Handbook of Food Security and Society 1800378432, 9781800378438

Table of contents :
Cover
Front Matter
Copyright
Contents
Tables
Boxes
Contributors
Preface
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Introduction to the Handbook of Food Security and Society
PART I BACKGROUND CHAPTERS
1. ‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland
2. Hunger is a crime: why words matter
3. Challenging corporate charity: food commons as a response to food insecurity
PART II THE RIGHT TO FOOD
4. Championing the right to food in South Africa: the Dullah Omar Institute’s experience
5. Food as a right in addressing food insecurity: a case study from Scotland
PART III MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT
6. Nutrition measures and limits: the dominance of the USDA’s Food Insecurity and Hunger Module and its adaptations
7. Comparative analysis of the measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy
8. Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity
9. What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?
10. Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity and their effects on malnutrition syndemic in South Africa
11. Gender and food security: cross cutting or crossed out? The challenge of implementing ‘gender-just’ food security solutions
PART IV EXAMPLES OF POLICY AND PRACTICE
12. Can the Alma Ata principles of equity, governance and voice be used to balance the rising power of international corporations in global nutrition governance?
13. Food security lessons from exemplars in stunting reduction
14. The financialization of agricultural commodities: implications for food security
15. The role of financial markets in promoting food security
16. Global philanthropy and welfare capitalism: private-sector approaches to food insecurity
17. The COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa: examples of practical solutions to address food insecurity among vulnerable citizens
18. Food insecurity policy in Brazil: responses and challenges
19. Response to the food insecurity crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study from Colombia
20. Government and foodbank food security policy governance: Australian and United States COVID-19 responses
21. Smart farming for food security and sustainability: facing the dilemma of small companies – the Siena Food Lab project
22. The cooperation dilemma: can agricultural cooperatives sustainably survive in a globalised food system while contributing to food security?
23. “Emergency feeding” in America: making words and deeds actually matter
PART V CONCLUSION
24. The intransigence of food insecurity: questioning the realities
Index

Citation preview

HANDBOOK OF FOOD SECURITY AND SOCIETY

Tom Morello, US activist and musician, says: Hunger Is a Crime J. Blistein, ‘Tom Morello at Anti-Poverty Event: “Hunger Is a Crime”’, Rolling Stone, 11 October 2012. Available at https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/tom-morello-at-anti-poverty-event-hunger-is-a-crime-233610/ (accessed on 20 April 2023).

Ziyad Rahbani, Lebanese composer and political commentator, in his poem/ song ‘I’m Not a Heathen’, references the indignity of hunger.

Z. Rahbani, ‘I’m not a blasphemer but hunger is blasphemy’.

Available at http://www.arabicmusictranslation.com/2008/11/ziad-rahbani-im-not-heathen-ana-mosh.html (accessed on 20 April 2023).

To all those who are suffering from food insecurity, from the families who grow our food, to the mothers who self-sacrifice on behalf of their families and go hungry, to the activists and policy makers who attempt to make this world a better place. Keep on trying. Dedicated to the memory of Jane Dixon, who was an inspirational academic and provided insights into food insecurity.

Handbook of Food Security and Society Edited by

Martin Caraher Emeritus Professor of Food and Health Policy, City, University of London, UK

John Coveney Professor of Global Food, Culture and Health, Flinders University, Australia

Mickey Chopra Global Solutions Lead for Service Delivery, Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice, The World Bank, USA

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Martin Caraher, John Coveney and Mickey Chopra 2023

Cover image: Tim Mossholder on Unsplash All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023939698 This book is available electronically in the Sociology, Social Policy and Education subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800378445

ISBN 978 1 80037 843 8 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80037 844 5 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents

List of tablesviii List of boxesix List of contributorsx Prefacexiv Acknowledgementsxix List of abbreviationsxx Introduction to the Handbook of Food Security and Society1 Martin Caraher, John Coveney and Mickey Chopra PART I

BACKGROUND CHAPTERS

1

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland Christine Kinealy

27

2

Hunger is a crime: why words matter Andy Fisher

38

3

Challenging corporate charity: food commons as a response to food insecurity Tara Kenny and Colin Sage

48

PART II

THE RIGHT TO FOOD

4

Championing the right to food in South Africa: the Dullah Omar Institute’s experience Ebenezer Durojaye and Aisosa Jennifer Omoruyi

5

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity: a case study from Scotland Pete Ritchie and Chelsea Marshall

58 72

PART III MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT 6

Nutrition measures and limits: the dominance of the USDA’s Food Insecurity and Hunger Module and its adaptations Sinéad Furey and Emma Beacom

84

7

Comparative analysis of the measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy Catherine Littler, Susan Belyea and Jennifer Brady

98

8

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity Christina M. Pollard, Sharonna Mossenson and Sue Booth v

107

vi  Handbook of food security and society 9

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure? Danielle Gallegos and Rhonda Dryland

118

10

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity and their effects on malnutrition syndemic in South Africa Zandile J. Mchiza, Yul D. Davids and Laurentia J. Opperman

128

11

Gender and food security: cross cutting or crossed out? The challenge of implementing ‘gender-just’ food security solutions Regina Murphy Keith

145

PART IV EXAMPLES OF POLICY AND PRACTICE 12

Can the Alma Ata principles of equity, governance and voice be used to balance the rising power of international corporations in global nutrition governance?163 Regina Murphy Keith

13

Food security lessons from exemplars in stunting reduction Jamal Yearwood, Nadia Akseer, Goutham Kandru and Zulfiqar A. Bhutta

14

The financialization of agricultural commodities: implications for food security 202 S. Ryan Isakson, Jennifer Clapp and Phoebe Stephens

15

The role of financial markets in promoting food security Lee Hodgkinson

16

Global philanthropy and welfare capitalism: private-sector approaches to food insecurity Martin Caraher

17

The COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa: examples of practical solutions to address food insecurity among vulnerable citizens 242 Zandile J. Mchiza, Yul D. Davids, Laurentia J. Opperman and Benjamin J. Roberts

18

Food insecurity policy in Brazil: responses and challenges Manuela Mika Jomori, Bruna Leal Lima Maciel, Silvia Aparecida Zimmermann and Martin Caraher

19

Response to the food insecurity crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study from Colombia Martha Alicia Cadavid Castro, Lorena Patricia Mancilla Lopez, Luis Alirio López Giraldo, Pablo Andres Maya Duque, Briana Davahiva Gómez Ramirez and Juan Camilo Sánchez Gil

20

Government and foodbank food security policy governance: Australian and United States COVID-19 responses Sue Booth, Claire Pulker and Christina M. Pollard

183

215

231

256

277

286

Contents  vii 21

Smart farming for food security and sustainability: facing the dilemma of small companies – the Siena Food Lab project Cristina Santini, Alessio Cavicchi, Simone Cresti, Cristiana Tozzi and Angelo Riccaboni

22

The cooperation dilemma: can agricultural cooperatives sustainably survive in a globalised food system while contributing to food security? Raquel Ajates

23

“Emergency feeding” in America: making words and deeds actually matter Greg Silverman

PART V 24

297

311 324

CONCLUSION

The intransigence of food insecurity: questioning the realities Tim Lang

334

Index353

Tables

I.1

Some examples of concentration in global trade

12

I.2

Sources of data on food insecurity

18

5.1

Social security benefits devolved to Scotland in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018

75

6.1

Original and revised HFSSM classifications and their related scores (Reichenheim et al., 2016; USDA, 2018)

87

6.2

Food (in)security responses for different indicator questions

92

7.1

Advantages and limitations of anthropometric measures

101

7.2

Advantages and limitations of consumer measures

102

7.3

Advantages and limitations of experiential measures

103

15.1

Synopsis of implications for financial markets from the SDGs

224

16.1

Examples of welfare capitalism

237

18.1

Local initiatives to address food insecurity in Brazil

263

20.1

Foodbanking growth phase of US and Australian third-sector frontline services using stated food security governance policies, 2018–20

291

24.1

The range of what consumers/the people can do on food insecurity

345

24.2

What could food industries do for food insecurity?

346

24.3

Some examples of what government can do to address food insecurity348

viii

Boxes I.1

Abstract of key findings from the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report (FAO et al., 2022)

5.1

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland

11.1

Gender and food security in South Africa (Bell 2022)

150

11.2

Gender and food security in Nigeria (Nnabuchi 2022)

155

11.3

Declaration of Nyéléni, Sélingué, Mali: forum for food sovereignty

157

11.4

Five core principles must underpin food security policies and programmes

159

12.1

Recommendations from the FAO high level panel of experts

177

15.1

Case study: how futures contracts are used to mitigate risk

220

ix

6 80

Contributors

Raquel Ajates is a Research Fellow at the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Previously she was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Dundee and a Teaching Fellow at the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London. Nadia Akseer is an Assistant Scientist at Johns Hopkins University and a Scientific Advisor for Exemplars in Global Health. She is also a Scientist and Director of Research at Modern Scientist Global. Emma Beacom is a lecturer in the Department of Food Business and Development at University College Cork, Ireland. Susan Belyea teaches and lectures on topics in global food security and is the Director of the Ban Righ Centre for Continuing Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Zulfiqar A. Bhutta is the Co-director of the Center for Global Child Health at the Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, and the Founding Director of the Institute for Global Health and Development at the Aga Khan University. Sue Booth is an adjunct Senior Lecturer in the College of Medicine & Public Health, Flinders University, and also at the School of Population Health, Curtin University, Western Australia. Jennifer Brady is Associate Professor in and Director of the School of Nutrition and Dietetics at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Martin Caraher is Emeritus Professor of Food and Health Policy at City, University of London. Martha Alicia Cadavid Castro is Associate Professor, University of Antioquia, Colombia, in the School of Nutrition and Dietetics. Alessio Cavicchi is Full Professor of Agribusiness, Rural Development and Branding at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment of the University of Pisa. Mickey Chopra is the Global Solutions Lead for Service Delivery in the Health Nutrition and Population global practice section of the World Bank. Jennifer Clapp is a Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability and Professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at the University of Waterloo, Canada. John Coveney is Professor, Global Food, Culture and Health at Flinders University, South Australia. Simone Cresti is a Research Manager at the Santa Chiara Lab of the University of Siena and Network Manager at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network Mediterranean.

x

Contributors  xi Yul D. Davids is a Research Director in the Human Science Research Council’s Developmental, Capable and Ethical State division and Advisory Member at the Department of Applied Legal Studies at Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa. Rhonda Dryland has just completed her PhD on the experiences of women living with food insecurity. She is an Accredited Practising Dietitian working with families experiencing food insecurity and chronic conditions. Pablo Andres Maya Duque is Professor of Engineering in the University of Antioquia, Colombia. Ebenezer Durojaye is Head Socio-Economic Rights Project, Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. Andy Fisher has been a leading force in the US food security and food justice movement for the past 25 years, starting and leading the Community Food Security Coalition until 2011. He currently is Executive Director at the Ecological Farming Association in Santa Cruz, California. Sinéad Furey is a Senior Lecturer in the Consumer Management and Food Innovation undergraduate degree programme in Ulster University Business School. Danielle Gallegos is Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics at Queensland University of Technology, Australia, and her research focusses on the intersection between food, nutrition and social justice. Juan Camilo Sánchez Gil is Associate Professor at the University of Antioquia, Colombia, in the Department of Industrial Engineering. Luis Alirio López Giraldo is Professor at the University of Antioquia, Colombia, in the Faculty of Nursing. Lee Hodgkinson is an accomplished CEO and Chairman in the financial markets sector. He is currently Chief Strategy Officer of the Saudi Tadawul Group, Chairman of BMLL Technologies and is pursuing a Master's degree in International Affairs at King's College London.. S. Ryan Isakson is an Associate Professor of Global Development Studies and Geography at the University of Toronto. Manuela Mika Jomori is Professor, Department of Nutrition, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Goutham Kandru is an Associate Director at Gates Ventures, working on US Healthcare. He was formerly the Nutrition Topic Lead at Exemplars in Global Health. Tara Kenny is a Postdoctoral Researcher within the School of Public Health, University College Cork, Ireland. Christine Kinealy is a Founding Director of Ireland’s Great Hunger Institute at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.

xii  Handbook of food security and society Tim Lang is Professor Emeritus of Food Policy, Centre for Food Policy, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London. Catherine Littler is a PhD student at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada. Bruna Leal Lima Maciel is a Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Lorena Patricia Mancilla Lopez is Associate Professor, University of Antioquia, Colombia in the School of Nutrition and Dietetics. Chelsea Marshall led the Our Right to Food project within Nourish Scotland. She also works with food aid providers and local partners to embed ‘cash-first’ approaches to food insecurity in Scotland. Zandile J. Mchiza is a Senior Specialist Scientist at the South African Medical Research Council’s Non-Communicable Disease Research Unit and an Extraordinary Professor for the School of Public Health at the University of the Western Cape. Sharonna Mossenson is a part-time PhD candidate at the School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. She is funded by a Healthway, the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation, PhD scholarship. Regina Murphy Keith is a nurse midwife with over forty years’ experience supporting global health, nutrition and food security programmes and research. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Nursing and the World Public Health Nutrition Association. She currently runs an MSc in Global Public Health Nutrition at the University of Westminster. Aisosa Jennifer Omoruyi is a Post-doctoral Researcher, Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. Laurentia J. Opperman is a Human Science Research Council intern based at the South African Medical Research Council's Non-Communicable Disease Research Unit Christina M. Pollard is Associate Professor of Public Health Priorities in the School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, West Australia. Claire Pulker works for a metropolitan health service and is an Adjunct Research Associate in the School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. Briana Davahiva Gómez Ramirez is a Professor at the University of Antioquia, Colombia, in the School of Nutrition and Dietetics. Angelo Riccaboni is a Full Professor of Business and Accounting at the University of Siena, where he served as a rector from 2010 to 2016. Pete Ritchie is Executive Director of Nourish Scotland, which he established in 2012. Benjamin J. Roberts is Research Director in the Developmental, Capable and Ethical State research division at the Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa. Colin Sage is an independent research scholar. He is an Affiliated Professor in the Faculty of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Porto, and Visiting Professor at the American University of Rome and at the University of Gastronomic Sciences, Italy.

Contributors  xiii Cristina Santini is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management at the University San Raffaele, Rome. Greg Silverman is the CEO of the West Side Campaign Against Hunger and Director of The Roundtable NYC. He is based in New York, USA. Phoebe Stephens is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business and Social Sciences at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada. Cristiana Tozzi is the Siena Food Lab Project Manager at the Santa Chiara Lab of the University of Siena, Tuscany, Italy. Jamal Yearwood is a Manager at Exemplars in Global Health, focused on Nutrition. Silvia Aparecida Zimmermann is a Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.

Preface

INTRODUCTION We, all three, have long been involved in issues related to food security as researchers, practitioners and teachers. This Handbook presents contributions on theoretical developments, policy approaches and practical applications, set out under five parts. By using this approach, the Handbook aims to provide an overview of the state of the art in the field and calibrates the scope of research as well as offering examples of solutions to the problems. This preface provides a pedagogical guide to those using the Handbook. Using the introductory chapter as a broad umbrella, you may choose to pick individual chapters to aid your learning, knowledge or class-based activities. For example, you may want to focus on gender and food insecurity in an MSc programme and prefer not to go into detail on measurement issues; using the introductory chapter along with others you select from the list could be a way of doing this. We have organised the chapters under five parts and these are: I. Background Chapters II. The Right to Food III. Measures and Measurement IV. Examples of policy and practice V. Conclusion. These five parts are loosely formulated in how we grouped chapters, the decision where to place a chapter was made on the basis of the overall focus of that chapter; for example, if it was policy or practice based with a minor mention or focus of the right to food, we included it in the part offering examples of policy and practice. There are links across chapters and parts, so the right to food part has links to chapters on South Africa and Brazil located in the examples of policy and practice part. Some of these links are pointed out below with the intention of helping those wishing to use grouping of chapters in their teaching, learning or research.

BACKGROUND CHAPTERS As noted above, the introductory chapter provides some background to the problem of food insecurity as well as setting out some key sources for ongoing monitoring. Chapter 1 is from leading historian Christine Kinealy, who, using the example of Ireland’s Great Famine, known as ‘An Gorta Mór’, argues that looking at the past ‘can teach us about the power of human agency and compassion to end the conflict, systemic inequalities, economic disparities and unregulated greed that continue to cause regional and global hunger and forced displacement’. In Chapter 2, Andy Fisher argues that the replacement of hunger as a descriptor with the more technical term ‘food insecurity’ influences how the problem is viewed and may exclude other wider determinants of food insecurity. Tara Kenny and Colin Sage, in Chapter 3, use the xiv

Preface  xv concept of ‘food as commons’ to reframe approaches to charity in addressing food insecurity. This can be related to a later chapter, number 20 from Booth and colleagues, which compares charity food provision in the US and Australia. The issue of ‘food as commons’ introduces issues of how we define and conceptualise matters related to food and provides the bridge to the right to food in the next part.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD The right to food part contains two chapters. The first (Chapter 4) in this part, by Ebenezer Durojaye and Aisosa Jennifer Omoruyi, details the background to the right to food in South Africa and how research advocacy can help advance the realisation of the right to food. It also presents a case for pursing the right to food in an active sense through litigation. The next chapter (number 5) in this part, by Pete Ritchie and Chelsea Marshall, outlines how Scotland pursued a rights-based approach to food and the role civil society played in the realisation of this. In achieving this, a key part of the responses to food insecurity will be to end the need for food banks. There are links back to Chapter 3 in the first part, by Kenny and Sage, on ‘food as commons’ and to the chapters in Part IV that deal with the right to food; specifically, Chapter 18 on Brazil and Chapter 17 on South Africa both have elements of food rights within them.

MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT The part on measurement issues has six chapters. Some deal with the issue from a conceptual viewpoint and others are more practice based. Sinéad Furey and Emma Beacom, in Chapter 6, set out a critique of probably the most common measurement tool, the United States Department of Agriculture Food Insecurity and Hunger Module, and its variations. This is followed by a chapter (number 7) from Catherine Littler, Susan Belyea and Jennifer Brady, who use a critical dietetic lens to analyse common approaches to food insecurity measurement, namely anthropometric, consumer reporting and experiential measures. Christina Pollard, Sharonna Mossenson and Sue Booth in Chapter 8 provide a perspective on how food and nutrition standards have been used and influence food relief in countries with developed economies. Nutrition professionals have been key in helping the development of food insecurity measures. Key to defining and understanding food insecurity are the ‘lived experiences of people who are food insecure’ and how these can contribute to a fuller understanding of food insecurity. This is the focus of Chapter 9, by Danielle Gallegos and Rhonda Dryland. Measurement has uses in food security policy development, and in Chapter 10 Zandile J. Mchiza, Yul D. Davids and Laurentia J. Opperman show how in South Africa measurement and tracking trends in food insecurity were used to develop practical interventions to address food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also show how research including measurement can be used to lobby for change and to hold policymakers and government to account. This chapter can be cross-referenced with Chapter 4 in Part II, by Durojaye and Omoruyi, on how South Africa pursued the right to food. The last chapter in this part forms a bridge with the next part of examples of policy and practice. Regina Murphy Keith raises the issue of gender and using examples from across the globe shows the importance of gendered policy, suggesting possible steps forward in promoting the protection, promotion and inclusion of gender in food security

xvi  Handbook of food security and society solutions. This chapter also links with the previous part on the right to food, as well as Chapter 9 on missing voices in food security by Gallegos and Dryland.

EXAMPLES OF POLICY AND PRACTICE This part contains the bulk of the contributions to the Handbook. It opens with a chapter (number 12) by Murphy Keith questioning how we might address Sustainable Development Goal 2 to end all forms of malnutrition by 2030 and whether the Alma Alta principles related to ‘equity, governance and voice’ could provide a framework for delivering this ambitious target. The ‘voice’ has resonances with issues raised in Chapter 9 by Gallegos and Dryland, concerning which and whose voices are missing. Jamal Yearwood, Nadia Akseer, Goutham Kandru and Zulfiqar A. Bhutta in Chapter 13 present data from a number of country-based case studies (Senegal, Ethiopia, Peru and the Kyrgyz Republic) drawing out the links between stunting and food insecurity. They show the influence of wider structural determinants on food insecurity, such as land reforms, the implementation of agricultural technology to increase food availability, and cash transfers, as well as preventive and emergency management systems to help respond to acute events. The issue of technology and how to work with small and medium-sized farms are set out in some later chapters (chapters 21 and 22 on smart farming and co-operation methods). We then move to a sub-grouping in this part with three chapters on the global food system, the first two dealing with financialization of the food system by major corporations. Chapter 14 by S. Ryan Isakson, Jennifer Clapp and Phoebe Stephens sets out how control in the food system is more and more concentrated in the hands of a small group of companies and individuals, and argues for more regulatory control. Lee Hodgkinson in the following chapter (number 15) sets out an argument showing how the agricultural commodity industry can contribute to increasing levels of food security by transferring risk to those who can best bear it, whilst giving greater income certainty to vulnerable growers and farmers. Both these chapters link to the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and for better regulation in the markets. Written from different perspectives, one from a public health nutrition perspective and the other from one engaged in the financial markets industry, there is a remarkable degree of agreement, with both calling for greater control over speculation and more concern with addressing the SDGs. These two contributions are followed by a chapter on how food security at a global level is being influenced by philanthrocapitalism and the emergence of corporate welfare schemes (Martin Caraher, Chapter 16). This latter, he argues, is being driven by the withdrawal of national governments from public policy and leaving it to the private sector to address food insecurity by ‘trickle-down’ economics. The focus is then on another sub-grouping of three chapters dealing with activities in South Africa, Brazil and Colombia. The South Africa chapter (number 17) by Zandile Mchiza, Yul D. Davids, Laurentia Opperman and Benjamin Roberts details the community and the South African government’s leadership in the time of the COVID-19 crisis and the range of activities and support policies they introduced. This chapter can be linked to the South Africa chapter in the right to food part (number 4), as South Africa has long had a commitment to the principle and it is enshrined in the Constitution and Section 27(1)(b) states that ‘everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water’. Closely linked to this is a focus in Chapter 18 on food insecurity developments in Brazil, by Manuela Mika Jomori, Bruna Leal Lima Maciel,

Preface  xvii Silvia Aparecida Zimmermann and Martin Caraher. Like South Africa, Brazil has a long history of the right to food and national and regional initiatives to tackle poor nutrition and food insecurity. Political changes in regimes have resulted in some backtracking of initiatives and reductions in funding; these are documented. The final chapter (19) in this sub-grouping of three, sets out a case study from Colombia by Martha Alicia Cadavid Castro and colleagues. Unlike South Africa and Brazil, Colombia does not have a record of tackling food insecurity as a right to food. Using the case of Medellín, the second-largest city in Colombia, they show how during the pandemic the primary response was community and civil society based, using community and alternative networks. This civil society approach is one that can be found in many chapters in this collection, such as numbers 12, 13, 17 and 18. Sue Booth, Claire Pulker and Christina Pollard in Chapter 20 present a comparison of food security governance related to food banks, addressing the US and Australian approaches. They conclude that there are food security policy failures in government and the charity sector as food insecurity is hidden or poorly measured. There is a similar section in Chapter 18 setting out the Brazilian approach to food banks. The earlier chapters on ‘food as commons’, numbers 3 by Kenny and Sage and 5 by Ritchie and Marshall on Scotland’s approach to the right to food, also reference the issue of food banks and food charity. The next two chapters in this part tackle issues raised in previous chapters related to civil society approaches, partnerships between partners, and how growers can make more use of technological innovation to produce more food and address their own household food insecurity, an issue raised in Chapter 13 by Yearwood and colleagues. The first of these chapters, number 21, by Cristina Santini and colleagues, sets out a case study exploring two aspects: firstly, partnerships between the university sector and small and medium-sized farms; secondly, the transfer and use of technology to improve food yields and thus contribute to sustainable livelihoods for these small producers. The chapter shows how the academic community, as a stakeholder, can play a part as an active participant in bringing about changes in food security. An earlier chapter, number 4, on South Africa, by Durojaye and Omoruyi, also demonstrated how an academic legal department can play an active role in addressing food insecurity by developing partnerships with other stakeholders. Raquel Ajates in Chapter 22 takes the above a step further, exploring how different forms of farmer cooperatives promote or hinder food security among producers and consumers. She sets out different forms of agricultural co-operative models from the Spanish experience, which can be said to fit within civil society approaches to address food security and sustainability. Both chapters 21 and 22 show the importance of academics, civil society groups and activists working together. This part on examples of policy and practice, fittingly, finishes with a chapter (number 23) on a practical initiative, written from the perspective of one delivering an initiative, Chef Greg Silverman. He outlines how a civil society approach in the city of New York aims to deliver food with dignity and to provide a choice of healthy food and supportive services, identifying barriers to implementation and new ways of working.

