I chose to take on this challenge so I could begin my own independent investigation of sorts into the food bank and meal program situation within the 905 (Markham) community. I found it incredibly disconcerting that if you happen to hail from New Market, Aurora or Vaughan to name a few, finding and acquiring sustenance was far easier than here.

By doing the challenge I not only gain personal incite with regards to the system and how it works, but I will also gain the valuable experience necessary to begin raising awareness and hopefully begin enacting change where needed.

People who experience food insecurity are more likely to be diagnosed with a variety of chronic conditions, and have difficulty managing those conditions, says a Toronto-based researcher.

"From many vantages it's a stronger indicator of poor health than poverty is," said Valerie Tarasuk, a professor with the University of Toronto's Department of Nutritional Sciences.

According to Statistics Canada's 2013 Canadian Community Health Survey, around 12.5 per cents of households in Ontario, or roughly 1.6 million people in the province, experience food insecurity.

"We know the single biggest determinant of household food security status is income," Tarasuk said. "The lower the income, the greater the risk."

Poverty. Why don't we end it once and for all?

The assumption is that we can't afford to. Are we sure? What would it cost exactly? Answer: about $16 billion a year in today's dollars. Big money. Yet nowhere near as much as it is costing us now to keep it going.

In total, governments spent $13 billion in welfare payments in 2009, the last year for which numbers are available. Say $15 billion in today's dollars. Those on EI who are classified as poor account for another $3 billion a year or so. Now add the costs of administration - about $4 billion. All to keep the wheels of the system turning. And turn they do, without end, and without ending poverty.

Food should be in everyone's budget.

Algoma Community Legal Clinic has invited the Put Food in the Budget campaign to Sault Ste. Marie to see how people here, especially those on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program, struggle with poverty.

"We want to learn what poverty is like in different kinds of communities, like cities, rural areas, and we want to see what it's like in the North," said Mike Balkwill, provincial organizer for the campaign which conducted in-depth research on the struggles faced by people in Northwestern Ontario such as Thunder Bay and Red Lake last year.

"One thing we learned in the Northwest is that food cost is high and food quality is low," said Balkwill, "People who can afford to buy fresh fruit or vegetables have to eat them the same day to avoid them spoiling."

The Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and the Good Shepherd Centres signed onto the drive Friday, joining a growing group calling for a basic wage that's tied to what it actually costs to live here.

"We're joining this campaign as a statement about our values and principles as an organization," said chamber president Keanin Loomis. "You don't really have to go beyond the business case to understand this."

In Hamilton, the campaign argues a working person needs at least $14.95 an hour to purchase adequate shelter, clothing, food, transportation, child care, health insurance and "social inclusion" needs, such as a city recreation pass and other necessities.

Food could well be on the policy table as campaigns leading up to the Oct. 19 federal election get underway.

"Eat Think Vote" is the political slogan adopted by Food Secure Canada, an alliance of organizations working to end hunger and promote accessible, healthy food through sustainable food systems.

"The first step is to bring in a guaranteed basic income," says Diana Bronson, executive director of Food Secure Canada, because all studies point to poverty as the principal cause of food insecurity. The Eat Think Vote platform recommends Ottawa study the feasibility of guaranteeing a livable income through the tax system.

Modern social assistance, in which governments provide financial support to the unemployed, has been around since the Great Depression, and it's been controversial for just as long.

The primary complaint by opponents is that it removes the incentive to work, resulting in efforts to make welfare as unpleasant as possible, from below-poverty-line payments and complicated qualification rules to judgmental monitoring and, in the U.S., dehumanizing drug tests.

But there's an approach to poverty building momentum lately called the Basic Income Guarantee and in the Dutch city of Utrecht the theory is about to be put to the test.

-What to do with all these hungry people? Give them surplus food!

-What to do with all this surplus food? Give it to hungry people! Win, win, win. Problems solved!

But in reality, each is a discrete and gargantuan problem. We cannot be complacent believing that the current food recovery and donation model can solve both. Allow me to illustrate ...

Freedom 90 needs help with printing, mailing and all the other costs associated with carrying on a province-wide effort. You can make a donation by clicking on the Canada Helps logo.