Measuring food insecurity

An authoritative overview of why food insecurity requires measurement and how it is predominantly measured has been published elsewhere^{(Reference Furey, Beacom, Caraher, Coveney and Chopra18)}. There are various measurement tools used to assess food poverty and insecurity, such as the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale⁽¹⁹⁾, EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions food deprivation measures⁽²⁰⁾, the FAO Food Insecurity Experience Scale Survey Module⁽²¹⁾, and the USDA Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM)⁽²²⁾. Additionally, food insecurity has been measured variously using statistics reporting undernutrition, food expenditure as a proportion of the household budget, food price volatility statistics, food frequency questionnaires and anthropometrical measures. A singular food insecurity measure is useful to articulate the severity of its existence and avoid confusion that can come with having a plurality of indicators available. The HFSSM has been found to dominate food insecurity measurement in the developed nations^{(Reference Furey, Beacom, Caraher, Coveney and Chopra18)}.

Likewise, food insecurity can be mapped to provide a graphical representation of the concentration of food insecurity in a geographical area. A range of variables relating to accessibility to food, mobility, deprivation and socio-economic status can be integrated into a Geographical Information System to visually and impactfully illustrate food insecurity risk status for a given area by stacking layers of information together based on location, for example, postcode, house number, IP address or latitude/longitude to represent complex problems with the final picture providing a greater insight than one layer alone. Researchers^{(Reference Furey, McKenzie and McClelland23)} mapped food insecurity for one local council area in Northern Ireland and used red, amber and green colour codes to identify area-based vulnerabilities and classify areas as being at high, moderate or low risk of food insecurity respectively. This is a useful means of analysing, interpreting and presenting food insecurity data because it informs area-based targeting which is an approach that can be updated based on new data or different priorities as befits different policy impetuses at any given time. The resultant maps and data serve as an evidence base to inform action-oriented next steps regarding policymaking, reducing associated health inequalities through targeted interventions, and enhancing consumer access to basic services provision as part of their poverty alleviation policies, programmes and interventions by targeting resources to homes in greatest need at District Electoral Area level to maximise impact and ensure those most in need are supported. The approach is most effective when used as a tool in partnership with experts/stakeholders (e.g. local councils, charities, community practitioners and advocates etc.).

Implications for policy

Despite food insecurity’s emergency status and achieving growing attention in the food policy arena, efforts to eradicate food poverty thus far have tended to be downstream rather than policy-level responses. Policy-level responses can be informed by measurement or mapping data. These data can then support the targeting of economic aid food assistance programmes by directing public spending effectively and efficiently when allocating resources and funding.

There are some international examples of where social protection policy interventions have impacted successfully on the prevalence of food insecurity among low-income households to help them meet their basic needs and improve their well-being⁽²⁴⁾. For example, the temporary £20 uplift to Universal Credit in the United Kingdom led to reduced overall poverty rates^{(Reference Ray-Chaudhuri, Waters and Xu25)}. Likewise, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the United States has been evaluated as improving food security^{(Reference Carlson and Llobrera26)}. The evaluation of Brazil’s conditional cash transfer programme, known as Bolsa Família, improved prevalence of food security and mild food insecurity alongside other socio-economic indicators including improved household income^{(Reference Palmeira, Salles-Costa and Pérez-Escamilla27)}, highlighting the cumulative effects of poverty reduction strategies. Meanwhile in India, cash transfers during Covid were relatively successful in mitigating potentially deep impacts of food insecurity^{(Reference Makkar, Manivannan and Swaminathan28)}. Currently there is much discussion about the feasibility of introducing universal free school meals as a public health intervention aimed at reducing food insecurity amongst children^{(Reference Aceves-Martins, Cruickshank and Fraser29)}.

Meanwhile, qualitative data about the lived experience and the efficacy or otherwise of intervention strategies can help to change public attitudes towards the phenomenon and indeed support its framing in popular and political debate^{(Reference Kerins, Furey and Kerrigan30)}. This is especially important because media reporting is a significant information source for the public on social- and health-related issues such as food insecurity^{(Reference Picard and Yeo31)} which in turn helps us understand how both the public’s and policy-makers’ knowledge about the issue is constituted^{(Reference Kerins, Furey and Kerrigan30)}. Therefore, food insecurity framing should be deployed meaningfully to bolster health promoters’, researchers’ and other stakeholders’ communication toolkits to optimise advocacy calling for more meaningful responses to address, sustainably, the structural causes of food insecurity.

Furthermore, such qualitative and quantitative data can support the creation of nutrition, health and anti-poverty policies informed by both formally recognised and anecdotal need. It is also important to consider the views of experts by experience (people who have lived or are living in food security) because in arriving at potential solutions to improve the incidence and experience of food poverty, any amenities and programmes arising as recommendations must be not only evidence-informed and targeted, but also be meaningful interventions that are ultimately welcomed by intended beneficiaries^{(Reference Furey, Fegan and Burns32)}.