CONCLUSION We have one chapter in the final concluding part, number 24. This is by our friend, colleague and food policy visionary, Tim Lang. We originally approached Tim with the intent of including his chapter in the introductory and background part. When he submitted his chapter, we

xviii  Handbook of food security and society were blown away by its depth and breadth of analysis. We immediately breathed a metaphorical sigh of relief, realising we would not have to write a conclusion, as Tim had done it for us. He presents a personal reflection on developments in food security by exploring four aspects of food insecurity, as follows: 1. He considers the fluidity of food insecurity and agrees that current conceptions are correct in seeing food insecurity not as a state of existence but as a process that may take different forms. 2. Is the term ‘food insecurity’ too fluid? As a social construct, the value of food insecurity lies in what use people, particularly policymakers, politicians and social movements, make of the term, but too often it has lost its ‘edge’. 3. Tim asks what would be required for food insecurity (the reality, not the term) to be made obsolete. In a food system and world fissured by gross inequalities, this may not be likely, but it could and should be conceived. 4. Tim finally asks whether it is utopian to conceive of a world without food insecurity. It is, but nothing less deserves our moral support. Through this exploration, Tim picks up issues that are raised in the chapter throughout this volume, many of which produce examples of how we can tackle food insecurity. So, enjoy the Handbook and remember what Marx asserted in the last line of his ‘Theses on Feuerbach’: ‘[T]he philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways[;] the point, however, is to change it’ (2004, p. 123). We hope the contents go some way to help in achieving the changes you hope for. Martin Caraher, John Coveney and Mickey Chopra

REFERENCE Marx, K. (2004). ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in K. Marx and F. Engels (eds), The German Ideology, London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 121–123.

Acknowledgements

When we undertook to edit this volume, the world was a different place: no COVID, no lockdowns and no global economic depression. All was not good, but there were hopeful signs in the SDGs, increasing climate change awareness, and the growth of a new form of activist who attempted to link food growing and supply with ecological development and food access. We would like to thank all the contributors to this Handbook, for their time, energy and insights, and for producing work during lockdown and its aftermaths, often at personal cost. We remain inspired and in awe of the work undertaken by the contributors to make the world more food secure. Thank you.

MARTIN I would like to thank John and Mickey for their patience in responding to my constant demands for edits and reviews, and my cries for help. As always, love to Maggie, who put up with my having to write in lockdown and even further isolate myself during a year in which we had planned to travel and see friends, neither of which was possible. Thanks also to all of those who I have been lucky to work with over the years. My background reading and research for this book has reunited me with many of the giants of food policy and the inspirations for my initial move into this area. Standing on the shoulders of giants such as Amartya Sen, Richard Titmus, Peter Townsend, John Boyd Orr and Lizzie Collingham has been indeed humbling and convinced me of one of the central themes of this book: there is much to be learned from the past, if only we listen.

JOHN Having Martin and Mickey as partners in this book adventure has been so encouraging. I have learned a lot about global food insecurity and about the publishing process. Thanks also to my students and my colleagues at Flinders and at other universities who bravely venture into the food insecurity space. I know their work does not go unnoticed and that they make a great contribution to our knowledge and understanding of this complex field. Thanks always to Melanie for her constant support and wise advice.

MICKEY Deep appreciation to my co-editors John and Martin for their infinite patience and wisdom to navigate us through this journey as the land beneath our feet literally shifted. As always, David Sanders has been my North Star, and we all miss his vision and leadership greatly. I hope we can continue to do justice to the values and commitment he embodied. And Smruti, thank you; I could not have hoped for a better partner. xix

Abbreviations

AAR ABC ADLI AFN ANU APAP ARC (13) ATA (13) AU BEIN BIG (17) BIS BMI (10,17) BRIC BRICS BSE CA CAP (24) CAWR (11) CBD CBOT CCP CCSSG CESCR CFM CFS CFTC CIF CK CLM (13) CLUC (22) CMAN

Agricultural Automation and Robotics American Broadcasting Company Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization alternative food networks Australian National University Agriculture Policy Action Plan African Risk Capacity Agricultural Transformation Authority Antwerp University Basic Income Earth Network Basic Income Grant/Guarantee basic income support body mass index Economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy conservation agriculture Common Agricultural Policy compound annual growth rate Convention on Biological Diversity Chicago Board of Trade Central Counterparty Corona Cooking Survey Study Group Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 Committee on World Food Security US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Commodity index fund Community Kitchens Cellule de Lutte contre la Malnutrition Communal Land Use Cooperative community management of malnutrition xx

Abbreviations  xxi CME CNAN COGTA CONSEA COP COSAN COVID-19 CRAM CSD CSR (I.l) CUFA CWFS DAFF DAFF-SP DALRRD DANE DBE (4) DBM DCFP (18) DDS (7) DEFF (17) DES (7) DESI DHS (13) DoED DoH DOI DoSD DoT&I DPME DR-NCDs DSD DSNAP (20)

Chicago Mercantile Exchange National Food and Nutrition Conference (Conferência Nacional de Alimentação e Nutrição) (Department of) Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) Conference of the Parties Food and Nutrition Security Coordination of the Municipality (Coordenadoria Municipal de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) Coronavirus 2019 Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (for South Africa) Commission on Sustainable Development Corporate Social Responsibility Slum Unique Center (Central Única das Favelas) Committee on World Food Security Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Strategic Plan Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development Colombian National Administrative Department of Statistics Department of Basic Education double burden of malnutrition Distribution Center for Family Farming Products Dietary Diversity Score Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment dietary energy supply Digital Economy and Society Index Demographic and Health Survey Department of Economic Development Department of Health Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Rule of Law Department of Social Development Department of Trade and Industry Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation diet-related non-communicable diseases Department of Social Development Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

xxii  Handbook of food security and society DWP EBIA EC ECD (4) ECOSOC (12) EFR (9) ELCSA (7) EMATER ENN (I) EPSAN ESR Review (4) ESG (24) ETF EU EU-SILC FA FAO FB FBSSAN (18) FCDO FDI FEBA (I) FI FIA FIAN FIERGS FIES (7) FIES-SM FLAG FMIS FNI FNS

Department for Work and Pensions Brazilian Food Insecurity Scale (Escala Brasileira de avaliação da Insegurança Alimentar) European Commission Early Childhood Development Economic and Social Council emergency food relief Latin American and Caribbean Food Insecurity Scale Technical Assitance and Rural Extension Enterprise (Empresa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural) Emergency Nutrition Network Public Infrastructure of Food and Nutrition Security (Equipamentos Públicos de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) Economic and Social Rights Review Environmental, social and governance (standards for) Exchange traded fund European Union The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Feeding America Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations) Food Banks Brazilian Forum on Food and Nutrition Security and Sovereignty (Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança e Soberania Alimentar e Nutricional) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office foreign direct investment Fédération Européenne des Banques Alimentaires Food Insecurity Futures Industry Association FoodFirst Information and Action Network Industry Federation of Rio Grande do Sul State (Federação das Indústrias do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul) Food Insecurity Experience Survey Food Insecurity Experience Scale – Survey Module Food Legislation Advisory Group Farm Management Information Systems Food and Nutrition Insecurity Food and Nutrition Security

Abbreviations  xxiii FRAC (2) FSA FSG GAIN GATT (24) GCSA (3) GCX (15) GHG GM GNTs GUFP GSF HAZ HCES (7) HEA (7) HFIAS (7) HFSSM HLPE HSRC IASC (11) ICE ICESCR IFAD IFSS INE (22) INP IPAD IPC (12) IPCC (15) LBW (12) LCA LCC LOSAN MDGs MP MPA

Food Research Action Center Food Standards Agency (UK) food security governance Global Alliance to Improve Nutrition General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Group of Chief Scientific Advisors Ghana Commodity Exchange Greenhouse Gases genetically modified Global Nutrition Targets Grow up Free from Poverty Coalition Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition height-for-age z-score Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey Household Economic Approach Household Food Insecurity Access Score Household Food Security Survey Module High Level Panel of Experts Human Sciences Research Council Inter-Agency Standing Committee Intercontinental Exchange International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Fund for Agricultural Development Integrated Food Security Strategy The (Spanish) National Institute of Statistics Integrated Nutrition Programme Industry Policy Action 2015 International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change low birth weight Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Costing Organic Law of Food and Nutritional Security (Lei Orgânica de Segurança alimentar e Nutricional) Millennium Development Goals Member of Parliament Small Farmers Movement (Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores)

xxiv  Handbook of food security and society MSA MSC MSNBC MSP (5) MST MTSF MTST NAFTA (11) NCDs NDoHN (10) NDP NEST (20) NFNS NGP NI (5) NICD (17) NIDS NPC NPFNS NSFAS NSLP NSNP (17) NT ODA OECD OH (20) ONS (6) OTC PA PAA PASAV (13) PASIDP (13) PENSSAN

multi-stakeholder approach multi-stakeholder cooperative Microsoft National Broadcasting Company Member of the Scottish Parliament Landless Movement (Movimento dos Sem Terra) Medium Term Strategic Framework Homeless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto) North American Free Trade Agreement Non-communicable Diseases National Department of Health Nutrition National Development Plan Nutrition Education and Skills Training National Food and Nutrition Security Plan New Growth Path Northern Ireland National Institute of Communicable Diseases National Income Dynamics Study National Planning Committee National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security National Student Financial Aid Scheme National School Lunch Programme The (South African) National School Nutrition Programme National Treasury Overseas Development Assistance Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OzHarvest Office for National Statistics over the counter Precision Agriculture Food acquisition or Procurement Program (Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos) Food Security Support Project for Vulnerable Households Participatory Small-scale Irrigation Development Program Brazilian Net of Food and Nutrition Security and Sovereignty Research (Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional)

Abbreviations  xxv PFSN (13) PMEJD (10) PNAD PNAE POF PoU (7) PPCNCD PPPs PR PRN (13) PTC RNSA ROCE ROI RRFCF RRI RSPB RUTF SA SA DBE SA DoH SAHRC SAM (11) SAn SAN SANHANES-1 SANHANES-2 SASSA SDGs SDSN (15) SERP SESC

Health and Nutrition Financing Project Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity National Household Sample Survey (Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios) National School Feeding Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar) Household Budget Survey (Pesquisa de Orçamento Familiar) prevalence of undernutrition Strategic Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases Public Private Partnerships Popular Restaurants Programme de Renforcement de Nutrition (Nutrition Enhancement Program) Poverty Truth Commission (later renamed Poverty Truth Community) Road Map for Nutrition in South Africa Returns on capital employed Republic of Ireland Regulations Relating to the Fortification of Certain Foodstuffs responsible research and innovation Royal Society for the Protection of Birds milk based ready to use food South Africa South African Department of Basic Education South African Department of Health South African Human Rights Commission severe acute malnutrition South African Food and Nutritional Security (in Spanish) First South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Second South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey South African Social Security Agency Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable Development Solutions Network Socio-Economic Rights Project of the Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Rule of Law Social Commerce Service (Serviço Social do Comércio)

xxvi  Handbook of food security and society SF SFC SFL SIMLESA SISAN SMAAB SMASAN (18) SMS SNAP SNP SOFI (24) SONA SPCOSA SRD (17) SRDG SSA (11) Stats SA SUN TEFAP (20) TNCs (12) TSSB UBI UIF UJ UK UMB UN UDHR UPFs US USAID (I) USD USDA USDA ERC

smart farming Scottish Food Coalition Siena Food Lab Project Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Cropping Systems for food security in Eastern and Southern Africa National Food and Nutrition Security System (Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) Municipal Secretariat for Urban Sanitation (Secretaria Municipal Adjunta de Abastecimento) Secretariat for Food and Nutrition Security Short Message Service Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Scottish National Party State of Food Insecurity State of Nation Address Strategic Plan for the Prevention and Control of Obesity in South Africa Social Relief of Distress Social Relief and Distress Grants sub-Saharan Africa Statistics South Africa Scaling up Nutrition coalition the Emergency Food Assistance Program transnational corporations Taxation of Sugar Sweetened Beverages Universal Basic Income Unemployment insurance funds University of Johannesburg United Kingdom Universal Monthly Benefit United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights ultra processed foods United States United States Agency for International Development United States Dollar United States Department of Agriculture USDA's Economic Research Service

Abbreviations  xxvii UWC VIGISAN (18)

WASH WCRF WFP (19) WFS WHO WIC (20) WRS (15) WSCAH WTO ZAR ZVRBF

University of the Western Cape National Survey of Food Insecurity in the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil (Inquérito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no Contexto da Pandemia da Covid-19 no Brasil) Water, sanitation, and hygiene World Cancer Research Fund World Food Programme World Food Summit World Health Organization Women, Infants and Children Warehouse Receipt System West Side Campaign Against Hunger World Trade Organization South African Rand Zero VAT Rating of Basic Foodstuff

Introduction to the Handbook of Food Security and Society Martin Caraher, John Coveney and Mickey Chopra

INTRODUCTION: A DETERIORATING CRISIS When we started writing the outline for this book in 2018/19, the world was a different place; while the indicators for food security were not all positive, there remained a level of optimism in terms of addressing global food insecurity insofar as it was thought that things were changing with the establishment of systems of delivery and mechanisms to monitor progress (OECD, 2022). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and concerns with climate change (in a series of global climate summits known by the abbreviation COP, which stands for Conference of the Parties) and its impact on food security were offering mechanisms to address food insecurity. Up to 2015, there had been progress in addressing food insecurity, but thereafter reductions in addressing targets and key hot spots for food shortages and famine began to emerge, all of which have been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, a series of global financial crises and climate emergencies (Oxfam, 2022; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2021). This chapter offers an overview of many of the issues that are taken up in detail in the individual chapters in this Handbook. We have provided a pedagogical guide to chapters in the Preface, which helps sets out instructions as to how chapters might be used alone or in combination for learning or teaching purposes. We, as editors, see the purpose of this introduction as providing an overview of the intellectual terrain the Handbook covers, many of the issues of which are picked up in detail in individual chapters. We recommend that the introduction and the preface be read in conjunction with one another.

LEARNING FROM THE PAST To understand contemporary food security policy, it helps to have some knowledge of the history of food insecurity and the approaches adopted, the repetitions and changes in emphasis (Nestle, 2016). Although Barack Obama is known for saying ‘The past is never dead’, he borrowed the quote from William Faulkner (Faulkner, 2011). The meaning of this is that the values from one era often transfer to the next, often dressed in new words and meanings yet still carrying the underlying beliefs of a time past (Faulkner, 2011). Memories of famine remain in the folk tradition. Famines such as the great Bengal famines of 1770 and 1943 were the result of dominant policy practices and beliefs at key epochs; this did not mean that there were not dissenting and missing voices (Taylor, 2010; Taylor, 2020; Thompson, 1993). The missing voices were of those who were ‘poor’, women and the marginalised, often the victims of famine or slavery. History is written by the victors – often with a gendered bias – not the vanquished, and nineteenth- and twentieth-century histories were written by the privileged, 1

2  Handbook of food security and society with the voices of ordinary people largely missing from the narrative (Carr, 1961), although these voices survived in popular traditions such as song and dance (Falc’her-Poyroux, 2014; Thompson, 1993). Harte wrote, ‘those in power write the history, those who suffer write the songs’ (Harte, Lunny, 1998). The folk memories of famine and the absence of both the poor and women are the focus of chapters in this volume. W. B. Yeats wrote the following in his play of 1892, while contemplating the effects of the Great Irish Famine (An Gortá Mór, which stretched from 1845 to 1852): It’s time that poverty should bolt the door…. (p. 10) If we knew how to find deserving poor we’d do our share… We know the evils of mere charity. (Yeats, 1982, p. 13)

Yeats was bemoaning the role of charity in addressing the famine and the negative aspects that came with it such as proselytising and the lack of government action. De Waal documents experiences of famine where non-intervention is justified as a legitimate action (de Waal, 2018). This is a feature of many chapters in this collection, some offering critiques of charity, others showing how it can be integrated with government schemes. Despite the lack of government support and intervention, historians of the both the Great Irish Famine and the 1770 Bengal famine were not overly critical of the government response; it fell to later historians and economists such as Woodham-Smith and others, more recently Christine Kinealy (who has a chapter in this collection) and Amartya Sen, to reinterpret the narrative and to consider the voices of women and those who suffered (Woodham-Smith, 1962; Kinealy, Moran, 2020; Kinealy, King, Reilly, 2016). The voices of women were, and continue to be, under-represented in the official narratives of food and food policy except as the subjects of research (Kinealy, King, Reilly, 2016). A contemporary example comes to mind with the war in Ukraine and the memories of past famines in the 1930s under Stalin (Applebaum, 2017). Despite these folk memories, policymakers seem to suffer policy amnesia when it comes to addressing a crisis (de Waal, 2021). The old adage, ‘Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ springs to mind. While famine is an extreme example of food insecurity, hunger and starvation, nowadays in the globally connected world we see fairly rapid responses to famine by agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP), NGOs such as Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières, and the Famine Early Warning Systems Network created by the United States Agency for International Development (Emergency Nutrition Network [ENN], 1998; Krishnamurthy, Choularton, Kareiva, 2020). This volume does not deal with famine response, which is an emergency response system, and as others note needs refining in terms of both the adequacy of early indicators and the responses (Krishnamurthy, Choularton, Kareiva, 2020). The focus of the contributions in this volume is food insecurity, specifically the first three stages of the five ending in famine. These are: 1. Food security 2. Food insecurity 3. Acute food insecurity 4. Humanitarian emergency 5. Famine.

Introduction  3 The same underlying principles as apply to famine operate in the everyday policy approach to preventing food insecurity and ensuring food security. A report from the UN’s FAO and other agencies identifies 20 hunger hotspots where hunger was expected to deteriorate further in 2022 (FAO et al., 2022). According to this report, ‘Hunger Hotspots’ Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen remain at ‘highest alert’ as hotspots with catastrophic conditions, and Afghanistan and Somalia are new entries to this group, since the previous hotspots report in January 2022. These countries have population groups at risk of tumbling over into catastrophic conditions, with a total of 750,000 people facing starvation and death in Ethiopia, Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan (FAO et al., 2022). The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, the Sahel region, the Sudan and Syria have also been highlighted as ‘countries of very high concern’ with deteriorating conditions, with Kenya a new entry to the list. The flaws exposed by COVID, extreme climate conditions and more recently the war in Ukraine have already been noted (Lang, McKee, 2022).

CRISIS FOLLOWED BY CRISES The COVID-19 crisis followed by the war in Ukraine has further exposed flaws in the global food system and made more visible what was known, but not applied, from the 2008 Great Recession. Following the global economic crisis in 2008, there were major impacts on global food poverty levels and political unrest; for example, the Arab Spring was triggered by concerns and riots over rising food prices (Ansani, Daniele, 2012; Johnstone, Mazo, 2011). The crises we now see (as of 2022/23) are extensive and more far reaching than those of 2008; extremes of food insecurity leading to famine are threatened because of the breakdown in global food supply chains (Lang, McKee, 2022). This is unlike previous food crises, where the solution was often to shift supply from one area of the globe to another; so a poor harvest of grain in Canada could be supplemented by grain from the Black Sea area. These options are seriously curtailed by poor harvests, the war in Ukraine and countries limiting exports to protect their own populations. A new word was introduced into dictionaries in 2022, and this was ‘permacrises’, to indicate the perilous state of world affairs. The war in Ukraine is compounding what in 2022 was already a year of catastrophic hunger, unleashing a wave of collateral hunger that is spreading across the globe and transforming a series of acute hunger crises into a global food crisis the world cannot afford, either to ignore or to act on. The situation in 2022 was exacerbated by the global politics of power, with food being ‘weaponised’ or perhaps hunger being weaponised as a tool of war (Hunter, 2022). As developed nations, such as the UK and the US, roll back on foreign aid budgets, their role is being replaced by private companies under the heading of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Many companies see this as investment in their futures by supporting both training for farmers and capital investment projects. From a food policy perspective, it can be seen as governments defaulting on policymaking and regulation to the private sector (Rieff, 2016; Caraher, 2022). The rollback on foreign aid has been a long-term project by governments globally in pursuit of austerity and cost savings; such moves have increased in the wake of the 2008 Great Recession (Heinrich, Kobayashi, Bryant, 2016). The UK has halved its commitment to foreign aid, so countries experiencing extreme famine, such as Yemen, are likely to suffer from these cuts in both the short and long terms. These cuts have a long history, often linked to domestic politics in the donor country (Clapp, 2012; Heinrich, Kobayashi, Bryant,

4  Handbook of food security and society 2016). We see famine as the extreme of food insecurity and it does not form a large part of this Handbook as there are measures in place to activate global services and responses (de Waal, 2018; de Waal, 2021). While these may not always be adequate or swift enough, they are at least in place as early warning systems (Funk et al., 2019). Food insecurity has, again, become a focus of both political and public concern driven by factors such as rising food prices, food crises ranging from famines in Yemen and Afghanistan, the UK’s leaving the European Union (Brexit), China/US trade wars, the COVID-19 crisis, outbreaks of swine flu fever in Germany and China, the possible global relaxing of food standards in support of additional trade liberalisation regimes through to global disruption caused by the war in Ukraine (Lang, McKee, 2022; Oxfam, 2022; Deconinck et al., 2022). The threat of famine in countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen with northern and other parts of Nigeria and Somalia on the brink is linked to these disruptions in the global food chain. Perhaps other reasons for the growing global concern have been the rise of food insecurity in countries of the global north including the OECD countries and those of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (referred to as the BRICS economies). Although the reasons are complex and multifaceted, the COVID-19 lockdowns laid bare the flaws in both the food and food welfare systems of many countries; now combined with climate emergencies (flooding, drought, bushfires), the war in Ukraine, rising inflation and food prices, these already flawed food systems are struggling to cope, leading many to seek alternative solutions.

