably exert substantial pressure on fast-food operators. In an industry where labour costs traditionally constitute approximately 25 percent of operational expenditures, introducing a $20 minimum wage will have a profound and far-reaching impact. Some employees may even find themselves earning in excess of $25 per hour, a wage level historically unheard of in the fast-food sector. Consequently, implementing this policy will inevitably require operators to re-evaluate and potentially overhaul their business strategies.

One of the most significant implications of such wage hikes is the hastened march toward automation. As labour costs surge, the economic rationale for fast-food establishments to invest in technology and robotics becomes increasingly evident. Automation has already begun to reshape the industry, with self-ordering kiosks and robotic kitchen equipment becoming more prevalent.

With the advent of the $20 minimum wage, the pace of automation is expected to accelerate further as operators seek ways to offset increased labour expenses. Given the current backdrop of escalating food prices and consumer inclination toward staying home to save, raising menu prices is not viable for food chains striving to remain competitive.

While automation undoubtedly offers efficiency and cost savings for businesses, it raises legitimate concerns about the human element in the fast-food experience. As evidenced by the banking industry’s adoption of ATMs, an overreliance on technology-driven interactions can render the consumer experience impersonal and less satisfying. With fewer employees available to engage with customers and prepare food, the very essence of fast food, as we have come to know it, may undergo a fundamental transformation.

Furthermore, the substantial wage increase poses a notable risk to the job market. It is plausible that, in the coming years, the fast-food industry in California may not employ the same volume of people as it once did. A diminished workforce could have cascading effects, impacting the livelihoods of those who lose their jobs as well as the broader economic landscape.

It is important to acknowledge that California’s decision to raise wages in the fast-food sector reflects a more extensive societal concern about the state of fast food. Fast-food chains have often been criticized as purveyors of nutritionally deficient meals, contributing to health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

By significantly increasing wages, California appears to be sending a message that the state’s fast-food industry is not entirely welcome. While many may concur with such a stance, it is vital to recognize that the sector employs well over half a million people and supports food processing and farming within the state and beyond.

Although California’s approach is unique, it has the potential to set a precedent that resonates with other markets, including Canada. As the labour movement continues to gain momentum, other governments, including our own, may encounter similar pressures to follow suit. Currently, the province with the highest minimum wage is British Columbia, at $16.75, while the lowest is in New Brunswick, at $14.75. A jump to $20 per hour would indeed be substantial.

However, governments must proceed with caution. While research on the correlation between minimum wages and job creation yields mixed results, an upcoming study to be published in Manufacturing & Service Operations Management suggests that the benefits of such increases may not be as generous as hoped. Another study, conducted by Purdue University, also indicates that higher minimum wages in the food industry can lead to improvements in food safety and quality assurance practices – an aspect seldom discussed.

The decision to raise fast-food wages in California represents a well-intentioned effort to address income inequality and improve the lives of low-wage workers. Nevertheless, it also raises significant questions about the future of the industry, including the rapid adoption of automation and the potential loss of jobs.

Policymakers must conscientiously weigh the pros and cons of such policies and consider their broader implications for both workers and the fast-food sector. Striking a balance between the needs of employees and the realities of the industry and society at large will be pivotal in achieving a sustainable and equitable solution.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Are shrinkflation warning labels on food coming to Canada?

Troy Media
-
0
Are shrinkflation warning labels on food coming to Canada?

Sylvain Charlebois

Canadian shoppers are particularly vexed by two issues at the grocery store: volume discounts, which impact seniors and those who live alone, and the increasing trend of “shrinkflation.”

The latter has come under the spotlight over the past year due to substantial price hikes in grocery items. Thankfully, some grocery stores are now taking action.

For the past few weeks, the French supermarket chain Carrefour, the seventh largest in the world, has taken a unique step to tackle the “shrinkflation” issue head-on. It has introduced labels on its store shelves to alert shoppers to the issue. As many now know, shrinkflation involves manufacturers reducing the size of product packaging rather than increasing prices.

Carrefour has begun applying these price warnings to various products, including Lindt chocolates and Lipton iced tea, to pressure leading consumer goods suppliers such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever to address this issue in anticipation of upcoming contract negotiations. This pressure is having a cascading effect through the entire food supply chain.

Carrefour has labelled 26 products with notices stating that the product is smaller than before, with most of these reductions occurring within the last 12 months. This situation could potentially unfold in Canada.

In the past year, Canada has witnessed about 20 cases of “shrinkflation” by major food manufacturers, most garnering significant media attention. Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry François-Phillippe Champagne, who met with food manufacturers recently and has pledged to combat food inflation and increase accountability in the food industry, undoubtedly has “shrinkflation” on his radar.

The Carrefour approach is likely being considered to enhance transparency in food pricing in Canada. Champagne has expressed his approval of the Carrefour initiative. Hardly surprising, given its simplicity, ease of implementation, and potential popularity among Canadians who feel deceived and shortchanged. They are an easy target for such measures.