Implications for business: business opportunities and responsibilities

As stated above, different actors have a role to play in effecting meaningful change in improving food security status at the population level, including cross-cultural collaboration with businesses^{(Reference Hamann, Giamporcaro and Johnston12)}. Businesses have been impacted by the constant flux and perilous state of world affairs also known as the permacrises that include Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, climate change, and the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) resulting in renegotiating trade agreements^{(Reference Caraher, Furey and Wells33)}. To counteract this, businesses can consider food insecurity an opportunity to refine and promote their corporate social responsibilities and overcome some of the societal failures for which they may be often blamed^{(Reference Porter and Kramer34)}. In doing this, businesses should ensure they avoid ‘greenwashing’ so that what a firm communicates aligns ultimately with its actions^{(Reference Mindell, Reynolds and Cohen35)}. This is important because food businesses contribute surplus food and often promote it as part of their corporate social responsibility agenda. Such corporate philanthropy/food charity may present as a possible conflict of interest that can arise from such relationships^{(Reference Nestle36,Reference Clapp and Scrinis37)} and must not be allowed to ultimately compromise more general public health policy through undue influence or other conflicts of interest^{(Reference Caraher and Furey38)}.

Additionally, businesses can strive to create shared value which is a strategy where companies generate economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its needs and challenges^{(Reference Porter and Kramer34)}. For example, understanding where certain locations are underserved in terms of access to basic services can be viewed as new potential markets where lower-income (and rural) consumers require access to affordable nutrition without a poverty premium/rural premium. In so doing, businesses creating healthier, more affordable food products could radically improve people’s lives in a way that meets their charitable commitments while simultaneously acting in their own self-interest due to the enormous business benefits to be gained by entering developing markets. This is because, while individual incomes may be low, the aggregate buying power of lower-income communities is substantial^{(Reference Prahalad and Hammond39)}. In this regard, serving our food insecure population is not just a philanthropic venture but a viable and profitable business strategy. By unlocking significant economic opportunities to drive sustainable business growth and development, businesses can also contribute to poverty alleviation and social development. This, coupled with targeted financial aid from developed economies alongside developing nations’ improvements in their own governance can improve the quality of life of populations^{(Reference Prahalad and Hammond39)}.

Such actions should be informed and supported by robust data collection and meaningful cross-sectoral, collaborative working that promotes transparency and accountability in data use. Interest is growing in business’ potential to make proactive contributions to food security, particularly as part of some form of cross-sector collaboration^{(Reference Hamann, Giamporcaro and Johnston12)}. Indeed, researchers opine that companies must take the lead in bringing business and society back together^{(Reference Porter and Kramer34)}. Companies need to move away from a principally profit-driven mindset to one that integrates social value into core business strategy. Companies willing to innovate and adapt their business models to meet the needs of lower-income communities can unlock significant economic opportunities while also alleviating poverty and contributing to communities’ social development. By reframing lower-income people as active consumers rather than passive recipients of aid, businesses can drive sustainable growth and development, creating a win-win scenario for both companies and the global poor.

Companies should invest in the communities and environments in which they operate. This involves improving infrastructure, education, and overall quality of life, which in turn creates a more conducive environment for business. The current prioritisation of sustainable development initiatives presents the opportunity for businesses to contribute to ensuring food accessibility by leveraging local entrepreneurs and community networks for food distribution through alternative food networks and community food hubs. This serves to bring people to the food and food to the people as espoused by good food movements and food citizenship models such as Sustainable Food Places and the Food Ethics Council. Other examples of business engagement in seeking to improve food accessibility include supermarkets offering discounted healthy foods, food companies partnering with food banks as corporate donors, and technological companies developing food tracking apps such as Olio ⁽⁴⁰⁾ and Too Good to Go ⁽⁴¹⁾.

Alongside businesses’ role in developing and implementing innovative responses in partnership with others, government leadership remains crucial for addressing food crises, of which food insecurity is one⁽⁴²⁾. Of course, regulation is necessary for well-functioning markets, and this is where policy and business implications merge. It is important that regulations be designed and implemented in such a way as to benefit society rather than work against it. Regulations should set goals and stimulate innovation through highlighting a societal objective and creating a level playing field to encourage companies to invest in shared value rather than maximise short-term profit^{(Reference Porter and Kramer34)}.

Certainly, the food insecurity data suggest that there is a pressing need for cross-sectoral collaboration via partnerships with governments, NGOs (that have an increasingly important role both in policymaking, implementation and the general political process around food and nutrition), businesses and other stakeholders including civil society to address complex societal issues effectively. As stated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, ‘The challenge of food security can only be resolved through a global partnership involving national, international, public, private and voluntary sectors’⁽⁴³⁾. This is because, in today’s complex food system, governments need all the help they can get to develop effective food policies that deliver the common objective of ensuring there is adequate, affordable nutrition to feed everyone … and feed everyone in a way that is sustainable, healthy, respects everyone’s culture, traditions and human rights while delivering a return on investment for shareholders. Together we can create a food system that works for everyone. We can achieve the triple bottom line of delivering for people, planet and profit through effective and joined-up policymaking and action informed by robust evidence.