THE UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS In terms of a framework to deliver on food security, the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to achieve three primary objectives by 2030: ● Protect the planet ● End poverty ● Create prosperity and peace for all (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016). These targets offer a way to set goals for both governments and the private sector (Biermann, Kanie, Kim, 2017). The food system has particular relevance to goal numbers: SDG 1, no poverty; SDG 2, zero hunger; SDG 3, good health and well-being; SDG 4, quality education; SDG 5, gender equality; SDG 6, potable water for all; SDG 8, decent work and economic growth; SDG 10, reduced inequalities; SDG 11, sustainable cities and communities; SDG 12, global food loss and waste; SDG 13, climate action; and SDGs 14 and 15, life below water and on land respectively. Sundry goals are interlinked and have relationships with one another; for example, goal number 2 – zero hunger – has a target to ‘end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’, and links with goal 6, which is concerned with clean water and sanitation. Gender inequality, SDG 5, can be related to SDG 8 and ensures women have a recognised economic place in food and agricultural systems. The poverty reduction targets were already not being met before the COVID crises (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2021). Achieving SDG 2 (zero hunger) in a situation of rapid global population growth and rising inequalities requires a continued focus on food production, distribution and equity. Farming needs not only to sustainably produce nutritious diets, but also to provide livelihoods for farmers and families, while retaining

Introduction  5 natural ecosystems and services – what Mason and Lang call eco-nutrition or sustainable diets (Mason, Lang, 2017). Concerns with dietary inadequacy have shifted from a focus on under-nourishment to the triple burden of malnutrition, which in practice involves the coexistence of under-nutrition and hunger, micro-nutrient deficiencies, and increasing prevalence of obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Hunger is of course different in countries of the global north than it is in those in the global south, where the latter are being ‘hit’ with the additional costs associated with micro-nutrient deficiency and overweight (Peńa, Bacallao, 2000; Popkin, Reardon, 2018; Popkin, Ng, 2021). The SDGs and the emphasis on sustainable diets can also help to tackle the triple burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases (DR-NCDs), which impacts low-income countries disproportionally (Gómez et al., 2013; Poppy, Baverstock-Poppy, Baverstock, 2022; Sedibe et al., 2014). These are the new features of food insecurity, and many countries are now suffering the triple burden. The coexistence of these morbidities also occurs overwhelmingly in the same groups in the population. So those groups that periodically go hungry also suffer from overweight and those who are overweight suffer with micro-nutrient deficiencies. For many, the triple burden is a result of a food production system that is not fit for purpose (Luo, Zyba, Webb, 2020). Therefore, agricultural production should aim to produce food in line with the requirements of a healthy, ecologically sustainable and socially acceptable diet. A key problem is that in terms of production there is an inverted pyramid effect, with the foods grown out of synch with the guidance contained in healthy eating pyramids, what the Barilla Foundation calls the ‘Double Pyramid’ (Barilla Foundation, 2021). This visual representation allows us to see that the foods we are advised to eat more are also, generally, those that have the lowest environmental impacts. On the other hand, foods that we are advised to eat less are also those that have a greater environmental impact. Fruit and vegetables are the most recommended foods for consumption, with the smallest impact on the environment.1 This tension between production and consumption is inherent in the dominant food system (Mason, Lang, 2017; Clapp, 2017; Egger, Swinburn, 2010). However, processing adds financial value to food while contributing to the consumption of ultra processed foods that contribute to increased risk of obesity and DR-NCDs (Popkin, Reardon, 2018).

DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT OF FOOD INSECURITY Many definitions of food insecurity exist, but the one that has achieved the most purchase is that constructed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which states ‘food insecurity is defined as inadequate access to food due to limited resources’; this is measured through the application of a Survey Module consisting of ten questions/items. Responses can be used to classify respondents into the categories of high food security; low food security; food insufficiency; and hunger. There are variations on this module, with some countries adopting a shorter version (using variously three to seven questions) often built into ongoing 1 This is of course subject to how they are grown, the inputs, how transported and stored. Food miles is often used as a heuristic, but the real measure is greenhouse gas emissions. For example, tomatoes grown under cover in the UK using fossil fuels may be less environmentally friendly than food grown in Spain and transported to the UK.

6  Handbook of food security and society surveys. It has also been adapted for use with schoolchildren and university students. There are critiques of the USDA module and its application to different settings, and emerging from this are alternative approaches to gauging food insecurity – some include the experience of those living in food security and others adopt a social norms perspective, recognising that food intake is about culture as well as hunger. These personal experiences of food insecurity are provided by initiatives such as the Witness to Hunger programme in the US (Chilton et al., 2009); others range from the development of consensual food baskets to community food development projects. We see this in some of the chapters in this volume where the lessons from the Great Recession of 2008 were not learned and in fact governments in the guise of austerity dismantled food security systems. Hawkes and colleagues note, The food system was in crisis long before the present crisis. Inclusive food systems governance that addresses power imbalances will be essential for the journey from food price crisis to a more equitable food system. We cannot rely on the people who created our inequitable food system to fix it. (Hawkes et al., 2022, p. 415)

COVID-19 and associated illness and lockdowns compounded by climate emergencies and the war in Ukraine have resulted in the situation’s deteriorating even more and more rapidly (Lang, McKee, 2022). As we wrote this introductory chapter we were ‘hit’ on a daily basis by more distressing news over the state of global food insecurity, with the picture deteriorating week to week (The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 2022). In the midst of these global crises, FAO and other UN agencies set out in 2022 a dismal summary, which can be found in Box I.1 below.

BOX I.1

ABSTRACT OF KEY FINDINGS FROM THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE WORLD (SOFI) REPORT (FAO ET AL., 2022)

• This year’s report should dispel any lingering doubts that the world is moving backwards in its efforts to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. • The distance to reach many of the SDG 2 (Sustainable Development Goal 2, Zero Hunger) targets is growing wider each year. • The intensification of the major drivers behind recent food insecurity and malnutrition trends (i.e., conflict, climate extremes and economic shocks) combined with the high cost of nutritious foods and growing inequalities will continue to challenge food security and nutrition. • As many as 828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021 – 46 million people more from a year earlier and 150 million more from 2019. • The proportion of people affected by hunger jumped in 2020 and continued to rise in 2021, to 9.8% of the world population. This compares with 8% in 2019 and 9.3% in 2020. • Around 2.3 billion people in the world (29.3%) were moderately or severely food insecure in 2021 – 350 million more compared to before the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic.

Introduction  7 • The gender gap in food insecurity continued to rise in 2021 – 31.9% of women in the world were moderately or severely food insecure, compared to 27.6% of men. • Almost 3.1 billion people could not afford a healthy diet in 2020, up 112 million from 2019. • An estimated 45 million children under the age of five were suffering from wasting …. 149 million children under the age of five had stunted growth and development due to a chronic lack of essential nutrients in their diets, while 39 million were overweight. The report contains one bright note: • Progress is being made on exclusive breastfeeding, with nearly 44% of infants under six months of age being exclusively breastfed worldwide in 2020. This is still short of the 50% target by 2030. Of great concern, two in three children are not fed the minimum diverse diet they need to grow and develop to their full potential. Overall, what the above summary translates to in everyday terms is that at least 670 million people (8% of the world population) will still be facing hunger in 2030. As noted above, countries in the global north are not immune to increases in food insecurity (Davis, Geiger, 2017). There is an association in middle- and high-income economies with the triple burden of disease, overweight, underweight and micro-nutrient deficiencies. In low-income and emerging economies, this triple burden imposes health, environmental and social care costs (Davis, 2001). This is closely linked to the nutrition transition, where we see shifts in eating patterns from ‘the poor’ eating locally grown food and the rich consuming imported exotic and processed foods to the situation where locally produced and grown food is now sold at a premium and consumed by the rich while the poor eat a diet of semi- and ultra-processed foods that have often travelled many miles (Baker et al., 2020). So in the first stages of the transition the ‘poor’ eat a local – often inadequate – diet while the rich eat processed foods associated with modernity; the second stage of the transition leads to the rich reverting their dietary and purchasing habits to local (organic etc.) food, while the disadvantaged become dependent on processed foods (Caraher, 2011). The second stage of the nutrition transition change is rooted in the food system’s becoming more industrial and concentrated so that processed foods and fast food become more affordable to all (Popkin, Reardon, 2018; Baker et al., 2020). Fast food is ‘fast and convenient’ thanks to modern technology and blends well with modern lifestyles (Schlosser, 2002; Caraher, 2019). Hunger and obesity can occur in the same population groups at different stages in the lifecycle (Peńa, Bacallao, 2000). So early years stunting can lead to childhood and adolescent obesity, depending on feeding programmes and the availability of foods.

THE RISE IN CHARITY PROVISION VERSUS THE RIGHT TO FOOD As the responsibility for organisation of food insecurity shifts from government to private and charity provision, links between the charity and NGO sectors and the food industry are growing. This is a global trend, with food banks and the donation of waste or surplus food from the food industries being promoted as a solution to food poverty and insecurity (Caraher, Furey, 2022; Caraher, Furey, 2018). This tension is picked up in many chapters in this volume.

8  Handbook of food security and society Globally, we have seen a rise in food banks from Portugal to Brazil, Israel to Saudi Arabia. Riches and Silvasti document some of this in their edited book First World Hunger Revisited (2014). Food banks and other forms of charity food provision are now common in countries in both the global north and the global south. Countries with a long history of food banks or food pantries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Canada have been joined by newcomers such as Germany and Brazil (Rocha, 2016) and many African countries as well as countries such as Dubai (Karega, 2019; Watuleke, 2015; Essam, Gill, Alders, 2022). Brazil has two forms of food banks: one charity based and one state supported (Rocha 2016), but both are supposed to meet minimum standards for nutrition and sourcing. On the European continent, the European Federation of Food Banks (FEBA, the Fédération Européenne des Banques Alimentaires), working across 23 countries with 37,200 partner charitable organisations, was responsible for 2.9 million meals every day (535,000 tons of food) through 16,440 people of whom 90% were volunteers (Baglioni, De Pieri, Tallarico, 2017). At the same time, other charity-based models exist, such as community supermarkets and social solidarity stores (Renobales, San-Epifanio, Molina, 2015). It is clear that welfare cutbacks and the new austerity are the drivers of food bank and charity food provision. The lesson is that food charity, while relieving hunger in the short term, does not address the underlying reasons for food insecurity. Indeed, a long history of food charity in the US and Canada shows that it has not addressed food insecurity. Berg and Gibson summarise this in the title of their article, ‘Why the World Should Not Follow the Failed United States Model of Fighting Domestic Hunger’ (Berg, Gibson, 2022). Others have pointed out that the real winners of the donation of surplus foods are the food industry (Caraher, Furey, 2022; Azadian et al., 2022). There are additional questions asked about the role of food charity and how it can undermine the right to food (De Schutter, 2014). The COVID-19 crisis may have brought out some of the best qualities in its citizens, but perhaps not in government. Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur for Food (2008–14), argued that state assistance is fundamentally different from charity-based approaches such as food banks or soup kitchens. He said: Foodbanks are a testimony to the failure of public authorities to deliver on the right to food and should be neither a permanent feature nor a substitute for more robust social programmes. Food assistance in the form of the right to social security, such as cash transfers, food stamps or vouchers, can be defined in terms of rights, whereas foodbanks are charity-based and depend on donations and good will. There can also be a sense of shame attached to foodbanks. (De Schutter, 2013, p. 9)

De Schutter called for social benefits to be defined in terms of rights which governments owe to citizens. Food charity should not be seen as an alternative to social protection, as popular as it may seem. In his final report, de Schutter talked about this and titled his report The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food (De Schutter, 2014). In nation states, post-WWII governments in Europe adopted taxation policies to help rebuild damaged economies and create welfare systems that offered a safety net for those less well off, for example the French system of ‘solidarité sociale’ for social insurance. Many of these systems included an aspect of food provision for the less well off in a society. Some adopted schemes that provided money or additional food supplies to those at risk, while others focused on supplemental nutrition programmes. In this immediate post-war period, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in Article 25 enshrined the right to food, which states:

Introduction  9 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. (Waterstones, Amnesty International UK, 2013, n.p.)

Legal scholars have taken this as a basis for arguments to address the right to food and indeed there are some notable successes where countries have implemented the principle by adopting it into their constitutions or legal frameworks. Key among these are Brazil, Guatemala, South Africa, Mali, Ecuador, Nicaragua and India. Yet many others have resisted this approach. In some countries the right to food has been used to take governments to court for not meeting their obligations. The impact of initiatives dealing with the right to food on food insecurity are not well documented, but what is clear is they help set a positive policy frame for action on food insecurity including a move away from charity provision of food (Riches, 2018). In many middle- and high-income countries, COVID-19 lockdown responses resulted in the introduction of a number of measures that helped address food insecurity. These included measures such as income uplifts, furloughs from the workplace funded from the public purse, support for home working, increases in the welfare net to include a broader range of recipients and extensions of existing feeding programmes. Many of these were deemed temporary measures and with the end of COVID lockdowns were reduced or withdrawn. What becomes apparent from many of the chapters in this collection is how little was learned from the 2008 global recession, and that many governments had reduced their food protection and welfare safety nets often under the guise of austerity. Community responses and social movements initiatives also emerged to fill gaps in state provision. Some communities operated independently of governments, while others sought partnerships with statutory agencies and several states turned to the NGO sector to deliver food through the crises. This is a feature of many chapters in this Handbook, where community responses worked in tandem with state services but more often acted to plug gaps resulting from inadequate state-based provision. During the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, some countries reported up to fivefold increases in food insecurity. An exception seems to be the US, where there has been a relative success story. The United States Department of Agriculture in its 2022 annual report on food insecurity reported good news, with a downturn in rates of food insecurity among key groups such as children (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2022). Although the overall percentage for those who are food insecure, 10.2%, does not differ significantly from the 10.5% in 2020 and 2019, this has to be seen in the light of a wider financial crisis in the US economy (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2022). Marion Nestle, commenting on the figures, asserts that the reasons for the improvement are obvious: increased participation in federal food assistance programmes and higher benefits from those programmes. If people have more money for food, they will buy more food and feed their children better. (Nestle, 2022)

These declines continued into 2021. This is not unlike the 1930s New Deal (Badger, 1989) and the fall in child poverty can be linked to three stimulus packages: (1) three rounds of economic impact payments (stimulus checks); (2) expanded unemployment assistance; and (3) an

10  Handbook of food security and society expanded child tax credit, which provided monthly cash payments to most US households with children between July and December 2021. So in the US, falls in poverty, rather than stalling or worsening with the decline of the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated. With declining economic conditions during the pandemic, the federal government stepped in to support families as the economy stalled. In 2020, according to the supplemental poverty measure, child poverty fell from 12.5% to 9.7%, the largest single-year drop over the previous half-century. There are questions as to the continuation of these stimuli beyond the COVID pandemic and the current global recession. Two issues are interesting in terms of food security. Firstly, initiatives were introduced as economic stimuli, not food security initiatives; and secondly, the pandemic safety net was largely cash based, unrestricted and almost universal in coverage (Shaefer et al., 2019). The impact of stunting on food insecurity mirrors the impact of wider economic factors addressing both stunting and food insecurity. This highlights the long debate in food security circles over cash benefits versus restricted or direct food provision as in food baskets or parcels (Caraher, Furey, 2018).

GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM AND TRADE: WINNERS AND LOSERS The global food system is complex and many of its adherents point to its efficiency and inter-relationships with other industries. As an example, take what is generally referred to as the ‘Haber–Bosch’ process.2 This involves chemical firms making ammonia, which goes towards the making of fertilisers; the by-products of the process are then used in the manufacture of other products such as disinfectant, diesel exhaust fluid, and carbon dioxide used in the food industry for stunning pigs and chickens, for fizzy drinks, as well as acting as a preservative in some bagged food products. The rise in energy prices has resulted in some factories involved in the process shutting down or cutting back production. Thus fertiliser is in short supply, prices rise, farmers use less, resulting in smaller yields, all contributing to food price increases. For example, with less CO2 there is a problem with the slaughter of pigs and chickens, where it is used for stunning them prior to slaughter, while in fizzy drinks and in the packaging of salads, meat and bread products there has been a shortage of some goods on supermarket shelves. All this shows the global reach and inter-connectedness of the food system. The impacts within and on global food commodity chains are direct and indirect, so food shortages occur due to poor harvests (direct impacts) compounded by trade wars and countries imposing export restrictions to ensure supplies of food for their own populations (indirect impacts). An indirect example comes from Australia, where shortages of food on supermarket shelves were due to a lack of the diesel additive (AdBlue) that is manufactured from urea mostly imported from China. China has restricted exports due to fertiliser prices in China rising steeply and its need to protect its own supply system in order to build self-sufficiency. Such protectionist trade policies and panic hoarding are preventing food from reaching markets in other countries, contributing to potentially deadly food shortages. So, food deliv-

This involves the extraction of ammonia from the air, of which nitrogen is a key component. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of this process. The process uses large amounts of energy and the increase in energy prices linked to the war in Ukraine has increased costs significantly. 2

Introduction  11 eries in Australia were under threat due to a lack of uric acid from China and the policy of self-sufficiency being pursued by the Chinese government (Lau, 2022). Yet companies still profit in these situations. An Oxfam report concluded that the COVID-19 crisis and the cost-of-living crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine have resulted in the increases in extreme poverty, while the profits of large food corporations and the wealth of individuals increases (Oxfam, 2022). Concentrations of trade as seen in Table I.1 give enormous power to companies at all levels in the food chain. The current global trading food system is spread across many land borders and includes many players, from growers to financial speculators operating as a free market economy. The equilibrium price (this is the intersection where the cost of a product and the demand for that product meet) will normally be determined by the demand and supply of the goods. So the more the demand and the smaller the supply, the higher the price, whereas when there is ample supply and less demand, prices will typically fall. All this is of course subject to manipulation in the food system as food is financialised, traded for profit, and speculated on. During COVID-19, shortages and high prices have also been driven by a fear of shortages contributing to food queues, bulk buying and hoarding of foods, leading to a vicious circle of shortages in the shops and thus higher prices. Price volatility (the range of price movements over a particular period of time) has been at its highest level in the past 50 years (Oxfam, 2022). Price volatility may be good for financial markets, but it is bad for farmers – especially small farmers – and producers, and ultimately for the consumer. A 2020 report highlighted aspects of the dominant food system that expose its vulnerabilities, including disruptions which test the resilience of food supply chains and economic vulnerability (The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 2020). As noted above, Oxfam reported that the COVID-19 crisis and the cost-of-living crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine have resulted in the biggest increase in extreme poverty in over twenty years, while the profits of large food corporations and the wealth of individuals associated with them increases (Oxfam, 2022). The report shows, ‘billionaires and corporations in the food, energy, pharmaceutical, and technology sectors are reaping huge rewards at the same time as the soaring cost of living is hurting so many worldwide’. The report goes on to state that the pandemic has resulted in a new billionaire every 30 hours, while a million people ‘fall into extreme poverty’. There are two problems here: one is the growth of extreme wealth among a small group of individuals and corporations, and the second is control and influence of the food chain by a small number of corporations. Note how many of these in Table I.1 are not household or brand names known to the consumer. To some extent, the price volatility seen in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic began to level out, but in 2022 the war in Ukraine along with a number of other global factors (climate, COVID, trade wars) resulted in food price increases. For example, futures for wheat rose by 20% in the first three months of 2022 and then 70% in the next three. The Cargill family, who are the majority owners of Cargill, see Table I.1, have seen their fortune increase by almost US$20m per day since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, the company made nearly $5bn in net income, the biggest profit in its history, and in 2020 paid out dividends of $1.13bn, most of which went to members of the extended family. The company was expected to beat its profit record again in 2022. All this raises the call for control of essential foodstuffs traded on the world market and for ‘windfall’ taxes. Other grain traders achieved similar results. For example, ADM achieved the highest profits in its history during COVID-19 lockdowns; Bunge increased sales by 17%; Dreyfus reported an increase in profits

12  Handbook of food security and society Table I.1

Some examples of concentration in global trade

Commodity

Main players

Significance

Cereals

What are known as the big 7 ABCD+

Seven companies control over 70–90% of

(Archer Daniels Midland [ADM], Bunge,

global trade in cereals.

Cargill, Dreyfus + Glencore, COFCO International* and Wilmar). Coffee

The two big players are ED&F Man

These control between 30–40% of the

Volcafe and ECOM.

global market in coffee futures.

Roasters with their own in-house

A large proportion of the remaining 60%

trading sections include: Neumann

is controlled by roasters who have their

Kaffee Gruppe, Nestlé, Kraft, Sara Lee,

own in-house trading sections.**

Smucker’s (P&G), Dalmayr, Starbucks, Tchibo, Aldi, Melitta, Lavazza and Segafredo. Soy

Dupont, ADM, Cargill, Kerry, Now

These ten control 60% of trade in soya;

Foods, Burcon, Sotexpro, Farbest, Wilmar note the overlap with cereals.** and CHS Inc. Sugar*** (there are three major areas for

Associated British Foods Plc (UK), Cosan These nine control 65% of global trade

sugar production: Brazil, India and the

(Brazil), Biosev (Brazil), Mitr Phol Sugar

European Union)

Corporation, Ltd. (Thailand), Nordzucker

in sugar.

AG (Germany), Sudzucker (Germany), Tereos (France), Thai Roong Ruang Group (Thailand), Wilmar International Limited (Singapore) and Cargill (United States).

* This is a state-owned Chinese company. ** Within these, there will be differing value markets for non-GM and organic produce, which will command higher prices. *** Sugar also has uses in the pharmaceutical industry and in the production of biofuels.

of 80% over the previous year as revenues increased (Oxfam, 2022). Higher prices compensated for some lack of markets and the removal of Ukrainian grain from the world market (The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, 2022). In the light of all this price volatility, uncertainty over supplies and rising food insecurity, some countries banned grain exports to protect their domestic markets and supply chains; India limited exports of grains as did China. A key factor in all this was that there was a lack of transparency over grain stocks and how much was being held in reserve by the major trading companies impacted by the blockade of Ukrainian ports. Small farmers continue to produce, but they sell on as they lack storage space.

