Perceived barriers in accessing food among recent Latin American immigrants in Toronto

This was not an experiment testing an intervention. Instead, the researchers investigated what barriers recent Latin American immigrants perceive when trying to access food for their households. They did not compare any treatment against a control. The outcome measures were qualitative themes and categories of barriers that emerged from interviews, plus basic demographic and socioeconomic information collected through a structured questionnaire.

Specifically, they explored:

**Personal barriers:** Income level, employment status, time availability for shopping

**Cultural barriers:** Food preferences, availability of culturally-appropriate foods

**Linguistic barriers:** English/Spanish/Portuguese language proficiency and its effect on employment and accessing services

**Knowledge barriers:** Awareness of community-based food programs (food banks, meal programs, community kitchens)

**Sample size:** 70 adults

**Population:** Recent Latin American immigrants (from Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking countries) who had arrived in Toronto within the last five years

**Setting:** Toronto, Canada (urban setting)

**Recruitment:** Convenience sample recruited through community agencies, ethnic churches, and word-of-mouth

**Key demographics:** Primary household caregivers (the person mainly responsible for food shopping and meal preparation); Spanish or Portuguese speakers; all had been in Canada for ≤5 years

**Not studied:** Non-Latin American immigrants, longer-term immigrants, Canadian-born residents, people living in rural areas, men who were not primary caregivers

The study used a **mixed-method design** combining quantitative and qualitative data collection:

**Quantitative component:**

A structured questionnaire capturing demographic information (age, gender, household composition, income, employment status, education level, length of time in Canada, language proficiency)

Questions about food access: frequency of grocery shopping, types of food outlets used, use of community food programs, transportation methods and costs

**Qualitative component:**

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews conducted in Spanish or Portuguese (participants' choice)

Open-ended questions exploring: "What are the main difficulties you face in getting food for your household?" and follow-up probes about financial, cultural, linguistic, and knowledge-related barriers

Interviews lasted approximately 45–60 minutes

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for analysis

**Analysis method:**

Thematic analysis: researchers read transcripts, identified recurring themes, coded responses, and grouped codes into broader categories

No quantitative scoring scales or validated instruments (like a food security scale) were used—this was purely exploratory qualitative work with basic descriptive statistics

**Study design:** Cross-sectional, observational, mixed-method (qualitative dominant with quantitative description)

**Design details:**

**No randomisation:** Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from community organisations and churches. This means the sample may over-represent people already connected to support services and under-represent those who are completely isolated.

**No blinding:** Not applicable—this was an interview study where both interviewers and participants knew the purpose.

**No control group:** There was no comparison group of non-immigrants, longer-term immigrants, or people from other ethnic backgrounds. This means we cannot determine whether these barriers are unique to Latin American immigrants or shared by other newcomer groups.

**Single time point:** Data were collected at one interview only. This cannot show how barriers change over time as immigrants settle longer in Canada.

**Duration:** Each interview was a one-time session (45–60 minutes). No follow-up was conducted.

**What this design can prove:**

It can identify and describe the range of perceived barriers that exist in this specific population at one point in time

It can generate hypotheses about what factors might be most important for food access

It can provide rich, detailed accounts of people's lived experiences

**What this design cannot prove:**

It cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships (e.g., that low income *causes* food insecurity—only that participants perceive it as a barrier)

It cannot quantify how many Latin American immigrants overall face these barriers (the sample is not representative)

It cannot compare the severity of barriers across different immigrant groups or over time

It cannot measure actual food insecurity levels using validated scales—only self-reported perceptions

**Major methodological weaknesses:**

**Convenience sampling** introduces selection bias: participants were recruited through community agencies and churches, meaning they already had some connection to support networks. The most isolated or vulnerable immigrants (who might face the worst barriers) were likely excluded.

**Small sample size (n=70)** for a mixed-method study limits the generalisability of quantitative findings

**No validated food security measure** (like the Household Food Security Survey Module) was used, so we cannot compare these participants' food insecurity rates to national statistics

**Self-report bias:** Participants may have under-reported or over-reported certain barriers due to social desirability, embarrassment, or memory issues

**Single city:** Toronto is a large, diverse city with extensive public transit and community services. Findings may not apply to smaller cities or rural areas with fewer resources

**No objective verification:** Income, employment status, and use of services were self-reported and not verified against administrative records

The researchers identified four main categories of barriers. All findings are qualitative themes with illustrative quotes—no statistical tests, effect sizes, or p-values were reported.