Historically, “shrinkflation” is often employed when input costs rise. The last time we witnessed numerous cases of this was during the financial crisis of 2008. We are currently nearing the end of another cycle and do not expect to see new cases for some time.

However, Carrefour’s primary incentive appears to be driven by its desire to shame manufacturers and to gain leverage at the negotiating table rather than genuinely benefiting consumers. It is worth noting that food manufacturers also produce privately labelled products owned by grocers. Carrefour’s actions have focused solely on major multinationals without disclosing whether some of its own privately labelled products have also decreased in size, which could be seen as deceitful.

The impact of such a measure is likely to be short-lived. Beyond a few weeks, consumers may revert to their old habits. If Canada were to encourage grocers to adopt a similar approach, it should be implemented uniformly across the board.

To go even further, Ottawa needs to abolish the “snack tax.” Many products have shrunk in size in recent years, making them subject to taxation. Champagne should clarify that any food sold in Canada, if not served, should not be taxed, especially food products that are now too small to be considered as snacks. Many Canadians are unaware that this occurs or that it is costing them daily at the grocery store. Ottawa has the means to rectify this situation.

Do not be surprised if the “shrinkflation” labels become a directive for our grocers by Thanksgiving. It is highly unlikely that we will see a windfall tax or government-mandated price controls, as these measures would have adverse economic consequences. Champagne is astute enough to understand the implications of such actions on our food economy.

Instead, the spotlight now shifts to the Competition Bureau, bolstered by Bill C-56. While this bill might have been overshadowed by events like the India situation and Parliament’s honouring a Nazi during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit, it is precisely the kind of legislation Canadians need. Minister Champagne has accurately read the political landscape surrounding food.

Bolstering the powers of the Competition Bureau is crucial for Canadians, although it will be a protracted process that could span several years. This is why labelling “shrinkflated” products can offer a swift and tangible win both for Champagne and for Canadians.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Barbie’s success masks women’s real-world wage disparity

Daily Herald Contributor
-
0
Barbie’s success masks women’s real-world wage disparity

Barbie box office bonanza can’t hide the stark wage gap faced by women

Katherine Scott, Troy Media

Barbie is the movie hit of the summer. By mid-September, box office returns had exceeded $1.4 billion worldwide – and that doesn’t even account for the revenue from the countless licensing deals Mattel has signed, from Airbnb to Xbox. The company is laughing all the way to the bank, but women aren’t.

Indeed, the movie depicts Barbie Land as a feminist paradise where the supreme court justices, president, and all leading professionals are women. In the real world, women do not run things and don’t earn an equal wage.

Women have broken into most occupations since the Barbie doll was introduced six decades ago, but they remain the minority in many of the high-paying roles we see in the movie. In Canada, only three women made the top 100 CEO list in 2021.

Sixty years ago, women engaged in the paid labour market were concentrated in traditionally “female” occupations, such as teaching, bookkeeping, and nursing. Not much has changed in the intervening years. In 2021, the majority of women (54 percent) were employed in just 20 occupations, all involving the “5 Cs”: caring, clerical, catering, cashiering, and cleaning. By contrast, just 19 percent of men were employed in the top “female” occupations.

This follows a pattern: Women breaking into male-majority fields tend to be congregated in particular areas that are seen as inherently or essentially female. For instance, only one in 10 women populate the C-suite, and most are in charge of human resources or the legal department.

The fact that comparatively few women work in the high-paying jobs depicted in the movie is one of the primary drivers of the gender wage gap, which harms all women over the course of their lives, especially those confronting large barriers to employment.

While the few women who do work in non-traditional jobs are typically earning more than other women, they, too, generally earn less than their male peers. Female general practitioners working full-time, full-year, earn just 86 cents for every $1 earned by male GPs, while women lawyers earn just 84 cents on the male dollar.

In fact, women up and down the earnings ladder experience pay gaps, reflecting entrenched systemic bias, the unequal burden of care and outright discrimination.

Simply put, women’s work isn’t valued as highly as men’s. The work done by marginalized women workers is valued even less.

Racialized female lawyers working full-time, full-year, make 69 percent of what non-racialized male lawyers make. Racialized female cleaners make 85 percent of non-racialized male cleaners. Highly gender-segregated labour markets depress wages for all women, but most especially, the earnings of marginalized women.

Barbie has always been positioned as aspirational. All girls can achieve their economic dreams (and unattainable body ideal) by the dint of their hard work and scope of ambition.

But “non-traditional” Barbies are in the clear minority, even today. Fashion models, retail workers of various sorts, and teachers appear time and again. Cheerleaders, flight attendants, actresses and singers too.

Mattel has long understood, and reaped the benefits of, cleaving to the status quo. This film does not challenge, or question, the power relations at the heart of women’s economic subordination.

If you see the movie, consider all that’s being debated when we talk about Barbie. And consider what’s really needed to improve the quality of women’s jobs and their earnings, particularly for the most marginalized.

Katherine Scott is a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and serves as its director of gender equality and public policy work.

1...345...20Page 4 of 20