AGRICULTURE Agriculture is the basis of the food supply chain yet in many ways is one of the ‘losers’ in the food supply chain. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture accounts for 53% of total global employment, and food security and poverty reduction is correlated to the decrease in agricultural production (Giller et al., 2021). Small farms (i.e., those of fewer than 2 hectares) are critical to ensuring food security, as they produce approximately one-third of the world’s food and

Introduction  13 supply chains are more likely to be locally based (Lowder, Sánchez, Bertini, 2021). Despite this, control and power in the food system are not embedded in the producing countries but with global traders and ‘big food’ companies. There is an emphasis on farming to reduce its carbon emissions and to become more sustainable, yet the scale of small-scale farming makes it difficult for them to build this in as a factor. This leads to more and more industrial farming where scale allows the cost of eco-sustainability to be factored in (Madre, Devuyst, 2016; McKinsey, 2022). The difference with industrial scale agriculture can be seen using US cereal agriculture as a contrast, where 55% of all grain storage occurs on farms. This allows these farmers to hold back grain in times of over-supply and low prices. Canfield and colleagues warn, ‘efforts to govern global food systems in the public interest has been subverted to maintain colonial and corporate forms of control’ (Canfield, Anderson, McMichael, 2021). Many small and medium-sized farms in the global south are often only financially feasible through a combination of a second job and unpaid or unwaged family labour. This is in contrast to farming in the global north, where the farms are now corporatised, industrialised, and rely more and more on mechanisation and technology to farm. While it may be surprising to note that small family farms make up 88% of the farms in the US and account for 80% of all farms, what is defined as ‘small’ is considerably contentious. For example, according to the USDA, small family farms average 231 acres, large family farms average 1,421 acres, and the average acreage of the very large farm is 2,086. Looking at it another way, the USDA, using gross annual sales, classifies small as less than US$250,000; large between US$250,000 and US$500,000; and very large as sales more than US$500,000 (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2022). New technologies have helped small producers manage the food financial system with more up-to-date information, so many small-scale coffee producers in Colombia and cocoa growers in West Africa now use mobile phones to monitor the buying prices of their product before selling it to traders. But, unlike the US grain producers, any small-scale farmers do not have the capacity to store their product for long periods to await increases in product prices; the average size of a coffee holding in Colombia is 4.4 hectares, with similar sizes for cocoa growers in the Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Key among the necessary reforms are land ownership policies, agricultural technology to increase food availability, cash transfers rather than direct food aid and increases in farm gate prices. Food aid is of course necessary in emergencies, but long-term food security is best delivered by addressing more structural issues. What is required is a portfolio of policies and investments to support and stimulate small-scale agriculture as part of a broader focus on rural development to address persistent poverty and hunger. Otherwise, there is the danger of rising inequality, with medium and large-scale producers making use of investment opportunities. Globally, in local markets in developing and emerging economies, smallholder farms will remain an important source of food and income, and a social safety net in the absence of alternative livelihood security and poor universal social welfare programmes (OECD, 2021a, 2021b). Smallholder agriculture cannot deliver the rate of economic growth currently presumed by many financial and investment policy initiatives in Africa and South-East Asia. The barriers to the transference of new technologies and new ‘know-how’ to small farms, the rate of dissemination, acceptance and adaption of new practices by small-scale farms, needs to be factored in to address equity issues. So how can small-scale farmers access and make use of technologies? This is a challenging question. We also know from technology development such as genetically modified (GM) foods, gene technologies and enhanced processing techniques that ownership of the

14  Handbook of food security and society technology and even knowledge transfer confers power (Kettenburg et al., 2018; Neufeld, 2021; Santini et al., 2016). An example comes from the development of golden rice,3 which two decades after its development still has not been rolled out on a mass scale due to complications over regulation of GM foods and problems with patents and ownership of the technology (Regis, 2019).

FOOD SECURITY POLICY AND SHOCKS TO THE FOOD SYSTEM It is increasingly recognised that food policy is, or should be, the set of policies that influence the food system. This is captured in the following definition by Pinstrup-Andersen and Watson: Food policies are plans of action related to the food system. More specifically, food policy consists of the setting of goals for the food system or its parts, including natural resources, production, processing, marketing, food consumption & safety, & nutrition, and determining the processes of achieving these goals. (2011, p. 29)

It is apparent from the new food crises facing us that it is not enough to tackle the consequences of food insecurity through food aid, but that there is a need to address the underlying inequities not just in the food system but in society in line with the SDG targets. The academic nutrition field has contributed greatly to the development of measures on food insecurity. It has in the past focused on setting measures of minimum food security often based on minimum or maximum calorific intakes. Critiques of such approaches have led to the addition of a social element to food insecurity. This is often nested within cultural norms related to food, often referred to as the social appetite. Even the use of the term food insecurity has certain implications. Clapp and colleagues propose the extension of the definition of food security to include the extra dimensions of agency and sustainability: The definition of food security has evolved and changed over the past 50 years, including the introduction of the four commonly cited pillars of food security: availability, access, utilisation and stability, which have been important in shaping policy. In this article, we make the case that it is time for a formal update to our definition of food security to include two additional dimensions proposed by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition: [those] of agency and sustainability. (Clapp et al., 2022)

Alongside conflict, climate shocks will continue to drive acute hunger periods, and according to many we have entered a ‘new normal’ where frequent and recurring droughts, flooding, bushfires, hurricanes and cyclones decimate farming, drive displacement and push millions to the brink in countries across the world. Of course the ‘new normal’ encompasses the ‘unknown unknowns’ as opposed to the ‘known unknowns’. The latter incorporates issues such as climate change, weather, pest problems and the market price, whereas the unknown unknowns can be conflict-related and other unforeseen issues. The unknown unknowns are the ones it is hard to plan for; we can see this in the scale and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 Golden rice is a GM-modified biofortified rice variety that contains beta-carotene not normally present in rice. The modified rice is yellow in colour and aids the metabolism of vitamin A in the body.

Introduction  15 The unknown nature of the virus and the wider impacts of the public health measures, such as lockdowns, restrictions on travel, the shutting of shops and restaurants, and illness among key workers such as those working in agriculture and food retail, all contributed to impacts on food insecurity. While we talk about DR-NCDS and the impact of food insecurity on these measures, there is a realisation that food insecurity has a broader reach and impacts on mental health, family life and educational attainment. Scarcity of supply is exacerbated by uncertainty over supply chains. Ukraine (known unknown or unknown unknown?) was a major exporter of wheat on the global market, accounting for 13% of global wheat supplies (capable of feeding up to 60 million) and 80% of sunflower seeds. Due to the war, farmers have difficulties planting or harvesting existing crops, triggering major concerns on global trading markets. For Russia, financial sanctions and trade embargos mean the country will need to feed its own population in the light of food inflation and shortages and therefore it has seriously curtailed its exports. Russia has in the past exported grain to countries in North Africa, linked to its political aspirations in the area. In 2022, on global markets, the future predicted price of wheat increased by 73% compared with prices from April 2021; this has been triggered by the war in Ukraine and subsequent trading on global financial markets. In a ‘normal’ year, traders would compensate for a shortage of supply from the Black Sea region by turning to the US or Canada. The problem now is that there is nothing normal about the situation from the scale of shortages to the rise in prices. So simply diverting supplies to areas of need runs the risk of the food being out of the reach of many in poverty in these countries and without price subsidies access being determined by a consumer or financial right (Sen, 1992; O’Donovan, 2022; The World Bank, 2021). Globally food aid has been used as a political tool to nominally address food insecurity and to build foreign relations and to dump surplus goods (Clapp, 2012). For 50 years, the US was the major supplier of global food aid; this was facilitated by the 1954 Agriculture Trade Development and Assistance Act. In more recent times, this position has changed, with most global aid being provided by philanthropic and commercial organisations. The dumping of agricultural surplus often leads to inappropriate foods being supplied to countries, and in recent times there have been concerns over how the surplus has been used to further political agendas, such as GM foods being ‘dumped’ in Africa as food aid or in Australia’s case there was the Australian Wheat Board scandal concerning kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein government (known as the AWB oil-for-wheat scandal). It is worth noting that 50 years of food aid in Nepal, according to FIAN (FoodFirst Information and Action Network), has not made much difference to the lives of ordinary people in that country. The messy business of global food aid has been entwined with politics; all that is changing in the new globalised world is a move from public to private donors. Government food aid has over time been replaced with structural funds, which aim to open up economic markets and encourage trade. Whereas previously in Africa the US was the major food donor, now China has replaced it but also replaced food aid with large structural development projects that provide local jobs and also establish infrastructures for future trade, e.g. factories, roads and railways (so-called ‘belt and road’ initiatives) (McMichael, 2020; Kodzi Jr, 2021). The difference is that this is driven by the Chinese government as foreign direct investment (FDI) often closely linked to political ambitions in the region. To date there has been little public health research on Chinese FDI and Africa (McMichael, 2020). China’s emphasis on domestic food security has resulted in its having 69% of world grain reserves compared with

16  Handbook of food security and society 40% ten years ago. Where the boundary lines between the political and food security overlap is hard to figure out and is an area in which we currently lack research and data. All this is not dissimilar to how the US used food aid in the 1960s and 1970s as a tool of diplomacy (Barrett, Maxwell, 2005; US Government Accountability Office, 2020; Cullather, 2010). There are conflicting narratives in these changes, but the dominant one assumes that a rising tide of affluence moves those on the bottom of the social ladder out of poverty; the other reckons that such moves introduce new inequalities and new food insecurity. The ‘peasant’ or Via Campesina movement argues for a food sovereignty approach to address food inequality, whereas globalists argue for unencumbered trade. Activist movements show an approach to food security that combines rights with the need to address ecological issues of indigenous communities, not just the need for adequate nutrition (Kass, 2022). When food prices rocketed post 2008 in connection with the Great Recession, an estimated 100 million more people on the planet were plummeted into food insecurity, a situation that was reported then yet was repeated in 2020 with the COVID-19 crisis (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2021). Private companies under the heading of corporate social responsibility (CSR) are providing support to growers in Africa and Asia via ‘corporate welfare’ schemes. Yet, despite this, Neufeld, who ranked companies by their positive or negative contribution to each of the 17 SDG goals, found that global companies fell mostly in the middle ranking, with approximately 38% aligned and 55% misaligned or neutral in their commitment to the SDGs. Only 0.2% of companies were strongly aligned to meeting the SDGs. The most strongly aligned goal was ‘Responsible Production and Consumption’, indicating a commitment, often under a CSR banner. Any obligations to addressing the SDGs are tempered by the demands of shareholders and the markets (Neufeld, 2021). While there is pressure on companies to behave ethically and contribute to global growth, their drives and commitments are different to those of governments; the focus is largely on ethical consumption and ethical consumers as opposed to food citizenship and the food rights of citizens. Global and regional food governance needs to find ways of holding ‘Big Food’ to account to maximise their contribution (Navarro, 2020; Caraher, 2022; OECD, 2022). This is not to say that food assistance by governments on a global scale is moribund; but far from it. Between 2014 and 2018, the United States and other donors provided an estimated total of more than $75 billion in global food security assistance, the US accounting for more than $22 billion of this total (US Government Accountability Office, 2020). McMichael (2020) makes the point that much government based food aid has been replaced by infrastructure funds and reflects China’s economic power as well as its political aspirations in areas such as South-East Asia and Africa. He notes that there are two major issues for food, which are, firstly, how China is rolling out ‘infrastructures and agri-food supply chains to complement its domestic food production[;] the second considers whether and to what extent China’s related “going out” policy and practice expresses food regime reconfiguration’ (p. 116). Off-shoring of agriculture, developing new technologies, and buying land and food companies in nearby countries, are features of many nations that have limited agricultural land or inclement climates. Singapore, in pursuit of improving its food availability, has approved the production of cultured meat (chicken), and is buying food factories and land in neighbouring countries (Teng, 2020; Rut, Davies, 2018).

Introduction  17

MEASURING, MONITORING FOOD INSECURITY AND HOLDING TO ACCOUNT The influence of the war in Ukraine has already been noted. A number of reports have identified that, alongside conflict, climate shocks will continue to drive acute hunger and we have entered a ‘new normal’ where frequent and recurring droughts, flooding, bushfires, hurricanes and cyclones decimate farming, drive displacement and push millions to the brink in countries across the world. Hence the importance of monitoring food insecurity and its progress as well as providing indicators that can act as early warnings. What becomes clear is that there is a need to develop new indicators of food insecurity, as too many indicators deal with the problem in retrospect and are not useful for predicting or providing early indicators of a crisis (Daly et al., 2018). Indicators, such as the USDA module and its variants, are useful in documenting trends in food insecurity but less so in terms of predicting future food insecurity developments and assigning causality to what works to reduce food insecurity and increase levels of food security. The term ‘food security’ originally referred to adequacy of food supply at the country or population level, but this is changing to embrace its consideration at the community, individual and household levels. There are of course many tensions between a country’s achieving food security for its population and household-level experience of food adequacy. As Amartya Sen noted, famines are not conditional on a lack of food or its not being available, but on access to that food (Sen, 1981). Similarly, food security at the household level can be influenced by skills, resources and lack of money or physical access to food; however, it is often not about any overall shortage of food within a community or society but about access to it. Within late-capitalist societies, access is often defined by consumerist models of access rather than a right to food. And as we saw above, Clapp and colleagues recommend an extension of food security from the traditional four pillars of availability, access, utilisation and stability, to six to include agency and sustainability (Clapp et al., 2022). Agency can include the voices of those affected and the dispossessed; sustainability can encompass ecological as well as business and livelihoods. These are issues and indeed tensions that run through many of the chapters in this collection. As we wrote drafts of this introductory chapter, the situation with respect to food insecurity changed so rapidly that we were left with a quandary as to what to report. The data we reported earlier, in Box I.1, may well be outdated at the time of publication of this volume, and more than likely in a negative direction. The easing of COVID-19 lockdowns promised a new direction to food insecurity. During the lockdown there were many examples of temporary uplifts in food and welfare provisions; and as we saw above, there has been some success in addressing US food insecurity. The early and middle months of 2022 dealt a new set of challenges – climate change, climate emergencies, the war in Ukraine, fuel price increases, country defaults on loans and increased inflation with a specific emphasis on food inflation. How do we build these into predictive measures of food insecurity? That remains a challenge yet to be addressed. So, as opposed to providing definitive measures of food insecurity at the time of writing, we recommend the following sources for keeping abreast of the changing situation with respect to global food insecurity. National governments will of course produce their own data; Table I.2 below is meant to help facilitate access to global data. Some of the sources are not pure data and rather contain stories and reports of food insecurity. This aspect of measures,

18  Handbook of food security and society Table I.2

Sources of data on food insecurity

Name of organisation

Source of data

VIA Campesina

https://viacampesina.org/en/

Women for Women

https://womenforwomen.org.uk Gender inequality; this issue is also addressed by other organisations such as the World Bank and World Food Programme in specific reports

FIAN (FoodFirst Information and

https://www.fian.org/en/

Action Network) The International Panel of Experts on

https://www.ipes-food.org

Sustainable Food Systems High Level Panel of Experts on Food

On the FAO website – see https://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en

Security and Nutrition World Cancer Research Fund

https://www.wcrf.org See Nourishing Framework: https://www.wcrf.org/policy/policy-databases/nourishing-framework/

United Nations SDGs

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/

Food and Agricultural Organization of https://www.fao.org/home/en/ the United Nations

Go to link on world food consumption statistics

Organisation for Economic

https://www.oecd.org

Co-operation and Development WHO global and regional offices

http://www.who.int

World Food Programme

https://www.wfp.org

UNICEF

https://www.unicef.org.uk

Global Food Security Index

https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/index

Oxfam

https://www.oxfam.org/en

United States Department of

https://www.usdaw.org.uk

Agriculture (USDA) Economic

Go to the USDA Economic Research Service:

Research Service

https://www.ers.usda.gov

Global Network for the Right to Food

https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org

and Nutrition Knowledge for Policy in Europe

https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/about-knowledge4policy_en

(knowledge4policy)

https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/global-food-nutrition-security/topic/ food-security-food-crises/navigation-page/online-resources-food-security-food-crises/tool s-datasets-food-security-food-crises_en

World Bank

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic

Foodtank – the think tank for food

https://foodtank.com/news/2022/08/new-tool-aims-to-strengthen-food-security-in-africa/

the qualitative element, is essential for hearing the ‘lived experiences’ of those who are affected by food insecurity in its many iterations beyond just food availability; these can include long-term health outcomes, family life, educational restrictions and mental health. Fisher raises an important point when he points out that food insecurity has replaced the term ‘hunger’, and this has implications for how it is reported and interpreted. He argues that, while food security may be easier to measure, it is less emotive, and that measures of food security made the issue a technical one, often failing to convey the ‘universally emotive power of “hunger”’ (2017, p. 13).

Introduction  19

CONCLUSION In many people’s minds, food insecurity is about one form of malnutrition, that of a lack of calories and hunger, whereas there is now a triple burden of malnutrition, with both underand over-nutrition combined with micro-nutrient deficiencies providing the new markers of food insecurity (Masters, Finaret, Block, 2022). In many low- and middle-income countries, under-nutrition in early life is followed by over-nutrition in later life. This occurs in the same groups, with complicated links between the stunting of under-nutrition and subsequent over-nutrition. In low-income countries, there are indications that these three deficiencies exist side by side, creating high health and welfare costs from both under- and over-nutrition. In the global north, we are seeing the re-emergence of food insecurity driven by developments such as changes in employment (the gig economy and zero-hour contracts), low wages, and the rising cost of food and energy, with the distinguishing issue being the relationship between food insecurity and obesity. The complex inter-related contributing mechanisms to food insecurity range from poor nutrition and subsequent health outcomes, the food system itself, through structural inequalities to epigenetics. Critiques of such approaches have led to the inclusion of a social element to food insecurity. This is often nested within cultural norms related to food, often referred to as the social appetite (Germov, Williams, 2017). The shift in policy focus from governance by the state to governmentality via the private and charity sectors also needs more research, as well as monitoring and independent benchmarking and evaluation. The use of the SDGs as indicators remains potentially powerful to drive forward initiatives to address food insecurity, but it lacks a governing body to monitor and enforce standards (Biermann, Kanie, Kim, 2017; OECD, 2022; OECD, 2021a; Canfield, Anderson, McMichael, 2021). Governments defer to this position based on the belief that commerce, not aid, is the way to lift people out of poverty (McGoey, 2015; Moyo, 2010). The cost–benefit analysis on such approaches has not been rigorously carried out; there is a need for ‘real cost accounting’ to be carried out on these developments and on the impact on food security (Baker et al., 2020; Gemmill-Herren, Baker, Daniels, 2021). Ukraine has been driven to an area of concern regarding the food insecurity of its population; previously producing enough grain to feed 60 million people, it was for a period in 2022 the recipient of food supplies from the WFP. Although at the time of writing the relaxing of restrictions on blockades of Ukrainian ports has made for the recommencing of grain exports under a scheme brokered by the Turkish government and the United Nations, there are anomalies. Some of the first shipments of 33,000 tonnes went to Ireland and others to the Horn of Africa, the latter to feed people and the former for animal feedstuff (RTÉ News, 2022). This showed the inconsistencies and lack of control over the food system, even in times of crisis. Solutions lie in controlling pandemics, ending the war, addressing agricultural and climate change issues, tackling global income and social inequalities between and within countries, and finally monitoring and holding to account various agencies in addressing food insecurity. Activist movements often inspire or attract academic study, and the dual elements of movements such as Via Campesina have given rise to branches of study exploring ‘peasant’ experiences around food and growing and local sustainability agendas; depending on disciplinary boundaries, these sometimes investigate both. Likewise the two academic strands of public health nutrition and legal studies have attempted to merge in recent years and present a united front. Leading theoretical and empirical debates and controversies in the field emerge from these strands. Scholarship on food security and insecurity as well as food poverty is diverse,

20  Handbook of food security and society following various paths, and sometimes it is difficult to demarcate the borderlines between them (Lang et al., 2009). A third emerging narrative is that of the stakeholder experience; the user here can range from politicians to recipients of food aid who are experiencing food insecurity. The issues of measurement, governance, regulation and rights (legal and moral) represent divergent threads in the public policy process. Important in underpinning these are the underlying views of food insecurity. Some politicians see the best way to address food insecurity is through work, with the safety net best provided by NGOs and charity, whereas others see the role of the state as key in addressing food insecurity. This is what Smith (2013) calls ‘the war of ideas’ and is the interplay of evidence-based research with beliefs and values. One UK government minister, when presented with the facts on food insecurity and the use of food banks, said, ‘They’ve only got themselves to blame for making bad decisions’ (Chorley, 2013). Emerging from these debates are three approaches to addressing food insecurity: provision of food itself, cash transfers and ‘income management’. This latter approach often involves electronic benefits transfer cards and places restrictions on where people can shop and what they can buy. The different approaches to providing food imply different models of food welfare systems and of the role of the household in addressing food insecurity. Many of these nuances are captured in the concluding chapter in this volume by Tim Lang. Using personal reflection, he asks four significant questions. Firstly, he queries the fluidity of food insecurity as a definition and an action. Secondly, he asks if the term is too fluid. Thirdly, he asks what would be required for food security (the reality not the term) to be made obsolete. And his final question is, is the eradication of food insecurity hopelessly utopian? This final question, while pessimistic in tone, poses a challenge to all of us working on food insecurity to identify practical solutions, which at the very least contribute to reducing the inequity gap between those with more than enough to eat and those who go hungry.

