Local issues. Ontario-wide lessons. Follow County First on Facebook.
Word on the Street: Snippets | Bruce | Dufferin | Elgin | Frontenac | Grey | Haliburton | Hastings | Huron | Kawartha Lakes | Lanark | Leeds & Grenville | Lennox & Addington | Middlesex | Norfolk | Northumberland | Oxford | Perth | Peterborough | Prince Edward | Renfrew | Simcoe | Wellington
A Town That Feeds Visitors but Struggles to Feed Its Own Residents. Tourism employment grew 52%, yet average annual hospitality income is approximately $23,000. A two-bedroom rental now costs around $24,600 a year. While residents raise money to keep food-bank shelves stocked, the deeper questions concern year-round work, housing affordability and the effectiveness of federal, provincial and municipal policies.
What Residents Should Know:
Is Prince Edward County facing a food-affordability crisis?
The evidence points to serious and growing hardship among a substantial number of residents. According to the County Foundation’s Vital Signs data, Picton United Church Food Bank served 1,024 individuals in 2025, including 337 children. Demand increased 40.5% compared with 2024, while the Wellington Storehouse Food Bank supported 556 households.[1]
The October 2026 launch of a proposed $1-million endowment fund for the Picton Food Bank reflects growing concern about the long-term sustainability of emergency food assistance.[2]
Why are people increasingly relying on food banks?
The local evidence identifies three interconnected pressures: inadequate or unpredictable earnings, expensive housing and rising household costs. Seasonal employment is particularly relevant in Prince Edward County, where many tourism and hospitality businesses experience substantial fluctuations in demand throughout the year.[3]
Isn’t tourism creating jobs?
Yes. The Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce reports that hospitality employment grew 52% between 2019 and 2024. But average annual income in the sector is approximately $23,000, reflecting the combined effects of pay levels, seasonal work and hours available.[3]
More jobs do not necessarily mean more financial security if workers cannot obtain sufficient paid hours throughout the year.
Why isn’t fundraising enough?
Fundraising provides essential immediate assistance, particularly to people who would otherwise go without food. But charitable donations do not directly correct inadequate earnings, insufficient income supports or unaffordable housing. Public Health Ontario identifies insufficient income as the root of household food insecurity and says food charity cannot resolve that underlying problem.[4]
What should governments be doing?
The federal government influences income security and employment programs. Ontario determines minimum employment standards, social-assistance rates and important housing and workforce policies. Municipalities influence local economic development, housing supply, infrastructure, transportation and land-use planning. Each level has different powers, but the persistence of food insecurity raises legitimate questions about whether their combined policies are delivering adequate results.
A Town That Feeds Visitors but Struggles to Feed Its Own Residents
Prince Edward County is widely associated with restaurants, wineries, $200 farm-to-table dining and a successful visitor economy. (Google “$200 farm-to-table dining prince edward county”). Yet behind that prosperity, an increasing number of local households are struggling to afford ordinary groceries. For some residents, the concern is no longer whether they can shop at a premium grocery store. It is whether their remaining income stretches far enough for basic food purchases, even when they seek lower-cost options.
Giant Tiger and other discount retailers are part of the broader affordability conversation. However, County First has not established how many local shoppers have moved from discount stores to food banks, and there is no verified evidence that a particular retailer’s customers account for rising food-bank use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been a significant shift from discount retailers to the Food Bank for groceries this year. This only harms major local discount retailers such as Giant Tiger.
What is documented is more troubling than any anecdote.
In 2025, Picton United Church Food Bank served 1,024 people, one-third of whom were children. According to The County Foundation, demand increased 40.5% over 2024. Wellington’s Storehouse Food Bank supported 556 households in the same year.[1]
These figures refer to different populations and reporting measures. They cannot simply be added to calculate the number of unique food-bank users across Prince Edward County. Nevertheless, they demonstrate significant demand for assistance in a relatively small community. And that demand is occurring alongside economic growth.
The $21,000 Fundraiser Was in 2019. Seven Years Later, the County Is Seeking a $1-Million Endowment.
In February 2019, The Picton Gazette reported that a joint fundraising initiative involving Angry Birds Rotisserie Chicken Restaurant and Larry Hudson Chevrolet Buick GMC had generated $21,000 for local food banks. Three organizations received $7,000 each: Picton United Church County Food Bank, Wellington Storehouse Food Bank and the Picton Salvation Army.[5]
The donation helped purchase essentials including milk, eggs, fresh produce and other perishable foods. The story is worth revisiting because it shows that food insecurity was already a community concern seven years ago. Food-bank organizers described pressure on household budgets during winter, when heating costs increased and families struggled to make ends meet. The need has not disappeared.