**1. Limited financial resources (most frequently cited barrier)**

Inadequate income was described as the main impediment to accessing adequate food

Financial constraints affected three sub-areas:

- **Affordability of food items:** Participants reported buying cheaper, less nutritious foods; reducing portion sizes; skipping meals; buying in bulk but then food spoiling before it could be eaten

- **Accessibility of food outlets and transportation cost:** Participants reported shopping at closer but more expensive convenience stores because they couldn't afford bus fare to reach cheaper supermarkets; some walked long distances carrying heavy groceries

- **Limited time for grocery shopping due to work conditions:** Many worked multiple jobs or long shifts (often in physically demanding jobs like cleaning or construction), leaving little time to shop or cook; some reported relying on fast food or processed foods because they were too exhausted to cook

**2. Language difficulty**

Limited English proficiency affected food access in two ways:

- **Employment:** Participants reported that poor English skills trapped them in low-paying, unstable jobs, directly limiting their income and thus their ability to afford food

- **Awareness and access to community resources:** Participants reported not knowing about food banks, community kitchens, or subsidised grocery programs because information was only available in English; some who knew about services were too embarrassed or anxious to use them due to language barriers

**3. Cultural food preferences**

Participants reported difficulty finding familiar foods from their home countries (specific types of beans, rice, spices, vegetables, meats)

When culturally-appropriate foods were available, they were often more expensive (e.g., at specialty ethnic grocery stores)

Some participants reported that foods available at mainstream supermarkets were unfamiliar, and they didn't know how to prepare them

Food bank offerings were described as culturally inappropriate (e.g., canned goods, processed foods, unfamiliar ingredients)

**4. Poor knowledge of available community-based food resources and services**

Many participants were unaware of existing food programs (food banks, community kitchens, meal programs, food vouchers)

Among those who knew about services, some reported stigma or shame about using "charity"

Some reported that application processes were confusing or required documentation they didn't have

**Secondary findings (from demographic questionnaire):**

Most participants were employed but in low-wage jobs (cleaning, construction, factory work, childcare)

Many worked irregular hours or multiple jobs

Most relied on public transit or walking for grocery shopping

Few reported using food banks or community food programs

Because this is a qualitative study, there are no numerical effect sizes. However, the researchers' thematic analysis suggests the following relative importance:

**Financial barriers were the dominant theme**, mentioned by nearly all participants and described as the most severe impediment. This is consistent with quantitative food security research showing income is the strongest predictor of food insecurity.

**Language barriers were the second most impactful**, because they simultaneously limited income (through poor employment) and access to services (through lack of information).

**Cultural barriers and knowledge barriers were less frequently mentioned** but still significant for a substantial minority of participants.

In plain English: If you are a recent Latin American immigrant in Toronto, your biggest problem getting enough food is almost certainly not having enough money. Language problems make this worse by keeping you in low-paying jobs and cutting you off from help that exists. Even if you had money, you might struggle to find the foods you're used to eating, and you probably don't know about food banks or community programs that could help.

**Acknowledged by authors:**

Convenience sample limits generalisability

Single city (Toronto) may not represent other Canadian cities

Cross-sectional design cannot track changes over time

Possible social desirability bias in self-reported barriers

Language barriers may have excluded the most linguistically isolated immigrants (those who don't speak Spanish or Portuguese either)

**Additional critical notes:**

**No validated food security measurement:** The study did not use the Household Food Security Survey Module or any other standardised tool, so we cannot quantify how many participants were food insecure or compare them to national rates

**No comparison group:** Without a control group of non-immigrants or longer-term immigrants, we cannot determine whether these barriers are specific to recent Latin American immigrants or common to all low-income Torontonians

**Small sample (n=70):** For a mixed-method study, this is modest. The quantitative demographic data are descriptive only and cannot be used for statistical inference

**Recruitment through community agencies:** This likely over-samples people already connected to support services and under-samples the most isolated and potentially most food-insecure immigrants

**No objective income verification:** Self-reported income may be inaccurate, especially for people working informally or "under the table"