REFERENCES Ansani, A., & Daniele, V. 2012, ‘The economic motivations of the Arab Spring’, International Journal of Development and Conflict, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1250013. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1142/​S2010269012500135 Applebaum, A. 2017, Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine, Allen Lane, London. Azadian, A., Masciangelo, M.C., Mendly-Zambo, Z., Taman, A., & Raphael, D. 2022, ‘Corporate and business domination of food banks and food diversion schemes in Canada’, Capital & Class, pp.  03098168221092649. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​03098168221092649 Badger, A.J. 1989, The New Deal: The Depression Years, 1933–1940, Palgrave, Basingstoke. Baglioni, S., De Pieri, B., & Tallarico, T. 2017, ‘Surplus food recovery and food aid: The pivotal role of non-profit organisations. Insights from Italy and Germany’, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2032–2052. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ s11266​-016​-9746​-8 Baker, L., Castilleja, G., De Groot Ruiz, A., & Jones, A. 2020, ‘Prospects for the true cost accounting of food systems’, Nature Food, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 765–767. Barilla Foundation 2021, The Double Pyramid, available at https://​www​.fondazionebarilla​.com/​en/​ double​-pyramid/​, accessed 20 April 2023. Barrett, C.B., & Maxwell, D.G. 2005, Food Aid after Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role, Routledge, London. Berg, J., & Gibson, A. 2022, ‘Why the world should not follow the failed United States model of fighting domestic hunger’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 2, p.  814. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph19020814 Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R.E. 2017, ‘Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vols 26–27, pp.  26–31. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.cosust​.2017​.01​.010

Introduction  21 Canfield, M., Anderson, M.D., & McMichael, P. 2021, ‘UN Food Systems Summit 2021: Dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 5, p.  661552. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​fsufs​.2021​.661552 Caraher, M. 2011, ‘Food austerity: A lifestyle choice for whom!’, Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 17–25. Caraher, M. 2019, ‘High cost cheap food’, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology [online], pp. 1–3. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1002/​9781405165518​.wbeos1494 Caraher, M. 2022, ‘“Why should the devil have all the good tunes?” A commentary on food regulation, capture and legitimacy’, Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 629–633. Caraher, M., & Furey, S. 2018, The Economics of Emergency Food Aid Provision: A Financial, Social and Cultural Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. Caraher, M., & Furey, S. 2022, ‘The “Hunger Industrial Complex” and the death of welfare’, Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 10, p.  950955. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​fpubh​.2022​.950955 Carr, E.H. 1961, What Is History?, Vintage, New York. Chilton, M., Rabinowich, J., Council, C., & Breaux, J. 2009, ‘Witnesses to hunger: Participation through photovoice to ensure the right to food’, Health and Human Rights, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 73–85. Chorley, M. 2013, ‘Poor forced to use food banks? They’ve only got themselves to blame for making bad decisions, says Michael Gove’, Mail Online, available at http://​www​.dailymail​.co​.uk/​news/​article​ -2416737/​Michael​-Gove​-food​-banks​-Poor​-got​-blame​.html, accessed 20 April 2023. Clapp, J. 2012, Hunger in the Balance: The New Politics of International Food Aid, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Clapp, J. 2017, ‘Food self-sufficiency: Making sense of it, and when it makes sense’, Food Policy, vol. 66, pp.  88–96. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.foodpol​.2016​.12​.001 Clapp, J., Moseley, W.G., Burlingame, B., & Termine, P. 2022, ‘Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework’, Food Policy, vol. 106, 102164. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.foodpol​.2021​ .102164 Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M.P., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. 2022, Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, ERR-30, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, available at www​.ers​.usda​.gov, accessed 20 April 2023. Cullather, N. 2010, The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Daly, A., Pollard, C.M., Kerr, D.A., Binns, C.W., Caraher, M., & Phillips, M. 2018, ‘Using cross-sectional data to identify and quantify the relative importance of factors associated with and leading to food insecurity’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, no. 12, p.  2620. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph15122620 Davis, M. 2001, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, Verso, London. Davis, O., & Geiger, B.B. 2017, ‘Did food insecurity rise across Europe after the 2008 crisis? An analysis across welfare regimes’, Social Policy and Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 343–360. De Schutter, O. 2013, ‘The right to food in times of crisis’, in Just Fair Freedom from Hunger: Realising the Right to Food in the UK, ed. Just Fair, Just Fair, London, pp. 7–11. De Schutter, O. 2014, Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations, Washington, D.C. de Waal, A. 2018, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine, Polity Press, Cambridge. de Waal, A. 2021, New Pandemics, Old Politics: Two Hundred Years of War on Disease and Its Alternatives, Polity Press, Cambridge. Deconinck, K., Giner, C., Jackson, L.A., & Toyama, L. 2022, ‘Making better policies for food systems will require reducing evidence gaps’, Global Food Security, vol. 33, p. 100621. Egger, G., & Swinburn, B. 2010, Planet Obesity: How We’re Eating Ourselves and the Planet to Death, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. ENN 1998, ‘NEWS of FEWS: Famine Early Warning Systems, the World Wide Web, and the International Famine Centre at University College Cork’, Field Exchange, vol. 5, p. 12, available at https://​www​.ennonline​.net/​fex/​5/​news, accessed 20 April 2023. Essam, S., Gill, T., & Alders, R.G. 2022, ‘Dubai municipality initiative to reduce food loss’, Sustainability [online], vol. 14, no. 9, p. 5374.

22  Handbook of food security and society Falc’her-Poyroux, E. 2014, ‘The Great Irish Famine in songs’, Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, vol. 19, no. XIX, pp. 157–172. https://​doi​.org/​10​.4000/​rfcb​.277 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO 2022, The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022: Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable, FAO, Rome. https://​doi​.org/​10​.4060/​cc0639en Faulkner, W. 2011, Requiem for a Nun, Vintage, London. Fisher, A. 2017, Big Hunger: The Unholy Alliance between Corporate America and Anti-Hunger Groups, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Food Programme. 2022, Hunger hotspots: FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity, FAO, available at https://​docs​.wfp​.org/​api/​ documents/​WFP​-0000139904/​download/​?​_ga​=​2​.123992330​.1057690076​.1662638953​-429207200​ .1662638953, accessed 20 April 2023. Funk, C., Shukla, S., Thiaw, W.M., Rowland, J., Hoell, A., McNally, A., Husak, G., Novella, N., Budde, M., Peters-Lidard, C., & Adoum, A. 2019, ‘Recognizing the famine early warning systems network: Over 30 years of drought early warning science advances and partnerships promoting global food security’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 1011–1027. Gemmill-Herren, B., Baker, L.E., & Daniels, P.A. 2021, True Cost Accounting for Food: Balancing the Scale, Taylor & Francis, London. Germov, J., & Williams, L. 2017, A Sociology of Food & Nutrition: The Social Appetite, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Giller, K.E., Delaune, T., Silva, J.V., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A.G.T., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Hochman, Z., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R., Narayanan, S., Kishore, A., Bresciani, F., Teixeira, H.M., Andersson, J.A., & van Ittersum, M.K. 2021, ‘The future of farming: Who will produce our food?’, Food Security, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1073–1099. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s12571​-021​ -01184​-6 Gómez, M.I., Barrett, C.B., Raney, T., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Meerman, J., Croppenstedt, A., Carisma, B., & Thompson, B. 2013, ‘Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition’, Food Policy, vol. 42, pp.  129–138. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.foodpol​.2013​.06​.009 Harte, F., & Lunny, D. 1998, 1798: The First Year of Liberty, sleeve notes edn, Hummingbird Records, Dublin. Hawkes, C., Ambikapathi, R., Anastasiou, K., Brock, J., Castronuovo, L., Fallon, N., Malapit, H., Ndumi, A., Samuel, F., Umugwaneza, M., Wanjohi, M.N., & Zorbas, C. 2022, ‘From food price crisis to an equitable food system’, The Lancet, vol. 400, no. 10350, pp. 413–416. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ S0140​-6736(22)01348​-4 Heinrich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Bryant, K.A. 2016, ‘Public opinion and foreign aid cuts in economic crises’, World Development, vol. 77, pp.  66–79. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.worlddev​.2015​.08​.005 High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition 2021, Food security and nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Rome. Hunter, A. 2022, ‘Commodity traders thrust into the spotlight as war exposes risks’, Financial Post, 26 April, available at https://​financialpost​.com/​pmn/​business​-pmn/​commodity​-trading​-thrust​-into​-the​ -spotlight​-as​-war​-exposes​-risks, accessed 20 April 2023. International Food Policy Research Institute 2016, Global Nutrition Report 2016: From Promise to Impact: Ending Malnutrition by 2030, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Johnstone, S., & Mazo, J. 2011, ‘Global warming and the Arab Spring’, Survival, vol. 53, no. 2, pp.  11–17. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​00396338​.2011​.571006 Karega, C.W. 2019, Digital Mapping of Food Banks in Kenya, PhD edn, University of Nairobi, Kenya. Kass, H. 2022, ‘Food anarchy and the State monopoly on hunger’, Journal of Peasant Studies. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1080/​03066150​.2022​.2101099 Kettenburg, A.J., Hanspach, J., Abson, D.J., & Fischer, J. 2018, ‘From disagreements to dialogue: Unpacking the Golden Rice debate’, Sustainability Science, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1469–1482. Kinealy, C., King, J., & Reilly, C., eds. 2016, Women and the Great Hunger, Quinnipiac University Press, Hamden, CT.

Introduction  23 Kinealy, C., & Moran, G. 2020, Irish Famines before and after the Great Hunger, Quinnipiac University Press, Hamden, CT. Kodzi Jr, E.T. 2021, ‘Inclusive growth in Africa: Are Chinese investment and local industry participation compatible?’, International Journal of Emerging Markets. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​IJOEM​-06​-2020​ -0609. Krishnamurthy, P.K., Choularton, R.J., & Kareiva, P. 2020, ‘Dealing with uncertainty in famine predictions: How complex events affect food security early warning skill in the Greater Horn of Africa’, Global Food Security, vol. 26, p.  100374. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.gfs​.2020​.100374 Lang, T., & McKee, M. 2022, ‘The reinvasion of Ukraine threatens global food supplies’, BMJ, vol. 376, p. o676. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1136/​bmj​.o676 Lang, T., Barling, D., Caraher, M., & Oxford Scholarship Online Public Health and Epidemiology. 2009, Food Policy: Integrating Health, Environment and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Lau, M. 2022, ‘China can’t count on global markets for food security, Xi Jinping says’, South China Morning Post, 7 March, available at https://​www​.scmp​.com/​news/​china/​politics/​article/​3169467/​ china​-cant​-count​-global​-markets​-food​-security​-xi​-jinping​-says, accessed 20 April 2023. Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V., & Bertini, R. 2021, ‘Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated?’, World Development, vol. 142, pp. 105455. Luo, H., Zyba, S.J., & Webb, P. 2020, ‘Measuring malnutrition in all its forms: An update of the net state of nutrition index to track the global burden of malnutrition at country level’, Global Food Security, vol. 26, p. 100453. Madre, Y., & Devuyst, P. 2016, How to tackle price and income volatility for farmers? An overview of international agricultural policies and instruments, Farm Europe, available at https://​ www​ .farm​-europe​.eu/​travaux/​how​-to​-tackle​-price​-and​-income​-volatility​-for​-farmers​-an​-overview​-of​ -international​-agricultural​-policies​-and​-instruments/​, accessed 20 April 2023. Mason, P., & Lang, T. 2017, Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption and the Food System. Routledge, London. Masters, W.A., Finaret, A.B., & Block, S.A. 2022, ‘The economics of malnutrition: Dietary transition and food system transformation (chapter 6)’, in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, vol. 6, ed. C.B. Barrett & D.R. Just, Elsevier, London. https://​doi​.org/​10​.48550/​arXiv​.2202​.02579 McGoey, K. 2015, No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy, Verso, London. McKinsey 2022, The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring?, McKinsey Global Institute, available at https://​www​.mckinsey​.com/​business​-functions/​sustainability/​our​-insights/​the​ -net​-zero​-transition​-what​-it​-would​-cost​-what​-it​-could​-bring, accessed 20 April 2023. McMichael, P. 2020, ‘Does China’s “going out” strategy prefigure a new food regime?’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 47, no. 1, pp.  116–154. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​03066150​.2019​.1693368 Moyo, D. 2010, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, Penguin, London. Navarro, V. 2020, ‘The consequences of neoliberalism in the current pandemic’, International Journal of Health Services, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 271–275. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0020731420925449 Nestle, M. 2016, ‘Food industry funding of nutrition research: The relevance of history for current debates’, JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 176, no. 11, pp. 1685–1686. https://​ doi​ .org/​ 10​ .1001/​ jamainternmed​.2016​.5400 Nestle, M. 2022, Food insecurity statistics: Some good news!, 13 September, available at https://​www​ .foodpolitics​.com/​2022/​09/​food​-insecurity​-statistics​-2022/​?lctg​=​102662197, accessed 20 April 2023. Neufeld, D. 2021, UN Sustainable Development Goals: How companies stack up, Visual Capitalist, 16 March, available at https://​www​.visualcapitalist​.com/​sustainable​-development​-goals/​, accessed 20 April 2023. O’Donovan, D. 2022, ‘Risk of famine with 40pc hike in wheat price after war threatens Ukraine’s grain exports’, Irish Independent, 5 March. OECD 2021a, Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1787/​ddfba4de​-en

24  Handbook of food security and society OECD 2021b, ‘Social Vouchers: Innovative Tools for Social Inclusion and Local Development’, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/08, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD 2022, The Short and Winding Road to 2030: Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1787/​af4b630d​-en Oxfam 2022, Profiting from Pain, available at https://​oi​-files​-d8​-prod​.s3​.eu​-west​-2​.amazonaws​.com/​ s3fs​-public/​2022​-05/​Oxfam​%20Media​%20Brief​%20​-​%20EN​%20​-​%20Profiting​%20From​%20Pain​ %2C​%20Davos​%202022​%20Part​%202​.pdf, accessed 20 April 2023. Peńa, M., & Bacallao, J. 2000, Obesity and Poverty: A New Public Health Challenge. Scientific Publication no 576, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Watson II, D.D. 2011, Food Policy for Developing Countries, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Popkin, B., & Reardon, T. 2018, ‘Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America’, Obesity Reviews, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1028–1064. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​obr​.12694 Popkin, B.M., & Ng, S.W. 2021, ‘The nutrition transition to a stage of high obesity and noncommunicable disease prevalence dominated by ultra-processed foods is not inevitable’, Obesity Reviews. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1111/​obr​.13366. Poppy, G.M., Baverstock-Poppy, J., & Baverstock, J. 2022, ‘Trade and dietary preferences can determine micronutrient security in the United Kingdom’, Nature Food, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 512–522. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s43016​-022​-00538​-3 Regis, E. 2019, Golden Rice: The Imperiled Birth of a GMO Superfood, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Renobales, M.D., San-Epifanio, L.E., & Molina, F. 2015, ‘Social supermarkets: A dignifying tool against food insecurity for people at socio-economic risk’, in Envisioning a Future Without Food Waste and Food Poverty, ed. L. San-Epifanio, M.D. De Renobales & M. Scheiffer, Wagengiem Academic, Holland, pp. 285–290. Riches, G. 2018, Food Bank Nations: Poverty, Corporate Charity and the Right to Food, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Riches, G., & Silvasti, T., eds. 2014, First World Hunger Revisited: Food Charity or the Right to Food?, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Rieff, D. 2016, The Reproach of Hunger: Food, Justice and Money in the 21st Century, Verso, London. Rocha, C. 2016, ‘Work in Progress: Addressing food insecurity in Brazil’, in Food Poverty and Insecurity: International Food Inequalities, eds M. Caraher & J. Coveney, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 105–115. RTÉ News 2022, ‘Grain shipment from Ukraine arrives in Limerick’, 20 August, available at https://​ www​.rte​.ie/​news/​ukraine/​2022/​0820/​1316804​-ukraine​-grain​-ireland/​, accessed 9 May 2022. Rut, M., & Davies, A.R. 2018, ‘Transitioning without confrontation? Shared food growing niches and sustainable food transitions in Singapore’, Geoforum, vol. 96, pp. 278–288. Santini, C., Marinelli, E., Boden, M., Cavicchi, A., & Haegeman, K. 2016, ‘Reducing the distance between thinkers and doers in the entrepreneurial discovery process: An exploratory study’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 5, pp.  1840–1844. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jbusres​.2015​.10​.066 Schlosser, E. 2002, Fast Food Nation: What the All-American Meal Is Doing to the World, Penguin, London. Sedibe, H.M., Kahn, K., Edin, K., Gitau, T., Ivarsson, A., & Norris, S.A. 2014, ‘Qualitative study exploring healthy eating practices and physical activity among adolescent girls in rural South Africa’, BMC Pediatrics, vol. 14, no. 1, p.  211. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​1471​-2431​-14​-211 Sen, A. 1981, Poverty and Famines, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sen, A. 1992, Inequality Reexamined, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Shaefer, H.L., Edin, K., Fusaro, V., & Wu, P. 2019, ‘The Decline of Cash Assistance and the Well-Being of Poor Households with Children’, Social Forces, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 1000–1025. Smith, K. 2013, Beyond Evidence-Based Policy in Public Health: The Interplay of Ideas, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Taylor, B. 2010, ‘Why nobody wins unless everybody wins’, Harvard Business Review, available at https://​hbr​.org/​2010/​12/​why​-nobody​-wins​-unless​-everybo, accessed 20 April 2023.

Introduction  25 Taylor, M. 2020, The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery, Bodley Head, London. Teng, P. 2020, ‘Assuring food security in Singapore, a small island state facing COVID-19’, Food Security, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 801–804. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems 2020, COVID-19 and the crisis in food systems: Symptoms, causes, and potential solutions, The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, Brussels, available at www​.ipesfood​.org/​pages/​covid19, accessed 20 April 2023. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems 2022, Another Perfect Storm? How the failure to reform food systems has allowed the war in Ukraine to spark a third global food price crisis in 15 years, and what can be done to prevent the next one, The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, available at https://​ipes​-food​.org/​_img/​upload/​files/​AnotherPerfectStorm​ .pdf, accessed 20 April 2023. The World Bank 2021, Brief: Food Security and COVID-19 (Updated 5th February, 2021), The World Bank, 5 February 2021, available at https://​www​.worldbank​.org/​en/​topic/​agriculture/​brief/​food​ -security​-and​-covid​-19​#:​~:​text​=​In​%20November​%202020​%2C​%20the​%20U​.N​.​,insecure​%20people​ %20in​%20the​%20world, accessed 20 April 2023. Thompson, E.P. 1993, Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture, The New Press, New York. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 2022, Ag and Food Stats, 4 February 2022, available at https://​www​.ers​.usda​.gov/​data​-products/​ag​-and​-food​-statistics​-charting​ -the​-essentials/​farming​-and​-farm​-income/​, accessed 5 May 2022. US Government Accountability Office 2020, Global Food Security: Information on Spending and Types of Assistance Provided by the United States and Other Donors, Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. Waterstones & Amnesty International UK 2013, Know Your Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Waterstones and Amnesty International, London. Watuleke, J. 2015, The Role of Food Banks in Food Security in Uganda: The Case of the Hunger Project Food Bank, Mbale Epicentre, Nordiska Afrikainstitut, available at https://​ www​ .diva​ -portal​ .org/​ smash/​record​.jsf​?pid​=​diva2​%3A782459​&​dswid​=​-6445, accessed 21 April 2023. Woodham-Smith, C. 1962, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849, 1st edn, Harper and Row, New York. Yeats, W.B. 1982, ‘The Countess Kathleen’, in Collected Plays, Macmillan, London, pp. 1–50.

PART I BACKGROUND CHAPTERS

1. ‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland Christine Kinealy

Malone: Me father died of starvation in Ireland in the Black ’47. Maybe you’ve heard of it. Violet: The Famine? Malone: No, the starvation. When a country is full o’ food, and exporting it, there can be no famine. (George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, 1951 (1903), Act IV, p. 150)

INTRODUCTION This chapter uses the examples of famines in Ireland, particularly the so-called ‘Great Famine’ of 1845 to 1852, to highlight the similarities between food insecurity and refugee crises historically and in today’s world. It demonstrates that conditions leading to hunger and starvation, and the responses to perennial famines, are frequently man-made and ideologically driven—and thus avoidable. Ireland’s long history of poverty and mass emigration can teach us about the power of human agency and compassion to end the conflict, systemic inequalities, economic disparities and unregulated greed that continue to cause regional and global hunger and forced displacement.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Modern Irish history has been dominated by two separate but interconnected struggles: the struggle for food security and the struggle for independence. Since the Late Middle Ages, virtually every generation in Ireland has experienced either local, regional or national subsistence crises, with varying degrees of deadliness (Scott, 2020). This time period also coincided with Ireland’s subservient position as a colony of England, later Britain. This process took centuries to complete but was characterized by the dispossession, marginalization, and even elimination of the native people and their culture. From the outset, Irish people were characterized as barbarous and uncivilized, a point emphatically made by Gerard of Wales, the chronicler of the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman invasion.1 In addition to military defeats, there was legislation such as the statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 and Poynings’ Law in 1494, which made the Dublin parliament subservient to the London parliament; and the Penal Laws of 1695–1728, which removed from the native/Catholic population many basic civil rights, while disadvantaging them economically, socially, politically and culturally. Food security and entitlement were also employed as weapons against the Irish. This point was forcefully made in an unpublished pamphlet, written in 1596, by English



1

Gerard of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis), Topographia Hiberniae (c. 1188).

27

28  Handbook of food security and society poet Edmund Spenser, who only six years earlier had written The Faerie Queene, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. Spenser had resided in Ireland since 1580, as secretary to the new lord deputy of Ireland, Lord Arthur Grey. There, he helped to preside over the brutal suppression of a number of uprisings, receiving land in Ireland as a reward (McCormack, 2005). Spenser’s experiences led to his proposition that starvation would prove to be more powerful than the sword in controlling the Irish: [A]lthough there should none of them [the Irish] fall by the sword, nor be slaine by the soldier, yett thus beinge keepte from manurance, and theire cattle from runinge abroade, by this hard restrainte, they would quicklye consume themselves, and devoure one another. The proof whereof I saw sufficientlye ensampled in those late warrs in Mounster; for notwithstandinge that the same was a most ritch and plentyfull countrye, full of corne and cattell, that you would have thought they could have beene hable to stand longe, yett eare one yeare and a half they weare brought to such wretchednes, as that anye stonye herte would have rewed the same. Out of everye corner of the woode and glenns they came creepinge forth upon theire handes, for theire legges could not beare them; they looked Anatomies [of] death, they spake like ghostes, crying out of theire graves; they did eate of the carrions, happye wheare they could find them, yea, and one another soone after … (Spenser, 1596, p. clxxi)

Almost 140 years later, another writer, Jonathan Swift, returned to the theme of the Irish eating themselves. In ‘A Modest Proposal’, published in 1729, Swift employed satire to challenge the structural inequalities within Irish society. Swift’s tongue-in-cheek solution was that the Irish should eat their children, young ones being the most tender (Swift, 1729). Although a dean in the Anglican Church and part of a Protestant establishment, he recognized that legislation from both the London and the Dublin parliaments had repeatedly undermined the position of Catholics.2 In particular, trade restrictions imposed by the London parliament served to reinforce Ireland’s subservient and colonial status.3 The Navigation Acts of 1661, 1671, 1685 and 1696 banned the direct exportation of most Irish products to the colonies, requiring that they first travelled to English ports, on English vessels.4 The Wool Act of 1699, also passed in London, favoured English commerce by deliberately restricting Irish trade.5 These regulations hindered Ireland’s ability to respond to the famines that beset the country. By the eighteenth century, a minority elite, known as the Protestant Ascendancy, controlled the resources and government of Ireland, regardless of the fact that many of them did not reside in the country and over 80 per cent of the people were Catholic (McDonough, 2005). The Acts of Union 1800 further tightened British control of Ireland by forcing the parliament in Dublin to vote itself out of existence, meaning that as the country entered a century of periodic famines, all key decisions would be made by an alien government. Additionally, centuries of exploitation of the Irish land did not improve when she became part of a newly created United Kingdom. According to sociologist Mary Corcoran: The Penal Laws were mostly directly at Catholics (Papists), but several restrictions applied to other non-conformist groups. 3 The ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 to 1689 resulted in the deposition of Catholic King James II and his replacement with his son-in-law, Protestant champion, William of Orange. In Ireland, the revolution was regarded as a victory of Protestantism over Catholicism; in England, it was regarded as a victory of parliament over absolute monarchy. 4 The Navigation Acts were passed by the English parliament at the end of the seventeenth century, to regulate the lucrative trade with the colonies in favour of England. 5 The Wool Act of 1699 was passed by the English parliament (11 Will. III c. 13). 2

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland  29 The colonization of Ireland involved the extraction (and exploitation) of raw materials and native peoples in pursuit of a profit motive. Irish peasants cultivating land as tenants in the mid-nineteenth century were systemically and intentionally impoverished through a system of rent increases and through repeated soil depletion. There was little or no investment in agriculture by the landlords who were concerned only with profit—rental income was the main driver of accumulation. (Corcoran, 2020, p. 305)

Within this narrative of constant food insecurity spread over centuries, one subsistence crisis stands out. The Great Famine of 1845 to 1852 is distinguished from these earlier and later food shortages by its longevity, its lethalness and its long-lasting impact. It also serves as a historical example of extreme food insecurity occurring at the centre of the resource-rich and vast British Empire. This chapter examines how structural inequalities, racial prejudice and colonial oppression foster conditions that allow food insecurities and famines to recur. While the Great Famine, or Great Hunger, of 1845 to 1852 is generally accepted as a watershed in modern Irish history, up to 1995 it was subject to little scholarly research. Other periods of hunger and famine received even less attention (MacAtasney, 2010; Crawford, 1989; Ó Gráda, 2015; Kinealy and Moran, 2015). Until the mid-1990s, only three major publications had appeared on the Great Famine, from three diverse viewpoints. One of the first major accounts was written by a Catholic priest, Canon John O’Rourke, in 1874. It was entitled The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847. Inevitably perhaps, O’Rourke viewed the Famine as an attack on the Catholic faith (Noack, Janssen and Comerford, 2012). It would be many more decades before another general history appeared. The reluctance to engage with this topic was typified by the long-awaited The Great Famine: Studies in Irish History, 1845–52, edited by Dublin-based historians R. Dudley Edwards and T. Desmond Williams. The project was initiated by An Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Éamon de Valera, who wanted a centenary publication, even offering the contributors a generous subvention of £1,500. Despite this, the publication did not appear until 1956 (11 years late) and was half the size of the volume promised (Noack, Janssen and Comerford, 2012). Also, rather than providing a complete overview of the Famine, the book contained a series of chapters of uneven quality, while certain key (and controversial) topics—population loss, culpability and mortality—were deliberately omitted (Woodham-Smith, 1957). Only a few years later, The Great Hunger, published in 1962, became an instant best-seller on both sides of the Atlantic. It was authored by a woman who was neither Irish born nor part of the academic community, but who, based on ten years of painstaking research, was not afraid to unequivocally lay the blame for the excess mortality on the inequalities in the landholding system and the inappropriate relief policies introduced by the British government (Woodham-Smith, 1962). While The Great Hunger met with international global acclaim, it was largely rejected by the Irish academic community, who regarded its graphic descriptions of suffering as being too emotional and too anti-British (Lyons, 1964/65).