On October 1, 2026, The County Foundation announced a new Picton Food Bank Endowment Fund with an initial fundraising target of $1 million. The aim is to generate annual investment income to help finance food purchases over the longer term.[2]
Volunteers Mark and Erika Houghton provided an initial $100,000 contribution. The gift is significant and the intention is clear: reduce the uncertainty faced by a food bank that depends on fluctuating donations while demand continues to grow. But the change in fundraising scale raises a larger public-policy question. If food banks remain essential year after year, what is being done to reduce the number of households that need them?
The 2019 fundraiser and 2026 endowment are different kinds of initiatives, so their dollar amounts should not be interpreted as a measure of how much food-bank demand has increased. The comparison is meaningful because it illustrates the continuing reliance on charity to address basic household needs.
Table 1. Seven years of food-bank pressure in Prince Edward County
| Year | Reported development | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $21,000 raised for three local food banks | Food insecurity was already a significant community concern |
| 2024–2025 | Picton demand increased 40.5% | Substantial growth in reported demand |
| 2025 | 1,024 individuals served by Picton, including 337 children | Families and children are directly affected |
| 2025 | Wellington Storehouse supported 556 households | Food-assistance needs extend beyond Picton |
| October 2026 | Picton launches a $1-million endowment campaign | The food bank is seeking a more dependable long-term funding source |
Sources: [1][2][5]
The stronger question is not how much the community can raise. It is what would have to change for fewer residents to need emergency food assistance in the first place.
The Most Revealing Number Is Not the Fundraising Total. It Is $23,000.
The Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce’s Four-Season Visitor Economy Strategy reports that hospitality employment increased by 52% from 2019 to 2024.[3]
That sounds like an economic success story. But the same source reports that average annual income in hospitality is approximately $23,000. The apparent contradiction is central to understanding the County’s affordability problem. Hospitality jobs may be essential to the local economy, but many provide seasonal or variable hours. A worker can be employed during the busy months and still experience serious financial difficulty when demand declines.
An increase in employment does not automatically produce an equivalent increase in annual household earnings. The Chamber itself acknowledges that the visitor economy’s benefits are concentrated within a narrow seasonal window. Its current strategy explicitly identifies stable year-round employment as a priority.[3]
This is not an argument against tourism. Tourism creates business opportunities, supports local producers and contributes to community prosperity. It is a question about how that prosperity is distributed and whether the existing economic structure provides enough stable income for the people who live and work here.
Table 2. The contrast between economic growth and household affordability
| Indicator | Published figure | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Hospitality job growth, 2019–2024 | +52% | Employment expanded substantially |
| Average annual hospitality income | Approximately $23,000 | Many workers have limited annual earnings |
| Two-bedroom monthly rental, 2020 | $1,159 | Historical local rental benchmark |
| Two-bedroom monthly rental, 2026 | Approximately $2,050 | Housing costs have increased sharply |
| Annual rent at $2,050 per month | $24,600 | Housing alone represents a major household expense |
| Picton Food Bank demand growth, 2024–2025 | +40.5% | Food-assistance demand is rising |
Sources: PEC Chamber of Commerce and The County Foundation. Annual rent calculated from the reported monthly figure.[1][3][6]
The comparison is striking: a typical annual two-bedroom rental cost, based on The County Foundation’s 2026 figure, is greater than the Chamber’s reported average annual hospitality income. These figures describe different units of analysis. The $23,000 represents average annual income in a sector, not the income of every worker or household. A two-bedroom rental may be supported by more than one earner. The comparison is illustrative, not a claim that every hospitality employee must rent such a unit alone. Even with those qualifications, the mismatch helps explain why affordable housing and adequate year-round earnings are so important to the local economy.
A 77% Increase in Rent Can Turn a Working Household Into a Food-Bank Household
The County Foundation’s Vital Signs research reports that a two-bedroom rental in Prince Edward County increased from $1,159 a month in 2020 to approximately $2,050 in 2026 — a rise of about 77%.[6]
A household paying $891 more each month in rent than it would have paid at the earlier benchmark faces an additional annual housing expense of roughly $10,700. That is money no longer available for groceries, utilities, transportation, clothing, childcare or savings. The Foundation also notes that renters spend a substantially larger proportion of household income on shelter than homeowners, using 2021 census figures.
The wider housing problem is not new. The County’s Housing Plan reported a rental vacancy rate of just 0.2% in June 2022, although that historical figure should not be presented as the current 2026 vacancy rate.[7]
An expensive and limited rental market can make it difficult for employers to recruit workers and for existing residents to remain in the community. It also means that creating additional jobs is only part of the solution. If new workers cannot find housing they can afford, employers may continue to face shortages. If existing residents spend an increasing share of their income on housing, employment may not prevent food insecurity. The food bank then becomes a form of emergency support for households whose ordinary incomes cannot cover ordinary expenses.