**Single caregiver per household:** Only the primary food shopper was interviewed. Other household members (including children, partners, elderly relatives) might have different perspectives

**Published in 2013:** The data are now over a decade old. Toronto's cost of living, immigration patterns, and community food programs have changed significantly since then

**No discussion of health outcomes:** The study does not measure actual nutritional intake, health status, or food insecurity severity—only perceived barriers

For someone running their own n=1 experiment (or a small community self-experiment):

### What to test

If you are a recent immigrant or working with recent immigrants, test the impact of **one specific intervention** on food access. Based on this paper's findings, the most promising interventions to test are:

1. **Financial intervention:** Test whether a small weekly cash supplement (e.g., $25–$50 CAD per week specifically for groceries) changes the quality and quantity of food purchased. This mimics what a food voucher or grocery subsidy program would do.

2. **Language/access intervention:** Test whether receiving a one-time orientation session (in Spanish/Portuguese) about local food resources—including maps, bus routes, hours, and what's available at food banks—changes use of those resources over 4–8 weeks.

3. **Cultural food access intervention:** Test whether a weekly delivery of culturally-appropriate staple foods (beans, rice, spices, specific vegetables) changes dietary quality or reduces stress about food.

### Minimum meaningful duration

**For financial interventions:** 4 weeks minimum. Food purchasing patterns stabilise after 2–3 weeks once the novelty wears off. Measure weekly.

**For knowledge/access interventions:** 6–8 weeks. It takes time to learn about resources, overcome stigma, and actually visit a food bank or community kitchen.

**For cultural food access:** 4 weeks. Dietary preferences are stable, so changes in satisfaction or stress should appear within 2–4 weeks.

### What to measure (specific metrics)

**Primary outcome:** Perceived food access (self-rated on a 1–10 scale: "How easy is it to get enough safe, nutritious, and culturally-appropriate food for your household this week?")

**Secondary outcomes:**

- Number of meals skipped per week (self-report)

- Types of food outlets used (supermarket vs. convenience store vs. food bank vs. ethnic grocery)

- Weekly grocery spending (in CAD)

- Time spent grocery shopping per week (minutes, including travel)

- Dietary quality: servings of fruits/vegetables per day (self-report)

- Stress about food: single-item question "How stressed are you about having enough food this week?" (1–10 scale)

- Use of community food programs (number of visits per month)

**Confound to measure:** Total household income (weekly), number of dependents, employment hours per week, English proficiency (self-rated 1–5), access to a car

### Key confounds to control for

**Income changes:** If someone gets a raise or loses a job mid-experiment, it will swamp any intervention effect. Track income weekly.

**Seasonality:** Food prices and availability change with seasons. Run your experiment entirely within one season or control for it.

**Housing changes:** Moving to a different neighbourhood changes access to grocery stores and transit. Note any moves.

**Household composition:** A new baby, a relative moving in, or a partner leaving changes food needs dramatically. Track household size weekly.

**Health events:** Illness can change appetite, ability to shop, and food preferences. Note any major health changes.

**Work schedule changes:** Shift work, overtime, or job loss directly affects time for shopping and cooking. Track work hours weekly.

**Language class attendance:** If someone starts or stops English classes, their language skills and social network change. Track this.

### What a positive result would look like

**For a financial intervention:** A consistent increase of ≥2 points on the 10-point food access scale, plus a reduction in skipped meals (from ≥3 per week to ≤1 per week), plus increased fruit/vegetable intake (from ≤2 servings/day to ≥4 servings/day)

**For a knowledge/access intervention:** A ≥50% increase in use of community food programs (e.g., from 0 visits/month to ≥2 visits/month), plus a ≥2-point reduction in food stress, plus participants reporting feeling "more in control" of their food situation

**For a cultural food access intervention:** A ≥3-point increase in satisfaction with food (on a 10-point scale), plus reduced stress about food, plus participants reporting they "feel more at home" with their meals

**Important caveat:** This study only identifies barriers—it does not test solutions. Any self-experiment should be treated as exploratory. A "positive result" means the intervention seems promising enough to test more rigorously (e.g., with a larger group, longer duration, or comparison condition). Do not assume a positive n=1 result generalises to all recent immigrants.