REVISIONISM What was the reason behind such a cautious approach to engaging with the unpalatable aspects of Ireland’s past? Since the 1930s, Irish academia had been dominated by an orthodoxy generically referred to as ‘revisionism’. Revisionism offered a sanitized view of Irish history, especially the colonial relationship with Britain. Furthermore, it was underpinned by a con-

30  Handbook of food security and society servative, anti-nationalist agenda that deepened as the ‘Troubles’ commenced in Northern Ireland (Foster, 1986). The leading exponent of revisionism was Roy Foster, a professor at Oxford University, who churlishly referred to Woodham-Smith as ‘a zealous convert’, suggesting an ad hominem animosity that extended beyond differences in historical interpretation (Foster, 1986). At its core, revisionism sought to downplay the brutality of being a colonized country and thus to exonerate British government policies that adversely affected Ireland. In this way, various nationalist struggles could be presented as irrational and not motivated by political objectives (Burgess, 1986/1999). The trauma of the Great Famine was minimized in a number of ways, including in terms of the death toll and the reasons why the Irish poor depended on a single crop for survival. By any standard, the scale of the tragedy, if simply measured in terms of excess mortality, was enormous. Part of the dehumanizing and sanitizing process, however, was that the British government, who governed the country from London, repeatedly refused to allow information relating to the number of deaths to be collected, regardless of frequent requests to do so (Kinealy, 2002).6 However, using what remains of the 1841, 1851 and 1861 census returns, the estimate of excess mortality during the Great Famine has varied from half a million dead to one-and-a-half million (Nusteling, 2009). Such discrepancies suggest a politicization of famine and of famine deaths (Ryne, 2015; Kinealy, 1995). Furthermore, much as members of the British administration had done in the 1840s and beyond, revisionists suggested that the Famine had been inevitable, largely because of the rapid growth of the Irish population and the failure of the economy to modernize (Foster, 1988). Implicit in such interpretations was the proposition that Irish people—especially the poor—were responsible for their own poverty and periods of hardship and hunger. When this proposition was considered, the structural, ideological and geopolitical factors that made a subsistence crisis of this magnitude likely to occur in the first place were sidelined. This denial also minimized the role, response and responsibilities of the British government (and the wider empire) for allowing almost three million people—one-third of the population—to simply disappear. As the sesquicentenary of the first appearance of the potato blight approached, Ireland was changing on both sides of the border: the economy was growing at an unprecedented rate—a phenomenon referred to as the Celtic Tiger; there was a cultural renaissance with global impact, exemplified by Riverdance and Seamus Heaney’s Nobel Prize in Literature; the stronghold exerted by the various churches was declining; and a peace process was in its early stages. There was also a renewed interest by historians, a number of them working outside Ireland, in studying the Famine. Increasingly, this new generation of scholars refined, or rejected outright, the revisionist interpretation, especially in regard to the Famine (Bradshaw, 1989; Kinealy 1995). The timing of the Great Famine was late in the calendar of both Irish and European famines. Prior to 1500, crop failures had frequently resulted from severe weather and war, and they were generally followed by plague, pestilence and epidemics (Lyons, 1989). Ungenial weather conditions continued to play a role in subsequent famines (Engler et al., 2013). Bad weather alone, however, rarely caused famines, and while environmental factors clearly played a part in 6 During debates in the British House of Commons in 1847, opposition MPs including William Smith O’Brien, Lord George Bentinck and Benjamin D’Israeli repeatedly asked that returns of death be kept for each parish in Ireland: Deaths (Ireland), Hansard, House of Commons, 9 March 1847, vol. 90, cc. 1101–3.

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland  31 each crisis, the socio-political context was a crucial component. Ireland’s subservient position as a colony, a position that did not change until the twentieth century, was, therefore, a major determinant. According to historian David Dickson, at the time of the famine of 1740–41 (triggered by a mini Ice Age in Europe), Ireland was ‘by contemporary European standards, lightly governed, materially poor, and socially polarised’ (Dickson, 1997, p. 16). A further key to understanding the frequency of famine in Ireland was the on-going vulnerability of the poor. In Ireland, there was no state or centralized provision for giving relief to the most vulnerable in society. Unlike England, Scotland and Wales, where structures had been in place since the reign of Elizabeth I, Ireland possessed no national system of poor relief until 1838.

POOR LAW LEGISLATION The debates that led to the passing of Poor Law legislation in the 1830s offer valuable insights into how the poor were regarded. Political economists, including the influential Thomas Malthus (1798),7 had created a perception that too generous a system of poor relief not only perpetuated poverty, it encouraged the recipients to have more children. Ireland, with its fast-growing population and high dependence on labour-intensive agriculture, was viewed as especially deviant on the grounds that periods of sustained distress resulted in increased migration to Britain, where the poor would become a burden on resources. A poor law was, therefore, desirable, not simply to provide relief, but to safeguard British taxpayers. A further purpose was to bring about a social transformation in Ireland. The introduction of the ‘new’ English Poor Law of 1834 provided the impetus for legislation to be introduced into Ireland, partly to protect Britain.8 The resulting enquiry took three years to complete.9 Its recommendations were far reaching, going beyond simply relieving poverty, to proposing projects for the longer-term economic development of the country. The commissioners estimated that almost two-and-a-half million people per year required some level of support, and a Poor Law alone, based on the English model, could not cope with such extensive demands. Instead, they recommended that relief be supplemented with public works and assisted emigration.10 Such a comprehensive and sympathetic approach to Irish poverty was beyond the ideological and financial limits of what the British government had expected or wanted from the commission. They responded by asking George Nicholls, an English Poor Law Commissioner, to undertake a visit to Ireland and report on the suitability of the English system of relief to Ireland. In 1836, Nicholls undertook a six-week tour of Ireland. He was an unsympathetic observer, unsurprisingly concluding that the English Poor Law, based on the workhouse system, was suited to Ireland. Moreover, his estimate for the numbers requiring relief was only 80,000, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) was an English political economist who taught at the East India Company’s college in Haileybury, Hertfordshire, from 1805 until his death. One of his pupils was Charles Trevelyan. In his influential ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’, he argued that, unless checked, population growth would outgrow food production. 8 ‘An Act for the Amendment and Better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales’ (4 & 5 Will. 4 c. 76). 9 ‘Royal Commission for inquiring into the Condition of the Poorer Classes in Ireland: third report’ (BPP), 43, 1836, xxx. 10 Ibid. 7

32  Handbook of food security and society achieving this lower figure by making a distinction between poverty and destitution (Nicholls, 1838). His recommendations were welcomed by the government. The Irish Poor Law of 1838 was modelled on the English legislation, but, from the outset, it was clear that the Irish poor were to be treated more harshly than their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. In Ireland, no outdoor relief was permitted and no right to relief existed. This meant that, if a workhouse became full, there was no obligation to provide alternative assistance. In a country with a small industrial base and intermittent subsistence crises, a rigid system of Poor Law relief was not suited to the needs of the Irish poor. This was apparent in 1839, 1842 and after 1845, when additional relief measures were introduced to alleviate the food shortages (Kinealy, 1994). In August 1847, an extended Poor Law was made responsible for all relief in Ireland, but the continuation of emigration, disease and death were evidence of its deficiencies. Nicholls had warned that ‘where the land has ceased to be reproductive, the necessary means of relief can no longer be obtained from it, and a Poor Law will no longer be operative’ (Nicholls, 1856, p. 357). His words were ignored, with disastrous consequences.

THE POTATO BLIGHT The recent global interest in the Irish Famine means the history of the event is familiar to many, although issues relating to culpability, intent, impact, and even how it should be named, continue to be debated and refined. By 1845, approximately two-thirds of the Irish population had a high dependence for survival on a single crop—the potato. Potatoes, however, only accounted for about 20 per cent of total agricultural output, with Ireland exporting enough grain to Britain each year to feed approximately two million people (Kinealy, 1997). On 20 August 1845, Dr David Moore, curator at the Botanical Gardens in Dublin, noticed a disease on potato crops. Within days, newspapers were reporting its appearance elsewhere.11 The appearance of the blight did not come as a complete surprise to either horticulturists or government officials, as the disease had been damaging crops in North America since 1843 and had been observed in Europe for a number of months (Bravender, 1880). Fortunately, it reached Ireland relatively late in the harvest season, which reduced the level of destruction, while a high crop yield that year provided an additional buffer. The British government, led by Sir Robert Peel, introduced a package of relief measures that were traditional and cautious, but effective. More radical measures such as a temporary ban on the distillation of alcohol and the stopping of food exports were rejected, even though they had been used during past shortages with great effect (‘Mansion House Committee’, 1845). Even as the situation deteriorated and the people started to die in large numbers, these measures were not implemented as the needs of the metropole were placed above those of a starving people. The first appearance of the potato disease coincided with a ‘special commissioner’ from the London Times travelling around the country. He was unsympathetic to the people and to their leader, Daniel O’Connell. In one of the few reports where he mentioned the blight, he castigated the poor for observing All Saints’ Day as a holiday while the crops were rotting, 11 Gardiners’ Chronicle, 16 August 1845, announced: ‘We stop the Press with very great regret to announce that the potato Murrain [infectious disease] has unequivocally declared itself in Ireland.’ The origins of the word ‘blight’ are obscure, possibly deriving from the Old English word ‘blæce, blæcðu’, meaning a scrofulous skin condition.

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland  33 mistakenly suggesting that the potatoes could be saved if the people made more effort.12 The resilience of the Irish poor in surviving intermittent food shortages was not mentioned, nor were the factors that prevented them from increasing their productive capacity. Even though nobody could foresee that blight would return in varying degrees for a further six years, already some parts of the British press were openly stating that Ireland should not be allowed to depend on English resources.13 The News of the World summed this up by remarking, ‘it is not fitting that Ireland should become a beggar to England.’14 Such sentiments not only made a mockery of the Union but were a foreshadow of the response to the reappearances of the blight; increasingly, the lives of the Irish poor were made subservient to the ideological dogma and the vast resources of the British Empire, and were not utilized to prevent the starvation. The return of the blight in varying degrees of destructiveness, in 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850 and 1851, transformed the food shortages into a chronic famine. The resilience and resourcefulness of the poor were quickly exhausted, and they were forced to rely on local elites and a distant government to save their lives. In 1847, a massive international philanthropic project provided much practical relief in Ireland, demonstrating that the kindness of strangers could be more effective in saving lives than the actions of British politicians (Kinealy, 2013). The crisis was regarded in London as a way to make Ireland more productive and more governable. The large-scale clearances of the poor from the land were welcomed, especially when emigration to North America made any return unlikely. For a number of policymakers in London, Irish landowners were just as much a barrier to economic progress as the potato growers at the other end of the social scale.15 To clear Ireland of indebted proprietors, in 1848 and 1849, the Encumbered Estates’ Acts were passed, which forced landowners who were in debt and unable to meet their financial obligations, to sell their properties. Overall, a social revolution was being imposed upon the Irish landscape and on Irish society, irrespective of the high human cost. Although there was some evidence of blight on the potato crops of 1850 and 1851, it was increasingly limited to districts in the west of the country. It was not until 1852 that the blight fully disappeared from Ireland. The 1851 census, which was not published until 1854, revealed that from a combination of deaths, emigration and averted births, the population had fallen by over 25 per cent—the amount predicted by Daniel O’Connell in early 1847. What made the tragedy more lamentable was the fact that, since 1800, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom, which was at the centre of the vast, powerful and resource-rich British Empire. The resources of that Empire had not been deployed to mitigate the sufferings of the poor in Ireland as starvation became a tool in the project to transform Ireland in the cruellest of ways (Nally, 2011).

14 15 12 13

Times, 7 November 1845. Ibid., 6 November 1845. News of the World, 16 November 1845. Times, 10 October 1847.

34  Handbook of food security and society

CONCLUSION William Wilde, eye surgeon, folklorist and commissioner of the 1841 and 1851 Irish censuses, defined Ireland as a land of famines.16 In evidence, he compiled as part of the 1851 census, the Status of Disease and the Tables of Death, the latter providing a historic overview of pestilences and famines from the prehistoric period up to 1850, thus placing the tragedy of the 1840s in its longer context.17 He further explained: ‘It must not be supposed that the famine and pestilence which affected Ireland between the years 1845 and 1849 was the greatest, or the only, calamity of the kind which ever came upon us. Far from it.’18 Local and regional famines persisted in Ireland after 1852, demonstrating that the size of the Irish population was not the problem, as had frequently been suggested. In a debate in the British House of Commons in 1901, one member pointed out: ‘Without touching on the famine of 1846–47, the question of distress was brought up before the House from 1831 to 1898 in 27 different years.’19 Tellingly, no decade had been free from local or regional famines, and a number, notably, from 1860 to 1862 and from 1879 to 1881, had been particularly severe. These comments also provide evidence that members of the British parliament had been fully appraised about the repeated suffering in Ireland, but had chosen to do little to alleviate it. The indifference was evident during the famine in the western counties in 1898. When asked in parliament what the government planned to do, Chief Secretary for Ireland Gerald Balfour repeatedly stated that the distress had been exaggerated, while he glibly suggested that the Irish poor ‘could not be supplied with champagne and sent to the south of France.’20 Writing in 1918, economic historian George O’Brien reiterated the point made by Wilde and in the British parliament: To give particular dates as the occasions of famine years is, to some extent, to create a wrong impression of the Irish situation, the truth being that the country lived in a chronic state approaching famine, and that the particular years which are mentioned by historians as famine years were simply the years in which the chronic symptoms became acute. (O’Brien, 1918, p. 102)

O’Brien’s publication appeared during a period of intense nationalist activity that would lead to war with the British, the partition of Ireland, a civil war, and the displacement of large numbers of people on both sides of the new border as Protestants moved northward and Catholics moved south. The two new states created after 1921 continued to experience chronic poverty, hunger and mass emigration. Open discrimination and economic inequalities in the newly created Northern Ireland—both a painful legacy of a colonial past—in the 1960s would lead to another conflict, this one of 30 years’ duration. During these decades, emigration con-

William Wilde’s ‘Table of Irish Famines’, in The Census for Ireland for the Year 1851, part v, Table of Deaths. Wilde identified 1,000 years of famine in Ireland. 17 The Census for Ireland for the year 1851. Part V. Tables of deaths. Vol. I., 1856, British Parliamentary Paper, XXIX. 18 The Census for Ireland for the year 1851. Part I. Showing the area, population and number of houses by townlands and electoral divisions, BPP, 1852–3, XCI, p. 144. 19 This statement was made during a debate on Congested Districts in Ireland, in The Parliamentary Debates, fourth series, vol. xc, February to March 1901 (London: HMSO, 1901), p. 1436. 20 ‘Distress in Ireland’, Hansard, House of Commons, 22 April 1898, vol. 56, cc. 832–833. 16

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland  35 tinued to provide a safety valve on both sides of the border (Kinealy and Moran, 2020).21 It was not until the mid-1990s, that the island of Ireland experienced sustained peace and prosperity, and this changing environment provided an atmosphere conducive to reappraising Ireland’s history, in particular her long, and largely painful, colonial relationship with Britain. Although revisionism had always claimed to be value free, its grounding in an anti-nationalist ideological agenda was clear. Studies of the Great Famine in particular provided a litmus test for understanding the limitations and distractions of the revisionist interpretation. New research demonstrated that, far from being a natural disaster, colonial oppression, greed, racism, religious prejudice, ideological dogma and the desire to bring about social change, whatever the cost, transformed the food shortages of the late 1840s into a devastating famine, primarily for political ends. Denying the far-reaching impact and legacy of the Famine, blaming the poor for their poverty and ignoring the wider geopolitical and colonial contexts were all features of revisionist and anti-nationalist and pro-British writing on the famines in Ireland. While more recent writing has robustly challenged these earlier interpretations, they are reminders that the most vulnerable groups in society often do not control their own narratives or destinies. Additionally, the war against poverty has more often been a thinly disguised war against the poor, while blaming the poor for their poverty has persisted, as can be seen from the statements by American politician Paul Ryan (Ryan, 2014). The economic growth that commenced in Ireland in the 1990s was briefly interrupted by the austerity that followed the worldwide economic downturn of 2008. In the wake of the economic recovery, not only did emigration decrease, but Ireland experienced large-scale inward migration, regardless of the country’s relative prosperity; in 2022 the population of the island continued to be smaller than it was in 1845—perhaps unique in a Western democracy.22 Recent studies looking at epigenetics in the Irish context are a reminder of the transgenerational impact of sustained famine and trauma that is part of the DNA of people of Irish origin today (Walsh, 2017). Regardless of—or perhaps because of—Ireland’s famine-ridden past, in November 1921, the republic of Ireland was ranked number one in the world in terms of food security, using the criteria of affordability, availability, quality and safety, and natural resources and resilience.23 Only weeks later, however, the Irish charity Trócaire warned that many places in the world would face a ‘hunger pandemic’ in 2022, resulting from the combination of Covid-19, climate change and conflict (Irish News, 2022). As was the case in Ireland in the 1840s, the poor were the most vulnerable—income inequalities continuing to play a major part in perpetuating food insecurity.24 Studying famines in Ireland, especially the Great Famine, offers multiple insights, lessons and warnings of how to respond to the crises of poverty, food security and refugees in the world today. For the Irish descendants of Famine survivors, their experiences provide what former president Mary Robinson has referred to as ‘an informed consciousness’ and empathy See Introduction, p. xvii–xxxviii. ‘Ireland’s population passes 5m for first time since 19th century famine’, Guardian, 21 August 2021. 23 ‘Ireland ranked first in Global Food Security Index, whilst Canada overtakes US’, New Food, at: www​.newfoodmagazine​.com/​news/​159325/​global​-food​-security​-index/​#:​~:​text​=​The​%20Economist’s​ %20Global​%20Food​%20Security​,and​%20natural​%20resources​%20and​%20resilience (accessed 21 April 2023). 24 While low-income countries are most vulnerable, even in advanced capitalist countries such as Ireland people experience food insecurity. 21 22

36  Handbook of food security and society with other famine victims. However, as she reminded an international conference on hunger, ‘famine is not something which can be understood only through history. It must be understood with every fiber of our moral being’ (Robinson, 1995).

