Canada’s missed opportunity to implement publicly funded school meal programs in the 1940s

ABSTRACT

Unlike many other countries, Canada does not have a publicly funded school lunch program. Instead, parents are responsible for feeding their children during school hours, and charitable organizations attempt to fill gaps for children living in poverty. Canadian activists have mounted a campaign for a federally funded school meal program to address numerous issues affecting children’s health, including an ‘obesity crisis.’ Our examination of the historical record suggests contemporary school meal advocates are in a position similar to the early 1940s, when there was great public concern about a ‘crisis of malnutrition’ that was undermining the strength of the nation. There was widespread support for a federally funded school meal program as part of a social democratic vision for a ‘social minimum’ to support Canadians’ well-being. However, the federal government adopted only one of many recommendations for a social minimum, the Family Allowance, which provided monthly cash payments to families. The 1940s campaign for federally funded school meals fizzled because the federal government saw the Family Allowance as an adequate solution to the problem of child malnutrition and, in keeping with its liberal welfare state ideology, preferred to keep responsibility for children’s well-being with the family, not the state. In addition, the scientific consensus about the constitution of malnutrition shifted, an important pilot test studying school meals’ nutritional benefits provided inconclusive results, and a key advocate died. The historical record supports Crenshaw’s contention that demands for change that are outside the dominant ideology are rarely adopted.

KEYWORDS:

• School meal programs
• Canada
• history
• school children
• liberal welfare regime

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank the archivists at the National Archives of Canada, the Archives of Ontario, the City of Toronto Archives, and the University of Toronto Archives for their expert assistance.

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to strengthen the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Various terminology is used, including school lunch programs, school food programs, school meal programs, and school nutrition programs. Here we are using a broad term to capture the variety of programs that have been proposed. In general we are referring to a program that is state-funded and regulated, and available to all who qualify.

2. The two other regimes described by Esping-Andersen are the corporatist welfare regime (or social insurance model) set up in countries like Germany, Austria, and France, to maintain order and status by rewarding those who work in the paid labour force (typically men); and the social democratic or Scandinavian welfare regime, where benefits and services are universally provided, based on need.

3. A full consideration of this mobilization is beyond the scope of this project but for a fascinating account, see Mosby (2014).

4. Red Feather refers to a number of charitable organizations with the common goal of improving communities. Today in Canada, this organization is known as the United Way Centraide, and has been known by other names including: Community Chest, and United Appeal (United Way, n.d).