The Winter Connection: When Employment Disappears, Food-Bank Need Intensifies
One of the most revealing observations appears in The County Foundation’s October 2026 Vital Signs update. The Foundation quotes Picton Food Bank volunteer Mark Houghton describing families reaching the limits of affordability, with winter needs particularly acute when seasonal work was unavailable.[6] He identifies food, shelter and transportation costs as important pressures.
This provides a direct local account of the relationship between seasonality and food-bank use. It is a reported observation from a food-bank representative, not a statistical finding that every household’s food insecurity is caused by seasonal unemployment. Still, it suggests a question that deserves much closer investigation: how much of Prince Edward County’s food-bank demand is associated with the months when tourism-related employment contracts? The County should be able to examine monthly patterns in food-bank demand alongside employment, unemployment, hours worked and seasonal business activity.
If winter food-bank demand rises as working hours fall, programs that extend employment through the off-season may help reduce financial instability. If demand remains high year-round, that would point to additional problems involving wages, housing costs, disability, retirement incomes and other household circumstances. Either finding would be more useful for policy than another announcement celebrating fundraising totals.
Food Banks Are Serving People Who Work
The assumption that food-bank use is primarily a consequence of unemployment is not supported by broader Canadian evidence. Food Banks Canada’s HungerCount 2025 reported that 19.4% of food-bank clients identified employment as their main source of income, compared with 12.2% in 2019.[8]
Feed Ontario’s 2025 Hunger Report found that nearly one in four Ontario food-bank visitors had a job.[9]
Those figures are different measures from different reporting systems, but they point in the same direction: paid employment does not necessarily guarantee food security. Ontario’s general minimum wage increased to $17.95 an hour on October 1, 2026.[10] A person earning that wage for a full 40-hour week throughout 52 weeks would earn approximately $37,336 before deductions. A seasonal employee who works fewer weeks or hours will earn considerably less.
That is why job counts alone provide an incomplete measure of economic development. The number of working months, hours available, pay rates, benefits and housing costs all affect whether employment is sufficient to support a household. Food insecurity also affects seniors, people with disabilities and those who cannot participate in full-time employment. A year-round jobs strategy would address only part of the problem unless accompanied by adequate income supports and affordable housing.
What Does a Successful Local Economy Actually Look Like?
Prince Edward County has experienced growth in tourism, hospitality, business activity and construction. These developments can generate income, employment and investment. But economic growth is a means, not an end. The public-interest question is whether growth improves the financial security of the community’s residents.
The County Foundation’s income research reports median after-tax household income of $75,573 for PEC, compared with $84,092 for Ontario, using its Environics Analytics estimates. It also identifies a relatively high concentration of employment in food services, accommodation and retail.[11]
The figures should be read in the context of their source and reporting period rather than treated as a current census measure. Taken together with the Chamber’s hospitality-income data, they suggest an economic-development challenge that cannot be resolved simply by attracting more visitors.
A community can have a flourishing restaurant sector and still have workers unable to afford rent. It can attract investment and second-home purchases while struggling to retain young families. It can celebrate new businesses while relying on food banks to help households cope with rising living costs. None of those observations means tourism development itself caused the food-bank increase. But they underscore why the distribution, stability and purchasing power of local income deserve much more attention.
Has Government Policy Kept Up With the Problem?
Food insecurity is influenced by decisions at all three levels of government, but responsibility is distributed.
Table 3. The policy responsibilities behind food insecurity
| Level | Major policy levers | Questions raised by the evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Federal | Employment Insurance, federal income benefits, tax measures, national housing funding and economic policy | Do supports adequately cover seasonal and precarious workers? |
| Provincial | Minimum wage, employment standards, social assistance, disability benefits, workforce programs, housing legislation | Are employment earnings and income supports sufficient relative to essential costs? |
| Municipal | Housing approvals, land-use planning, economic development, local infrastructure, transit and business conditions | Is local economic growth producing attainable housing and stable year-round employment? |
| Community organizations | Emergency food, referrals, support programs and charitable fundraising | How can immediate needs be met while longer-term dependence is reduced? |
These responsibilities overlap, and no single government controls grocery prices, employment patterns or household finances. The evidence nevertheless justifies scrutiny of how well existing policies are working together.