REFERENCES Bradshaw, B. (1989) ‘Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Modern Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, vol. 26, issue 104, November, pp. 335–336. Bravender, F. (1880) The Potato Disease and How To Prevent It. London: Farm Journal Office. Burgess, M. (1986/1999) Review of Vincent Comerford’s, ‘The Fenians in Context: Irish Politics and Society 1848–82’, first published in 1986; History Ireland, vol. 7, issue 1, pp. 49–50. Corcoran, M. P. (2020) ‘Hungry for Change: Civil Society Responses to Food Insecurity in Twenty-First Century New Haven, Connecticut’, in Kinealy, C., and Moran, G. (eds), Irish Famines Before and After the Great Hunger, 2nd edn. Cork: Cork University Press, pp. 303–320. Crawford, M.E. (ed.) (1989) Famine: The Irish Experience, 900–1900. Edinburgh: J. Donald. Dickson, D. (1997) Arctic Ireland: The Extraordinary Story of the Great Frost. Belfast: White Row Press. Engler, S., Mauelshagen F., Werner J., and Luterbacher, J. (2013) ‘The Irish Famine of 1740–1741: Famine Vulnerability and “Climate Migration”’, Climate of the Past, vol. 9, pp. 1161–1179, at https://​ doi​.org/​10​.5194/​cp​-9​-1161​-2013. Foster R. F. (1986) ‘We Are All Revisionists Now’, The Irish Review, vol. 1, pp. 1–5. Foster, R. F. (1988) Modern Ireland, 1600–1972. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kinealy, C. (1994) This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845 to 1852. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Kinealy, C. (1995) ‘Beyond Revisionism: Reassessing the Great Irish Famine’, History Ireland, vol. 3, no. 4, Winter, pp. 28–34. Kinealy, C. (1997) ‘Food Exports from Ireland, 1846-1847’, in History Ireland, vol. 5, no. 1, Spring, pp. 32–36. Kinealy, C. (2002) The Great Irish Famine: Impact, Ideology and Rebellion. Houndmills: Palgrave. Kinealy, C. (2013) Charity and the Great Hunger: The Kindness of Strangers. London: Bloomsbury. Kinealy, C., and Moran, G. (eds) (2015) Irish Famines Before and After the Great Hunger. Hamden: Quinnipiac University Press, and Cork: Cork University Press. Kinealy, C., and Moran, G. (2018) Fallen Leaves of Humanity: Famines in Ireland Before and After the Great Famine. London: Routledge. Kinealy, C. and Moran, G. (eds) (2020) Irish Famines Before and After the Great Hunger, 2nd edn. Cork: Cork University Press. Lyons, F. S. L. (1964/65) ‘Review of The Great Hunger’, Irish Historical Studies, 1964/65, pp. 77–78. Lyons, M. (1989) ‘Weather, Famine, Pestilence and Plague in Ireland, 900–1500’, in Crawford E. M. (ed.), Famine: The Irish Experience, 900–1900. Edinburgh: J. Donald, pp. 31–74. MacAtasney, G. (2010) The Other Famine: The 1822 Crisis in County Leitrim. Cheltenham: The History Press. Malthus, T.R. (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population as it affects the future improvement of society, with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and other writers. London: J. Johnson. Chapter V, pp. 39–45. ‘Mansion House Committee’, 1845, Freeman’s Journal, 4 November. McCormack, A. (2005) The Earldom of Desmond 1463–1583: The Decline and Crisis of a Feudal Lordship. Dublin: Four Courts Press. McDonough, T. (2005) Was Ireland a Colony? Economics, Politics and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. Nally, D. P. (2011) Human Encumbrances: Political Violence and the Great Irish Famine. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Nicholls, G. (1838) Poor Laws – Ireland. First Report by George Nicholls Esq., to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. London: W. Clowes and Sons, for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

‘The past is not dead’: hunger and famine in Ireland  37 Nicholls, G. (1856) A History of the Irish Poor Law: In Connexion with the Condition of the People. London: John Murray. Noack, C., Janssen, L., and Comerford V. (eds) (2012) Holodomor and Gorta Mór: Histories, Memories and Representations of Famine in Ukraine and Ireland. London: Anthem Press. Nusteling, H. P. H. (2009) ‘How Many Irish Potato Famine Deaths? Toward Coherence of the Evidence’, Historical Methods, vol. 42, issue 2, pp.  57–80, at https://​doi​.org/​10​.3200/​HMTS​.42​.2​.57​-80. Ó Gráda, C. (2015) ‘Famine in Ireland, 1300–1900’, UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. WP15/13, University College Dublin, UCD School of Economics, Dublin. O’Brien, G. (1918) The Economic History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century. Dublin: Maunsell and Co. O’Rourke, Cannon J. (1874) The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847: With Notices of Earlier Irish Famines. Dublin: McGlashan and Gill. Robinson, M. (1995) ‘International Conference on Hunger Keynote Address’, at: https://​awpc​.cattcenter​ .iastate​.edu/​2017/​03/​21/​international​-conference​-on​-hunger​-keynote​-address​-may​-20​-1995/​ (accessed 23 April 2023). Ryan, P. (2014) War on Poverty. Washington, D.C.: House Budget Committee. Rynne, F. (2015) ‘The Great Famine in Nationalist and Land League propaganda 1879-1882’ (La Grande Famine dans la propagande des Nationalistes et de la Ligue agraire 1879-1882), in Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain, at: https:// doi .org/ 10.4000/mimmoc.1864. Scott, B. (2020) ‘Famine and Poverty in Late-Medieval and Early-Modern Ireland’, in Kinealy, C. and Moran, G (eds), Irish Famines before and after the Great Hunger. Cork: Cork University Press, pp. 3-18. Shaw, G. B. (1951) ‘Man and Superman’ (1903), in The Complete Plays of Bernard Shaw. London: Odhams Press Ltd. Slater, E. (2013) ‘Marx on Ireland: The dialectics of colonialism’, Maynooth University: National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis Working Paper Series, no. 73. Spenser, E. (1596) A Veue of the Present State of Ireland. Discoursed by way of a dialogue betwene Eudoxus and Irenius in Oram, W.A. (1997) Edmund Spenser. London: Prentice Hall. Swift, J. (1729) A Modest Proposal. For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick. First published anonymously in Dublin and London and publisher not identified. Walsh, O. (2017) ‘Nature and nurture: The Great Famine and Epigenetic Change in Ireland’ in Kinealy, C., Moran, M. and Reilly, C. (eds), Women and the Great Hunger (Cork: Cork University Press, pp. 173-183. Woodham-Smith, C. (1957) ‘The Harvest was Death’, The New York Times, 4 August 1957. Woodham-Smith, C. (1962) The Great Hunger. Ireland 1845-1849. London: Hamish Hamilton.

2. Hunger is a crime: why words matter Andy Fisher

INTRODUCTION In November 2006, the US television personality Keith Olbermann dubbed a USDA Economic Research Service employee, Mark Nord, the “worst person in the world,” a dubious award that Olbermann bestows on a daily basis, although rarely on a bureaucrat. Olbermann’s wrath was incurred by a technical change the US Department of Agriculture had made in defining food insecurity. Mr. Nord’s crime had been to lead the effort to change the terminology used by the Department of Agriculture to measure food deprivation, eliminating “hunger” from the official lexicon and replacing it with “very low food security.” This move unleashed a firestorm within the media and advocacy groups. The American TV channel ABC reported, “only in Washington could there be a debate about the meaning of the word ‘hunger.’” The executive director of the Food Research & Action Center, the primary lobbying group for federal food programs, affirmed that this change in lexicon didn’t affect reality: “We have got 35 million people according to this report who, no matter what name you put on it, are facing a daily struggle against hunger” (Fisher, 2017, pp. 12–13). Previously, the USDA had denominated two levels of food insecurity, “low food insecurity” and “food insecurity with hunger.” This decision was backstopped by a years-long review by a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences that outlined the subjective and individual nature of hunger and its difficulty to measure. The experts believed that the behavioral aspects of food insecurity were preferable as a framework for understanding food deprivation (Himmelgreen and Romero-Daza, 2010, p. 104). To this date, some anti-hunger activists see this change less as a technical correction and more as an effort to erase hunger from the public view. Susannah Morgan of the Oregon Food Bank continues to think of “food insecurity” as a “government weasel word” (Fisher, 2017, p. 13). Regardless of whether this change was a technocratic rephrasing of food hardship, or a cover-up of hunger in America, it leads us to consider the relationship between the definition of a societal problem, the words used to describe it, and the way in which we measure it. This chapter sets out to explain the tools used to measure food insecurity in the US and much of the world (see chapters 6, 7, and 8 in this volume). It describes the strengths and limitations of the household food security module, and explores whether food insecurity is the most appropriate tool for explaining deprivation. It presents challenges to the concept of food insecurity itself, and whether the problematization of food insecurity lays the groundwork for the transformational change needed to solve the multi-faceted inequalities grounded in neoliberal economies. It draws on conversations with colleagues engaged with food security.

38

Hunger is a crime: why words matter  39

DEFINITIONS A measurement tool is grounded in the way we define a societal problem. The USDA defines food security as, “Access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: (1) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies)” (USDA ERS, n.d.). This definition is so broad that measuring it would indeed be a challenge, requiring an examination of food sufficiency, healthy living, nutritional adequacy, and the methods by which an individual accessed food. A complete evaluation of the various aspects and causes of food insecurity at a population level would be onerously long and convoluted, as well as requiring multiple tools whose definitions (such as nutritious foods) lack consensus. Nonetheless, social scientists are exploring hybrid methods that allow for a more complete picture of household economics, as seen in chapters 6 and 7 on measurement and policy issues. Instead, USDA focused its attention on undernutrition, grounded in the traditional concern of hunger as a lack of calories, rather than on the increasingly prevalent questions of obesity and micronutrient deficiency.1

MEASUREMENT TOOL Since 1995, the USDA has deployed a food security questionnaire with 12 questions, and for households with children, an additional six questions. These questions are intended to operate as a thermometer, on a Rasch scale, with each question assuming a higher level of food insecurity than the previous one. While respondents do not always respond affirmatively in a linear fashion, the questionnaire is a very elegant measurement that largely captures the reality of respondents’ behavior and expectations. Valerie Tarasuk of the University of Toronto believes it to be the best available indicator of economic vulnerability. She points out that the questionnaire is a very sensitive instrument, to which a great level of research and interdisciplinary thought was dedicated. She sees it as a fortuitous fluke of a convergence of academic and public sector interest (Tarasuk, 2021). These questions are descriptive in that they provide a picture of the level of deprivation and related coping strategies. They do not predict whether some households will become food insecure, nor whether currently food insecure households will continue to be so in the future. The first three questions relate to the respondent’s anxiety about food sufficiency, while the latter questions reference actual reductions in food intake (Rabbit, 2021). This survey is

This difference in focus was captured in a City University of NY sponsored webinar I attended on October 26, 2021. A New York City anti-hunger advocate, Joel Berg, responded to comments about the prevalence of obesity as a food insecurity-related concern with a comment in the chat box that emphasized the number of people worldwide who suffered from calorie deficiencies. This ignores the double burden of hunger and obesity prevalent among low-income individuals in the US and beyond. 1

40  Handbook of food security and society oriented toward the experiences and behaviors of a household rather than those of a specific individual. The following is the list of questions contained in this survey (USDA ERS, n.d.): 1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? 6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 9. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? (Questions 11–18 were asked only if the household included children age 0–17.) 11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No) 16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months? 18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Hunger is a crime: why words matter  41

QUESTIONNAIRE BACKGROUND The need for a food security survey in the US can be traced back to the 1980s, when a plethora of city- and state-specific hunger studies was published, in the wake of Reagan-era cutbacks to welfare and human service programs. Marion Nestle and Sally Guttmacher documented these antecedents in a 1992 paper, in which they critiqued the profusion of diverse and occasionally unscientific methods that were being used to count the number of hungry people through these hunger studies (Nestle and Guttmacher, 1992, p. 195; Nestle, 2021). There existed the need to standardize the measurement of hunger as a way to justify further public policy intervention to reduce the incidence of food deprivation (Nestle, 2021). Nestle believed that eliminating the subjective sensation of hunger from measurement would lead to the gathering of sufficient data to force public agencies into action, under the Republican administrations of Bush and Reagan. The answer to this challenge became to focus on food security rather than hunger. This strategy was successful in providing a mechanism to track food insecurity over time, once the USDA started measuring food insecurity in 1995. It came, however, at the cost of a loss of public understanding of food insecurity for some 25 years until the coronavirus pandemic thrust food insecurity back into the spotlight. Food security became the preferred measurement for USDA not just because it was more nuanced than hunger but also because it was easier to assess (see chapters 6 and 7). Hunger is an individual phenomenon, largely subjective in nature. It can be measured scientifically, but it requires invasive and expensive procedures such as blood draws to examine biochemical indices. Food security, instead, can be quantified through an evaluation of individual’s or household’s behaviors, experiences, and perceptions. In other words, it’s a technocratic and academic framework that lends itself to government implementation and social scientist analysis. In 1990, Congress passed the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (Congress.gov, n.d.), which laid out a ten-year plan to create a food security measurement. By 1995, the USDA, in collaboration with academia and consultants, had agreed upon the current food security survey, building from the groundbreaking work of Cornell academics Cathy Radimer, Ed Frongillo, and others. USDA launched the food security supplement in conjunction with the US Census Bureau in 1995 (USDA ERS, n.d.).

SURVEY USAGE This survey has been widely adopted and adapted across the globe. According to Carlo Cafiero of the Food and Agriculture Organization, more than 150 countries around the globe utilize this measurement (Cafiero, 2021). In the US, about 40,000 households respond every year through the Current Population Survey (USDA ERS, n.d.). Despite its widespread usage, the interpretation of the results can vary. For example, in the US, a respondent that answers affirmatively to the first two questions is considered “marginally food insecure”; affirmatively to three to five questions is considered to have low food security; and yes to six questions or more (eight for households with children) is considered to have very low food security (Rabbit, 2021). In Canada, respondents that answer yes to one or more questions are considered to be food insecure. Tarasuk contends that this difference provides a much more sensitive measurement of the scope of food insecurity in Canada; there

42  Handbook of food security and society is a 20% divergence between these two categorizations (Tarasuk, 2021). The result is that in America food insecurity is undercounted, resulting in less political pressure to implement expensive policy changes. University of Illinois scholar and Feeding America consultant Craig Gunderson agrees that the choice of three affirmative answers as a cut-off for food insecurity is “relatively arbitrary” (Gunderson, 2021). In other words, while the measurement tool itself is scientifically sound, the analysis of the responses is inherently political.

CONTRIBUTIONS The survey provides a baseline picture of households’ experiences (which may be expanded upon by complementary measures such as the Individual Household Measure described in Chapter 6). It provides a more granular picture of the struggles vulnerable households incur while trying to meet their basic needs than any poverty index or income-based economic data. Whereas some experts critique the measure as not being configured by individuals with lived experience of food insecurity (Chilton, 2021), it does provide a general description of food insecurity and coping strategies that households utilize to address food hardship. At a minimum, these responses provide some humanity to the cold hard numbers generated by the response compilation. The relationship between food insecurity and poverty is contested. Gunderson argues that food insecurity is not a proxy for poverty, and that limited income alone cannot predict food insecurity. He contends that multiple factors play into whether a household is food insecure, including income shocks, disabilities, high food prices, assets, and whether the household is led by a single parent (Gunderson, 2021). Gunderson is in part pointing to unstable household incomes, caused by periodic unemployment, the seasonality of employment (e.g., in tourist or agricultural economies), and exploitative scheduling as factors that lead people in and out of periods of food insecurity. Similarly, a large number of previously food-secure households found themselves in food bank lines, a definitional indicator of food insecurity, as a result of layoffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This also points to the precarious situation of the working and lower-middle class in the US. Matthew Rabbit of the USDA Economic Research Service, however, sees the food security measure as an economic indicator; households with incomes of up to 200% of the US poverty line tend to be food insecure. He argues that there is a significant correlation between poverty and food insecurity. Rabbit also augments Gunderson’s list of factors that correlate with food insecurity to include housing prices, medical bills, and health shocks (Rabbit, 2021). Food insecurity does track, perhaps not perfectly, with income and wealth inequality. Its existence in households with incomes up to 200% of the poverty line indicates how low the poverty line is in the US. Non-income factors, such as the cost of housing and childcare, inflation, access to affordable grocery stores, and medical bills, do also affect a household’s food security status. In other words, the food security measure tells a much richer story of the complex economic picture that low-income households face than any strictly income-based measurement could do. It tells a story that goes beyond dollars and cents: about the geography of food resources, the intra-household distribution of resources, economic vulnerability, and its contribution to parental stress and anxiety. In our capitalist economies, these are critical stories to be told about the impact of our economic system and policy choices on people’s lives.

Hunger is a crime: why words matter  43

LIMITATIONS As we saw above, the definition of food security is multi-faceted, focused on questions of food sufficiency, but also on matters of access, health, and reliance on charity or other socially unacceptable food sources. Yet, the food security survey abandons these other criteria in favor of a primary if not sole focus on food sufficiency. It barely touches upon the question of nutritional adequacy (or what USDA Secretary Vilsack calls nutrition security), only referring to a “balanced meal.” Creating a measurement tool for use at a population level that would assess food security in all its complexities would be highly challenging and overly long as to be cumbersome. Joel Berg, long-time anti-hunger advocate, argues that the survey is limited in many ways, but more effective at understanding the scope of food hardship than any other population-level tool available (Berg, 2021). Despite the widespread praise that the food security module has received for being able to capture experiential data on food sufficiency, experts agree that the survey has significant limitations in being able to measure food insecurity in all its aspects. For example: ● Food insecurity is tied to poor health outcomes yet the survey does not describe the nutritional adequacy of the diet that respondents consume. While the survey does mention a balanced diet, it does not explore the coping strategies that food-insecure households make such as relying on inexpensive high-carbohydrate foods (Hartline-Grafton, 2021). It perpetuates an ignorance of the relationship between food insecurity and diet-related diseases, and of the role of the food system in aggravating both of these health problems. ● The food security survey does not measure household income or the existence of poverty. Similarly, it does not measure the growing inequality in wealth, which has been identified by some social scientists as affecting health and welfare indicators (Pickett and Wilkinson, 2010). ● The survey identifies food-insecure households, but it does not explain the causes of their food insecurity, nor does it predict whether households will be food insecure in the future. ● The survey does not assess community resources that contribute to food insecurity, nor societal inequities, such as systemic racism, or an inequitable food system. In this omission, it normalizes what some have called food apartheid (Brones, 2018). ● According to Joel Berg, the survey probably undercounts the number of people who are food insecure. The survey questions are very similar to those that child protective service agencies utilize to determine whether children should be removed from a household. This similarity, Berg contends, would lead some respondents to not depict the truth of their situation for fear that their children be removed from their homes (Berg, 2021). ● The survey does not measure the other types of deprivation that food insecure households are likely to suffer. Katherine Alaimo of Michigan State University expresses her desire for a more expansive tool: “I wish we had a scale that measured a family’s hardship all together” (Alaimo, 2021). This perspective is echoed in the UK, where material deprivation is often parsed into distinct areas, such as food poverty, fuel poverty, and period poverty, among other terms. A humanistic framework centered on people rather than their subset of needs would counter the depersonalized and professionalized anti-poverty industry (Chakrabortty, 2021).

44  Handbook of food security and society

DISCUSSION The impoverished suffer from multiple forms of deprivation. Why do we focus so much on food poverty? Is there something unique about it? Food insecurity, or hunger if we set aside the sanitized terminology for a second, violates our sense of fairness, and, especially among children, tugs at our heartstrings. Food is of course basic to life, and without it, life cannot continue. Hunger leads to death in its extreme form. Hunger is violent; it violates our basic sense of humanity. It is also completely unnecessary in the 21st century, a product of our collective political and economic decisions rather than food scarcity. It lays bare the basic inequities in our societies, denying our collective responsibility to each other. However, from a social change perspective, we need to ask whether food security is an effective term. Does it get us where we need to go, laying the groundwork for the elimination of its causes? The UK experience shows that, at a minimum, a problem must be measured in order to develop policy solutions to end it. Sabine Goodwin, coordinator of the UK-based Independent Food Aid Network (Goodwin, 2021), notes that for years the Tory government had been cutting welfare benefits to the poor, forcing them to rely on food banks. They were able to do so because data on food insecurity were lacking. As a result, the End Hunger UK coalition along with a British member of parliament (MP), Emma Lewell Buck, launched a campaign to ensure that government “measures and reports to Parliament annually the true scale of UK hunger” (End Hunger UK, 2018). The British government released in March 2022 the results of a national household food insecurity survey, utilizing a modified version of the USDA module. These data provide ammunition to advocates about the scope of the problem and the need for policy change to eliminate it. Food is vital to life. And food insecurity is arguably a symptom of a much deeper set of injustices that lead to multiple forms of deprivation within households. Are we picking out the right problem to measure in focusing on food security? Does a focus on it allow us to understand—and more importantly to act upon—its underlying causes, such as exploitative labor practices, inadequate public sector supports, and systemic racism and sexism? Or does food insecurity in its technocratic nature not provide us with the tools necessary to eliminate it? Is that even the right assumption to ask of such a measurement tool? We need to consider the implications of using the US developed tool so widely across the globe over the course of the past 25 years. Has this survey been a case of American sociological imperialism that measures—and problematizes—a condition that could be assessed through multiple other lenses? Is the measurement tool grounded in the American welfare structure? According to Graham Riches, the US is perhaps the only country in the OECD that has established federal food assistance programs (Riches, 2021). The justification for these programs is integrally linked to the annual food security measurement report. For example, leading anti-hunger advocates claimed that the increase in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as SNAP) was a leading factor in the flat food insecurity rate from 2019 to 2021 despite the economic ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic (FRAC, 2021). The public policy connection between food insecurity measurement and welfare intervention is less direct in other nations that don’t have food assistance programs. Without food assistance programs, the rationale for measuring food insecurity may be less compelling as compared with deploying a broader set of indicators that measure multiple forms of household deprivation, as Alaimo (2021) contends.

Hunger is a crime: why words matter  45 While food deprivation and famine are conditions that stalk hundreds of millions of people worldwide, the question remains whether we are diverting attention away from more structural solutions. Sociologist Janet Poppendieck writes, “the repeated focus on hunger contributes to a distortion that reduces our ability to confront and solve the underlying problem” (Poppendieck in Fisher, 2017, p. 24). In other words, by focusing our measurement on food security, and more specifically food sufficiency, we may be setting up inadequate solutions, such as charity. Poppendieck contends that by defining the problem as food insecurity rather than inequality, we are fostering food charity and food assistance programs as the logical approach. Poppendieck’s reticence to embrace food as the solution to food insecurity may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is commonly accepted among academics and experienced practitioners that food is a solution to food security only in the most temporary and ephemeral way. A box of groceries or a debit card redeemable at the supermarket does not truly make a household food secure. The benefits or the box will eventually run out. In World Hunger: Twelve Myths, Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins (2015) show that the solution to food insecurity lies with increasing the political power of the poor. Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has contended that no famine has ever happened in a functioning democracy (Dreze and Sen, 1989). The food security survey does not measure disenfranchisement, dispossession, or social marginalization. Its questions only scratch the surface of the symptoms of a much deeper set of social injustices. While the measure does portray economic vulnerability, it does not lead us to solutions that address the deeper ills undergirding food insecurity. It categorizes but does not liberate. Professor Mariana Chilton of Drexel University values the food security measure as an important tool to backstop federal food assistance programs, but she also believes that the concept of food security is “devoid of humanity” and “full of the racism that underlies it.” She points out that the 2006 redefinition of food security by the National Academy of Sciences was made without the guidance of people with lived experience of hunger. Her research has shown that trauma in its many forms—adverse childhood experiences, domestic violence, addiction, sexual abuse—underlies the causes of very low food security, and runs very deep within women of color. And the food security survey does not reveal the presence of these nor lead to policy approaches that would address them. Like Dr. Angela Odoms-Young, Chilton sees the need to connect food security with the concept of structural violence, and in doing so to develop new measures that help us to better understand injustice and exploitation (Odoms-Young, 2018). She suggests the index of concentration at the extremes as a valuable tool to better understand social polarization and its relationship to food deprivation (Chambers et al., 2019; Chilton, 2021)

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has documented that the measurement tool only assesses part of the definition of food security, much less the broader set of conditions that underlie food insecurity. Globally, and in the US, we have dedicated a considerable amount of time and resources (26 years in the US) measuring food security through this survey instrument. Over time, the measurement tool itself has begun to define our understanding of the problem itself. One way in which this has played out is through the omission of any questions about how people accessed their food.

46  Handbook of food security and society In omitting this topic, the survey reshapes our understanding of food security such that those “socially unacceptable methods” of accessing food are normalized and made more acceptable. This omission allows the definition of food security to include degradation and humiliation from relying on charity, undercutting the inherent dignity of the poor and their right to food. The survey is a widely respected tool useful for measuring food sufficiency, and providing nuanced information on food deprivation at the household level. Yet, given the complexity of food security, its causes and solutions, it needs to be complemented by other measurement tools. By itself, it constrains the public’s understanding of hunger’s devastation to a sanitized measure tracked year by year on a chart. Yet, it has not now nor in the past portrayed the food insecure in any fashion other than as objects of pity rather than subjects of their own destiny, as Mariana Chilton (2021) hints at. As a conceptual framework measured by a survey instrument, food security has become a necessary but insufficient framework for understanding the plight of the impoverished in the 21st century. The COVID-19 pandemic made it a quasi-household word through media exposés of the impact of rapid and mass unemployment in 2020 on the livelihoods of “essential workers.” Yet its causes and solutions have been relegated to those that actually benefit capital, such as federal food programs providing over $100 billion annually to Big Food, and the food bank industry which redeems the sins of corporate America through accepting their donations of billions of dollars of food and money. Food security will hardly replace “Bread, Land and Freedom” as the rallying cry for the revolution.

