Household food insecurity is a critical social determinant of health that impacts both physical and mental well-being[4]. While the Saskatchewan Health Authority identifies financial strain as the root cause[6], physical access remains a major barrier. In Saskatchewan’s urban centres, many residents do not live within walking distance of a grocery store[2]. This gap is often maintained by restrictive property covenants — legal clauses that block new grocery stores from opening in former store locations, effectively trapping neighbourhoods in long-term food deserts[7].
Research consistently links proximity to supermarkets with better diets and lower rates of chronic disease. Residents near full-service grocery stores have access to healthier diets with greater fruit and vegetable consumption[3], and the absence of supermarkets is associated with significantly higher rates of obesity and being overweight[5]. These health consequences are compounded by the housing-food insecurity nexus: when shelter costs consume a disproportionate share of household income, nutritional quality declines, and geographic distance to grocery stores amplifies the burden[8].
Food deserts emerge from multiple overlapping causes: zoning decisions, neighbourhood disinvestment, inadequate public transit, and market dynamics in a highly concentrated grocery sector. Among these factors, restrictive property covenants are uniquely opaque. When a grocery chain vacates a location, it may register a covenant on the property title prohibiting future grocery use for decades[9]. A 2026 CBC Marketplace investigation found property controls registered by Loblaw, Sobeys, and Metro across Canada — including covenants that ban the sale of fresh food within five kilometres of a store[1]. We do not yet know the full scope of these practices in Regina. One of LENTIL's goals is to help find out.
Low-cost or charitable food programs offer short-term relief but do not reduce household food insecurity because they do not address the root cause: financial strain[6].
Income and geography are not separate issues. They compound each other. Low-income households in food deserts face both price constraints and access constraints. A family with limited income and limited transportation options cannot comparison shop, buy in bulk, or take advantage of sales at distant stores.
Moreover, research suggests restrictive covenants may cluster in areas where communities have less political power to resist them, often the same low-income areas that would benefit most from competition and choice.
Addressing geography does not replace addressing income. But ignoring geography means ignoring a barrier that policy can directly address.
Households experiencing food insecurity are actually twice as likely to report shopping with a food budget and have similar food skills compared to food-secure households[6].
In Saskatchewan, of those who are food insecure, over half (63.5%) rely on wages, salaries, or self-employment as their primary income source[6].
In concentrated markets like Canada's, even one blocked property can eliminate access for an entire neighbourhood. With only five major chains controlling the vast majority of grocery retail, strategic placement of covenants has outsized impact.
Chicago's 2014 study found dozens of active covenants across the city, many in food desert areas. Washington D.C. identified similar patterns. Leslie documents cases where a single restrictive covenant can “effectively prevent any replacement supermarket from entering the neighborhood”[3]. These are not isolated cases, and research suggests they are common industry practice.
Property rights have never been absolute. We already restrict land use through zoning, environmental regulations, and public health codes. When private contracts create public harms (reduced food access, increased health costs, concentrated poverty) the public interest is a legitimate consideration.
Transparency requirements don't ban covenants. They simply require disclosure, allowing communities to understand the constraints on their own food environment. Sunlight is not expropriation.
This assumes everyone has a car. In food desert areas, vehicle ownership is often lowest. Regina's transit system requires multiple transfers and significant travel time for trips that take 15 minutes by car.
For seniors, people with disabilities, and families with young children, “just drive” is not an option. The burden falls hardest on those already facing the most barriers.
Independent grocers face enormous barriers: thin margins (1-3%), high startup costs, and intense competition from chains with massive buying power. The 2024 Competition Bureau report noted that Canada's grocery market is among the most concentrated in the developed world.
More critically, restrictive covenants specifically block independents from using vacated locations. The very properties with existing infrastructure (loading docks, refrigeration, parking) are legally off-limits.
Restrictive covenants are themselves market distortions. They prevent willing buyers and sellers from transacting. They block entrepreneurs from entering markets. They are the opposite of free-market competition: they are legally-enforced monopoly protection.
When one company can use property law to exclude all others from serving a community, that is not a market. That is territorial control.