Public Health Ontario has identified insufficient income as a fundamental cause of food insecurity and emphasized that charitable food assistance does not resolve the underlying income problem.[4]
At the provincial level, that raises questions about earnings and social benefits. At the federal level, it raises questions about income-security programs for precarious workers and low-income families. At the local level, it raises questions about the types of jobs being encouraged and whether workers can afford to live near them. It would go beyond the available evidence to attribute PEC’s food-bank growth to one particular law, government or political decision. Multiple causes are involved, including inflation, housing supply, income distribution and seasonal labour demand.
But the outcomes provide a legitimate test of policy effectiveness: if food insecurity continues to rise, what specific changes are expected to reverse it?
Prince Edward County Already Has an Economic Plan. The Question Is How Success Will Be Measured.
The County’s Economic Development Action Plan 2025–2030 explicitly describes a vision of a diverse, sustainable, year-round economy.[12]
Its identified actions include strengthening the four-season visitor economy, addressing employment lands, improving conditions for business development and reducing workforce barriers associated with childcare. The PEC Chamber of Commerce is also leading a collaborative Four-Season Visitor Economy Strategy, supported by municipal and provincial partners.[3]
These initiatives are relevant responses to the problems identified in the local data. The existence of continuing food-bank demand does not establish that they have failed, particularly where strategies are still being developed or implemented. However, they also raise a fair question about accountability. How will residents know whether the strategies are making a difference?
A plan that measures the number of visitors, promotional campaigns or businesses participating in workshops may demonstrate activity, but it does not necessarily demonstrate improved financial security for workers. The more revealing measures would include the number of year-round positions created, median annual earnings, months of paid employment, availability of benefits, housing costs relative to earnings and changes in food insecurity.
Economic development should be evaluated not only by whether businesses expand, but also by whether local households become more financially secure.
Five Measures That Would Demonstrate Real Progress
County First proposes the following measures as a framework for evaluating economic and social outcomes in PEC and comparable rural communities.
| Indicator | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Year-round employment | Distinguishes stable annual work from seasonal job counts |
| Median annual earnings by sector | Shows whether economic growth is improving workers’ purchasing power |
| Housing costs relative to income | Measures whether working households can afford to live locally |
| Food-bank users, visits and repeat usage | Distinguishes occasional emergency need from sustained dependence |
| Household food-insecurity prevalence | Captures people who struggle to afford food but do not necessarily visit food banks |
The last distinction is especially important.
Food banks measure only part of food insecurity. Some households reduce the quality or quantity of food they purchase, skip meals or sacrifice other necessities without seeking charitable assistance. The County Foundation reports a 26.9% household food-insecurity estimate for the South East Health Unit area, which includes a geography larger than Prince Edward County. It should not be represented as a PEC-only rate.[6]
A credible local performance framework would therefore distinguish food-bank activity from the wider prevalence of food insecurity.
What Would Reduce the Need for Food Banks?
There is no single intervention that will eliminate food insecurity, but the available evidence identifies several areas for evaluation.
Developing more stable, adequately paid year-round employment could reduce the income fluctuations experienced by seasonal workers. The County’s existing four-season economy initiatives create a framework for measuring whether those opportunities are actually expanding.
Increasing access to affordable rental housing could leave households with more money for groceries and other essentials. This would require coordination among municipal planning authorities, housing providers, developers and senior governments.
Improving access to childcare, transportation and workforce training could help residents obtain employment or work more hours, particularly where available jobs cannot be reached reliably.
Reviewing the adequacy of income supports remains essential for residents who are elderly, disabled, unable to work or experiencing interruptions in employment.
And continuing to fund food banks is necessary while these structural issues remain unresolved.
These measures are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. More employment will not solve every household’s circumstances, and emergency food assistance cannot replace an effective system of earnings, housing and income security.
Fundraising Measures Generosity. Declining Food-Bank Need Would Measure Progress.
Prince Edward County has a strong tradition of community fundraising and volunteer support. The people donating money, collecting food, delivering groceries and working at local food banks are responding to genuine and immediate needs.
Their efforts deserve recognition.
But the success of a fundraiser is not the same as success in reducing food insecurity.
A larger donation may keep shelves stocked for longer. An endowment may make a food bank more financially stable. Neither outcome necessarily means fewer families are struggling to afford groceries.
That is the distinction policymakers should keep in view.
The $1-million endowment is a response to continuing demand, not evidence that demand has been solved. The community can support the initiative while also expecting governments to explain how their economic, housing and income policies will reduce reliance on emergency food.
Indeed, the growing scale of food-bank fundraising makes that question more urgent.
One Town. One Lesson.
Prince Edward County is not alone. Ontario’s 2025 Hunger Report found that more than one million people used food banks between April 2024 and March 2025, making over 8.7 million visits.[9]
The province-wide figures show that this is not a problem confined to one tourist destination or one municipality.
But PEC’s particular combination of seasonal employment, relatively low annual hospitality incomes, expensive housing and rising food-bank demand provides an important local case study.
The County’s tourism sector has grown. Its business community is developing a four-season economic strategy. Its residents continue to donate generously to charitable food programs.
The test of progress should be whether more households can pay for groceries, housing and other necessities from dependable income.
A community should not have to choose between celebrating its prosperity and examining the hardship that exists alongside it.
Prince Edward County’s food-bank figures warrant both immediate support for those who need food today and rigorous evaluation of the policies intended to improve economic security tomorrow.
The central question for elected officials is straightforward:
What measurable reduction in food insecurity should residents expect from federal, provincial and municipal policies — and by when?
Footnotes and Primary Sources
[1] The County Foundation, Vital Signs, Food Security: Food Programs, updated July 2, 2026. Reports 2025 Picton Food Bank service to 1,024 individuals, including 337 children, 40.5% growth in demand from 2024, and Wellington Storehouse service to 556 households.
https://vitalsigns.thecountyfoundation.ca/data/post/food-programs
[2] The County Foundation, Announcing Picton Food Bank Endowment Fund to Keep the Shelves Stocked, October 1, 2026. Announces the proposed $1-million endowment, the $100,000 founding contribution and reported food-bank demand.
https://www.thecountyfoundation.ca/news-and-events/post/picton-food-bank-endowment-fund
[3] Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce, Seasons of Opportunity: Four-Season Visitor Economy Strategy, 2026. Reports 52% hospitality employment growth from 2019 to 2024, approximately $23,000 average annual hospitality income and the need to improve employment stability.
https://www.pecchamber.com/Seasons-of-Opportunity
[4] Public Health Ontario, Household Food Insecurity in Ontario, August 10, 2023. Explains the income-related causes of food insecurity and limitations of charitable food assistance.
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/About/News/2023/04/Household-Food-Insecurity-Ontario
[5] Jason Parks, The Picton Gazette, Joint Fundraiser Generates $21,000 for Local Food Banks, February 11, 2019. Reports the Angry Birds and Larry Hudson Chevrolet fundraising initiative and donations to three PEC food banks.
https://www.pictongazette.ca/post/joint-fundraiser-generates-21000-for-local-food-banks
[6] The County Foundation, Vital Signs, Food Insecurity, updated October 8, 2026. Reports local food-bank observations, 2020–2026 rental-cost comparisons and household food-insecurity data for the broader South East Health Unit geography.
https://vitalsigns.thecountyfoundation.ca/data/post/food-insecurity
[7] Prince Edward County, Housing Plan 2023–2028. Documents historical local rental scarcity, housing needs and potential responses.
https://vitalsigns.thecountyfoundation.ca/files/Housing-Plan-2023-2028.pdf
[8] Food Banks Canada, HungerCount 2025. National food-bank usage and client-income statistics, including the proportion reporting employment income.
https://foodbankscanada.ca/hunger-in-canada/hungercount/
[9] Feed Ontario, Hunger Report 2025. Ontario-wide data on individuals using food banks, visits and employment among food-bank users.
https://feedontario.ca/hunger-report-2025/
[10] Government of Ontario, Minimum Wage, Employment Standards Act guidance. Confirms Ontario’s $17.95 general minimum wage effective October 1, 2026.
https://jobs.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/minimum-wage
[11] The County Foundation, Vital Signs, Economy: Income, updated December 5, 2025. PEC and Ontario household-income estimates, economic disparities and labour-market context.
https://vitalsigns.thecountyfoundation.ca/data/post/economy-income
[12] Prince Edward County, Economic Development Action Plan 2025–2030. Municipal economic-development objectives addressing year-round economic activity, workforce barriers, business development and employment lands.
https://www.thecounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/PEC_EcDevActionPlan_2025v1.pdf
Editorial and Legal Notice
This article is an evidence-based examination of food insecurity, household affordability, employment and public-policy outcomes in Prince Edward County.
Reported figures are attributed to their sources and time periods. Food-bank visits, individual clients, households served, meals provided and household food-insecurity prevalence are distinct measures and should not be treated as interchangeable.
The article does not establish that a specific government decision, employer, grocery retailer or development caused an individual household to experience food insecurity. Nor does it conclude that existing economic-development initiatives have failed before their results can be evaluated.
The policy questions presented concern measurable outcomes, economic security and the responsibilities of different levels of government.
County First welcomes corrections, updated data, relevant policy evaluations and evidence concerning the experiences of local residents.