Canada's grocery market is more concentrated than the United States, making these practices potentially more impactful here. Research confirms restrictive covenants are used by major Canadian grocers[9].
A CBC Marketplace investigation found that in Picton, Ontario, covenants on a No Frills and a Foodland ban neighbouring stores from selling any fresh food — while in Winnipeg, a Sobeys covenant allows it to withhold permission for competitors “unreasonably and arbitrarily”[1]. This is not theoretical. It is happening across Canada.
Cities that have enacted transparency requirements have not seen grocery exits. Chicago, Madison, and Washington D.C. all maintain robust grocery retail sectors after requiring covenant disclosure.
Grocery is a low-margin, high-volume business. Chains need customers. They will not abandon profitable markets because they are required to disclose contract terms. The threat of exit is a negotiating tactic, not a credible response to basic transparency.
This claim, often attributed to a 2019 study by Allcott et al., is frequently mischaracterized. The study found that if you gave low-income households access to the same stores as high-income households, the nutritional gap would close by about 10%. But this does not mean access is unimportant.
First, 10% is not trivial at a population level. Second, preferences themselves are shaped by access: people develop tastes for what is available. Third, the study measured existing store access, not food deserts specifically. In areas with no stores, access is not a marginal factor. It is the entire constraint.
As Leslie notes, “the lack of access to affordable, high-quality food causes people to eat a less healthy diet”[3].
This question reveals a troubling assumption: that some communities don't deserve access because they might not use it “correctly.” We do not apply this logic to other public health interventions. We do not refuse to build sidewalks because some people might not walk.
The evidence shows that access changes behaviour. When supermarkets open in underserved areas, fruit and vegetable consumption increases[3]. Not everyone changes immediately, but population health improves measurably over time.
More fundamentally: the goal is not to control what people eat. The goal is to ensure that everyone has the option to make healthy choices. Restrictive covenants remove that option entirely.
We are not asking to ban restrictive covenants. We are asking for something much simpler: transparency.
Communities deserve to know which properties are blocked from grocery use, for how long, and by whom. This basic disclosure would allow municipalities, health authorities, and citizens to understand whether and why grocery stores cannot open in certain locations, and to make informed decisions about food security planning.
Chicago (2014) enacted disclosure requirements after mapping covenants in food desert areas. Madison, Wisconsin requires public registration. Washington, D.C. commissioned studies linking covenants to food access gaps. Manitoba (2023) passed legislation requiring registration of grocery covenants.
Saskatchewan can do the same.
Every year without transparency is another year of communities navigating food deserts they cannot explain.
Another year of diabetes rates climbing in neighbourhoods where fresh food requires a bus transfer and an hour's round trip. Another year of families choosing between rent and groceries, then making do with whatever the corner store stocks. Another year of children growing up without learning what a full-service grocery store looks like.
We are not asking for much. We are asking to see what is being done to the places we live, and by whom.
[1] CBC News. “How Grocery Giants Control Who Can Sell Food in Your Neighbourhood.” CBC News, 23 Jan. 2026.
[2] Cushon, J., et al. “Deprivation and Food Access and Balance in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.” Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada, vol. 33, no. 3, 2013.
[3] Leslie, Christopher R. “Food Deserts, Racism, and Antitrust Law.” California Law Review, vol. 110, no. 6, 2022, pp. 1717-1776.
[4] Mikkonen, J., and D. Raphael. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. York University School of Health Policy and Management, 2010.
[5] Morland, Kimberly, et al. “Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 30, no. 4, 2006, pp. 333-339.
[6] Saskatchewan Health Authority. Household Food Insecurity in Saskatchewan: A Starting Guide for Health Care Providers. Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2024.
[7] Scholz, J. “Food Deserts, Racism, and Antitrust Law.” California Law Review Online, vol. 12, 2021.
[8] Spring, Charlotte, and Marit Rosol. “‘Pay the Rent or Feed the Kids’: The Persistence of Food Insecurity and Housing Precarity in Canada.” SocArXiv, 2022.
[9] Ziff, Bruce, and Ken Jiang. “Scorched Earth: The Use of Restrictive Covenants to Stifle Competition.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, vol. 30, no. 2, 2012, pp. 79-101.