REFERENCES Alaimo, K. (2021) Interview, June 9 Berg, J. (2021) Measuring Food Insecurity Webinar (CUNY), October 26. Available at https://​www​ .nycfoodpolicy​.org/​eventcalendar/​measuring​-food​-insecurity/​ (accessed April 20, 2023) Brones, A. (2018) “Food Apartheid: The Root of the Problem with America’s Groceries,” The Guardian, May 15 (online). Available at https://​www​.theguardian​.com/​society/​2018/​may/​15/​food​-apartheid​ -food​-deserts​-racism​-inequality​-america​-karen​-washington​-interview (accessed November 9, 2021) Cafiero, C. (2021) Measuring Food Insecurity Webinar (CUNY), October 26. Available at https://​www​ .nycfoodpolicy​.org/​eventcalendar/​measuring​-food​-insecurity/​ (accessed April 20, 2023) Chakrabortty, A. “The Problem is Poverty, however we label it,” The Guardian, January 21 (online). Available at https://​www​.theguardian​.com/​commentisfree/​2021/​jan/​21/​poverty​-food​-child​-fuel​ -britons​-action (accessed April 10, 2022) Chambers, B., R. Baer, M. McLemore, and L. Jelliffe-Pawlowski (2019) “Using Index of Concentration at the Extremes as Indicators of Structural Racism to Evaluate the Association with Preterm Birth and Infant Mortality,” Journal of Urban Health, 92(2), April, pp. 159–170. Available at https://​www​ .ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​pmc/​articles/​PMC6458187/​#:​~:​text​=​The​%20Index​%20of​%20Concentration​%20at​ ,fatal​%20assaults​%2C​%20and​%20adverse​%20birth (accessed November 9, 2021) Chilton, M. (2021) Interview, June 4 Congress.gov (n.d.) National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (online). Available at https://​www​.congress​.gov/​bill/​101st​-congress/​house​-bill/​1608 (accessed November 9, 2021) Dreze, J. and A. Sen. (1989) Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press End Hunger UK (2018) “If we can measure it, we can mend it” (online). Available at https://​www​ .endhungeruk​.org/​2018/​03/​06/​measure​-can​-mend/​ (accessed November 9, 2021) Fisher, A. (2017) Big Hunger. Cambridge: MIT Press Food Research Action Center (2021) FRAC Report Reveals How COVID-19 Exacerbated Disparities in America, September 10 (online). Available at https://​frac​.org/​news/​hungerpov​ertyhealth​report2021 (accessed November 9, 2021) Goodwin, S. (2021) Interview, June 7

Hunger is a crime: why words matter  47 Gunderson, C. (2021) Interview, June 4 Hartline-Grafton, H. (2021) “The Impact of Food Security on Health and Wellbeing” (online). Available at https://​frac​.org/​blog/​impact​-food​-insecurity​-health​-well​-conversation​-heather​-hartline​-grafton​-dr​ -ph​-r​-d (accessed November 9, 2021) Himmelgreen, D. and N. Romero-Daza (2010) “Eliminating ‘Hunger’ in the U.S.: Changes in Police Regarding the Measurement of Food Security,” Food and Foodways, 18(1–2), pp. 96–113 Lappe Moore, F. and J. Collins (2015) World Hunger: 10 Myths. New York: Grove Press Nestle, M. (2021) Interview, June 4 Nestle, M. and S. Guttmacher (1992) “Hunger in the United States: Rationale, Methods, and Policy Implications of State Hunger Surveys,” Journal of Nutrition Education, 24(1), Supplement 1, pp. 18S–22S Odoms-Young, A. (2018) “Examining the Impact of Structural Racism on Food Insecurity: Implications for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities,” Family Community Health, April–June, pp. S3–S6 (online). Available at https://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​pmc/​articles/​PMC5823283/​ (accessed November 9, 2021) Pickett, K. and R. Wilkinson (2010) The Spirit Level. New York: Penguin Books Poppendieck, J. (2021) Interview April 19 Rabbit, M. (2021) Interview, June 4 Riches, G. (2021) Interview, June 4 Tarasuk, V. (2021) Interview, June 2 USDA Economic Research Service (n.d.) “Measurement” (online). Available at: https://​www​.ers​.usda​ .gov/​topics/​food​-nutrition​-assistance/​food​-security​-in​-the​-us/​measurement​.aspx (accessed November 9, 2021)

3. Challenging corporate charity: food commons as a response to food insecurity Tara Kenny and Colin Sage

INTRODUCTION To address the global challenge of food insecurity, public policy must support radical food system transformation, consider complexity and food system interactions with other sectors and systems, be based on broader understandings of hunger and malnutrition, and adopt diverse solutions to address context-specific issues (HLPE [High Level Panel of Experts], 2020). Prior to Covid-19, progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 2 was already off course, with one in three people experiencing some form of malnutrition (Nature Editorial, 2020). The fallout from Covid-19 resulted in a significant spike in food insecurity across the globe, which is now being exacerbated further by the illegal invasion of Ukraine (Lang and McKee, 2022). However, widespread recognition of the multiple food and social system failures along with calls for radical food system transformation predates these unprecedented events (Swinburn et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019). Food system transformation is dependent on altering ideologies and social practices, developing new values, and reflecting on principles that can assist this transition (Duncan et al., 2022). Reclaiming food as a commons is a principle that can guide this transition ideologically and structurally because it demands attention to the prevailing governance of food that has become dominated by powerful corporate interests while resulting in the exclusion of the vast majority of stakeholders in the food system: eaters. Reclaiming food as a commons challenges the notion of food as a commodity, access to which is largely determined by an ability to pay (Vivero-Pol, 2017). Once we are reminded that food is an essential biological necessity – as vital as air and water to human existence – then a corresponding array of other assumptions that have shaped and underpinned contemporary food systems, including nutritionism and neoliberalism, falls sharply into focus (Nisbett et al., 2022). In this chapter, we critically evaluate the contribution that rethinking food as a commons might make to our understanding of food insecurity. We do so, following a brief conceptual elaboration of the commons idea, with reference to the growing sector of charitable food distribution in rich countries. With rising numbers of people presenting themselves at food banks to avail themselves of emergency rations while business donors and social entrepreneurs celebrate the increasing volumes of food ‘saved’ from waste streams and feeding the hungry, it would appear that this ‘win–win’ solution was here to stay. However, there is growing evidence that a different approach, based upon principles around the Right to Food and involving practices that speak to the notion of food as a commons, is beginning to gain traction. We argue that such initiatives, including harnessing concepts such as conviviality, are vital if we are to reimagine a food system ensuring food security by delivering healthy and sustainable diets for all. 48

Challenging corporate charity  49

FOOD AS A COMMONS The idea of the commons has been with us since antiquity (Vivero-Pol et al., 2019). The term applies to a resource – whether grazing or foraging land, forest, inshore fisheries, heritage seeds, etc. – that is held and managed collectively in favour of the common good. Invariably this has meant not only ensuring equitable arrangements now, but also in the interests of future generations. Traditionally, this duty of care not only was extended to ‘productive’ resources that benefitted human users but, as we see in the cultural practices of surviving indigenous communities, included recognition that other forms of life also enjoyed use rights to these resources through co-existence. However, as Bollier reminds us, while a commons includes physical elements, it is better regarded as a paradigm that is constituted by the indivisible and interdependent existence best expressed as: resource + community + set of social protocols (Bollier, 2014). Elsewhere he has suggested that commons might be better understood as a verb than as a noun: where ‘commoning’ is an active social process (Helfrich & Bollier, 2015). To understand the commons, however, one must first acknowledge the history of its first and brutal expropriation from the hands of those who nurtured it. Between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries in the UK, a large number of parliamentary acts were passed that established legal property rights to land much of which had been effectively held in common by rural communities. These Acts of Enclosure were part of the conditions that enabled the development of capitalism in England as not just turning land into a commodity that could be bought and sold; it had secondly to be owned by a class willing to develop its productive assets for profit and the market. A third factor, arguably the most critical of all, was to ‘free’ a great mass of the rural population from its means of subsistence and to effectively force them to the towns and cities where the emerging industries – coal mining, iron making, textile manufacturing – could use their labour. This process was facilitated by the Poor Law of 1834, which accelerated this rural to urban migration (Hobsbawm, 1975). The enclosure of common land has continued in other countries ever since, and over the last fifteen years the process of expropriation and privatisation by sovereign funds and other wealthy investors has come to be known as ‘land-grabbing’. The commons, then, can be viewed as antithetical to the principles of capitalism, where all is held in private ownership, where productive activity is designed to enhance personal wealth, and where asset-less individuals must work how and where they can to be remunerated with wages that are exchanged for the goods – food, shelter, clothing – that keep them alive. Such essential principles have come to form the bedrock of economics from which occasional forays have cautioned against any ‘foolish’ suggestion that common or collective ownership arrangements might offer a just and equitable alternative (Hardin, 1968; Bollier, 2014). However, dissatisfaction with capitalism has been growing amongst an increasingly diverse range of social movements and while it is hazardous to attribute a singular label – anti-globalisation – to the extremely heterogeneous movements that have emerged since the events in Seattle in 1999 and Occupy Wall Street, this does provide a basis from which to trace some of the creative responses to capitalism’s failings. Recovering the idea of the commons has been part of this process and now constitutes one of the important conceptual tools in a repertoire of alternative thinking that has moved from simply opposing the status quo to proposing anti-utilitarian – if occasionally utopian – measures that might be collectively labelled as ‘degrowth’ (D’Alisa

50  Handbook of food security and society et al., 2015). Rethinking the food system is high on this agenda for change and where food security itself becomes an important topic for reappraisal. Following Vivero-Pol (2019), we agree that food holds multiple meanings that can be constructed and reconstructed according to those powerful interests that dominate the narrative, policy space and technologies. At the time of writing, at least within most of the wealthier countries, the prevailing obsession is one of cheap and convenient food given that a small number of powerful corporate actors effectively dominate the manufacture, supply and retail of food and frequently remind us of these features. While most customers probably welcome the fact that their weekly shop now takes a smaller proportion of household earnings than ever before (notwithstanding the current rise in prices), fewer are likely to ask why, given its indispensable role in human survival, access to food is determined by the ability to pay. This characteristic of exchange has served to rather overwhelm and render inconsequential in public discourse other long-standing, unmonetised, attributes of food. So, in addition to considering food as a tradeable good and as an essential requirement for human survival, Vivero-Pol (2019) identifies the following additional attributes: ● food as cultural determinant, shaping societal and individual identity, and key to social relationships; ● food as human right, designated under international law as an entitlement to all citizens and where, under no circumstances, should it be denied to a person; ● food as natural resource: although paradoxically food is rivalrous – eating an apple means it is not available for another to eat – apples are replenished by nature (or artificially by technologies), so providing conditions are maintained the supply of food is not a constraint, although access may be as a consequence of physical or economic exclusion; ● food as a public good – that is, an outcome of a deliberate policy choice to address an evident public need and conceivably underpinned by legislation and funding. Arguably these six attributes are not necessarily an exhaustive list, and a case might be made to regard food as an instrument of health and well-being. Moreover, food is associated with an enormous store of knowledge, some of which has been generated in recent decades by Western science, but the greater part established through experimentation, observation, selection and communication over many thousands of years by and through our ancestors. However, collectively they demonstrate the multi-dimensional nature of food that extends beyond its primary valuation through the market, and in the context of food security the fourth bullet point above – food as a public good – should be regarded as particularly relevant.

FOOD AS CORPORATE CHARITY It is important to recognise that the narrative framing food as a commodity is not only deeply embedded in socio-economic life in most wealthy countries; it is also quite accommodating in harnessing and neutralising potentially critical vocabulary. For example, although a food culture around culinary traditions and convivial eating practices (family meals) may appear to be in robust health in countries such as Italy and France, corporate interests still dominate across these countries’ food systems and happily sustain a sense of timeless continuity in national diets despite the rising proportion of processed foods. We can also witness the ways in which food system interests – especially those associated with agricultural inputs and

Challenging corporate charity  51 large-scale farming – have sought to appropriate terms such as sustainability and regeneration (Bord Bia, 2021). Moreover, such reassuring tropes deflect attention from the widening social inequalities whereby increasing numbers of households are struggling to put food on their tables. Increasingly, in circumstances where the ‘consumer’ does not have the resources to buy, charitable responses are evoked and excess food, a necessary and “intended consequence” (Messner et al., 2020: 809) of the corporate food regime, is deployed to fill the gap. Feeding people, by ensuring access to resources, ought to be regarded as a responsibility for public policy (HLPE, 2020), yet across the globe, this responsibility is progressively becoming a corporate matter (Riches, 2018). Although the pandemic led to increasing numbers seeking charitable support, the rise in demand must be recognised in the context of conditions that preceded Covid-19 (Spring et al., 2022). The food banking model has spread rapidly across the globe and now plays an essential role in both the “roll back and roll-out of Neoliberal welfare policy”, and ultimately has distracted attention from the troubling relationship between food waste, poverty and the policies that strengthen the production of both (Lohnes, 2021: 352). While food surplus and food insecurity tend to be presented as a paradox (Moon, 2021), in truth a more accurate framing would be that of mutualism. Of the four pillars customarily used to describe food security, availability is regarded as necessary but not sufficient for access; access as necessary but not sufficient for effective utilisation; and stability as a cross-cutting factor that is necessary for the others to hold (Clapp et al., 2022). Arguably this hierarchy has served to privilege availability and has placed emphasis on producing more food as key to feeding the hungry. This drive to continuously increasing output – the massification of food – explains the growing structural surpluses that have come to characterise industrial food systems in rich countries. Yet as incomes fray as a consequence of market perturbations and people’s purchasing capacity declines, they demonstrably lack access to that food. It is under these circumstances where charitable initiatives have emerged, although clearly under circumstances where key stakeholders in this arrangement exercise no voice or agency beyond presenting themselves as deserving poor worthy of philanthropic support. Agency – recently proposed, together with sustainability, as an additional pillar to make a more robust definition of food security (Clapp et al., 2022) – can be regarded as the ability to express, exercise, and execute personal views and decisions in the interests of oneself and wider community well-being. However, it extends beyond the idea that people ought to have a voice in matters of food security but, rather, become effective stakeholders within food systems, a change that will clearly unsettle existing inequalities in the distribution of power. It has been suggested that there are two broad types of surplus food redistribution: the type that challenges and the type that brokers. The ‘challenger’ model is characterised by “more radical politics, accompanied by less conditional and more plural and collective means of accessing and sharing food” (Midgely, 2020: 354). The ‘brokerage’ model, in contrast, appears to operate as an effective partnership between the food industry and the charitable and voluntary sector, best represented by food banks channelling surplus products to the food insecure (Midgely, 2020), and which today has become the dominant model of addressing hunger in many rich countries. This model is, of course, deeply embedded in the neoliberal narrative where food is only ever a commodity – but where philanthropic activities of well-meaning companies can enable the hungry to eat. Framing the issue of food redistribution as a ‘win–win’ solution to the problems of food waste and poverty – thereby claiming collateral ownership of the sustainability agenda too while buffing up the image of corporate social responsibility – it is unsurprising to find powerful corporate interests well beyond the food system jostling for

52  Handbook of food security and society entry. Recent advocates for ‘ending hunger’ include Enterprise Rent-A-Car Foundation and the construction plant machinery company, Caterpillar: an interesting array of donors can be seen on the Global FoodBanking Network website (GFN, 2022). The corporatisation of food banks has been well addressed by Fisher (2017) and Riches (2018). A good example of the brokerage model, or arguably a ‘brokerage plus’ model that emerged during the pandemic, can be found in developments in the charitable food sector in Ireland and mirrored in many other countries. In Ireland, FoodCloud, a social enterprise and founder of Ireland’s first food banking network, redistributed 77% more food in 2020 than in 2019 and its goal is to increase volumes distributed by 15% per year over the next three years (FoodCloud, 2021). Recently announced partnerships include McDonalds, the world’s largest fast-food chain (Irish Times, 2021), and a notable feature of new donors and products has seen an expanding array of ultra-processed foods. This has partly been disguised by a narrative celebrating a ‘community’ call to action and use of associated tropes of selfless generosity. In May 2020, Nestle Ireland were celebrated for ‘feeding kindness’ owing to their donation of “80,000 bowls of cereal, 23,000 easter eggs and 19,000 bars of confectionary” (FoodCloud, 2020). Two months earlier, Danone had partnered with FoodCloud in a ‘Give our communities your best shot’ campaign based on the goal of donating one million Actimel cultured yogurt shots across Ireland and the UK. To participate, consumers simply needed to purchase one pack, log into the Actimel website and opt to donate a second pack to a community of their choosing. This campaign continues today and is called ‘Drink it for your community’ (Actimel, 2022). In September 2020, Ireland witnessed its first ever official national food appeal led by FoodCloud and Ireland’s leading retailers, encouraging further instore purchases and donations (Sunderland, 2020). In April 2021, Mars Ireland launched its ‘Food for change’ campaign based on donations of ‘60,000 meals’ comprising Dolmio and Uncle Ben’s branded products (FoodCloud, 2021). As UN Special Rapporteur Michael Fakhri is reported to have said, “we see the same corporate players who have caused irreparable damage to our health, climate and environment trying to create a new game, gain more influence and carve out new economic opportunities” (Lakhani, 2021). It is clear that the brokerage model rests upon food waste management not prevention, ignores the structural nature of food surplus production and overconsumption (Messner et al., 2020), and is increasingly moving seamlessly into non-surplus, ultra-processed food promotion and distribution. Yet demands for greater agency in how people seek to feed themselves – not simply the right to be fed – are growing, and an emerging diversity of practices at local level, bundled together under the ‘Challenger’ rubric, demonstrates that recovering the notion of food as a commons may be a powerful tool in reshaping narratives.

CHALLENGING CHARITABLE FOOD: COMMONS, COMMUNITY, CONVIVIALITY A first step in reframing food insecurity must be to situate it as a social problem as well as an economic one: ultimately, low and precarious wages and inadequate social safety nets are what trap many in long-term poverty. Charitable donations of food can undermine people’s personal dignity, deepen stigma and exacerbate a felt sense of social exclusion (Van der Horst et al., 2014). It also reflects the individualisation of solutions where donor recipients become ‘deserving’ consumers in a parallel charitable food system equally under the control of pow-

Challenging corporate charity  53 erful companies. Fortunately, in moving from using ‘leftover food for left behind people’ (Riches, 2018: 2) to enabling people to better nourish themselves, a range of initiatives has begun to emerge that challenges the existing top-down model and injects a strong dose of agency into the system. Emerging buyer cooperatives, social supermarkets and food clubs are amongst recent initiatives that bring people together. A common feature is that they generally require participants to make a small weekly contribution (upwards from €1) reflecting a differentiated ability to pay but critically engaging them as members. While such initiatives may still work with donated surplus there is generally a more discriminating selection of the products accepted, as members are able to exercise choice in what their box contains. Growing numbers of pantries, larders and fridges within communities draw in a widening roster of actors – from conventional retailers to local restaurants and farmers – able to contribute to their stocking. Many individuals now cook extra food that can be packed in foil and placed in a fridge, while neighbourhood kitchens batch cooking healthy meals by and for community members is a way of bringing people together to collectively respond to a shared predicament. Such spaces do more than provide food, however, as they can also teach important cooking skills to those without exposure to this experience. While there are instances within the brokerage model where similar processes occur, this is dependent on the motivations, ideas and access to resources of the receiving organisations (Kenny and Sage, 2019, 2021). Nonetheless, many of these initiatives – slowly spreading within and between cities in a rather rhizomatic manner – are revealing the inherently social nature of food and its capacity to restore a sense of mutual responsibility and conviviality. Yet, the questions remain as to whether these arrangements, while undoubtedly positive, can, or are designed to, tackle the structures excluding people from food systems in the first place. Do these arrangements challenge governments to assume responsibility for ensuring the right to food? The notion of food as a commons encourages us to consider non-market responses to issues of food insecurity, as is already the case with regard to healthcare and education where access is not dependent on income but provision undertaken by the state. In practice, this requires a shift in thinking around the governance of food, but there is evidence of progress here. In March 2020 an independent report by the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (GCSA) to the European Commission recommended that to achieve a sustainable food system, “food must be considered a common good rather than a consumer good” (GCSA, 2020: 7). While the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, for which this report was a contribution, did not address the power asymmetries that have locked in the economic framing of food as a tradeable good (Jackson et al., 2021), it nonetheless signifies a progressive shift in thinking that aligns with similar clarion calls such as those for a ‘Common Food Policy’ (IPES, 2019). This call for a common food policy is underpinned by the principle that public money should be used for public goods and this presents one tangible and actionable goal when working through how, if food was reclaimed as a common good, this would translate on the ground in response to food insecurity. It would require addressing poverty in a more fundamental way than it is currently through a patchwork of social welfare benefits for which claimants must demonstrate eligibility and ‘deservingness’. One alternative model is that of Basic Income whereby each citizen would receive from the state a payment sufficient to live at a minimal but dignified standard of economic security and which would be universal and unconditional on the performance of labour. Advocates argue that this Basic Income model could also include

54  Handbook of food security and society non-monetary benefits such as food and in this way begin to decouple human sustenance from the commodity economy. However, state provision is not in itself sufficient and needs to be accompanied by efforts to reconnect conviviality and food as part of a wider ecological transition. Convivialism – a mode of living together that values human and non-human relationships (Convivialist Manifesto, 2014) – may be an essential part of re-establishing food as a commons. Community-based initiatives provide evidence here, for example when local growing projects recover an appreciation of the environmental basis of food. They also help to disrupt the atomistic ways in which the economic system manages consumers, bringing to life a messier but more collective response to issues of common concern such as food insecurity.

CONCLUSIONS Ultimately, food system transformation requires a shared sense of mutual care, where the language of individualistic consumerism is replaced by a commitment to food citizenship and conviviality, and where food security for all is underpinned by the right to food and a vision of commensality – the practice of eating together – within a food commons rather than a landscape dominated by charitable donations.

REFERENCES Actimel. 2022. Drink It For Your Community [online]. Available at: https://​actimel​-communitydonations​ .co​.uk/​[accessed 12 April 2022]. Bollier, D. 2014. Think Like a Commoner: A short introduction to the life of the commons. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society. Bord Bia. 2021. Sustainable Diets: A key to food system transformation. The Origin Green Ambassadors Global Insights Reports 2021 [online]. Available at: https://​www​.origingreen​.ie/​globalassets/​origin​ -green/​og​-publications/​final​-reports/​oga​-global​-insights​-reports​-2021​.pdf [accessed 12 April 2022]. Clapp, J., Moseley, W., Burlingame, B., Termine, P. 2022. The Case for a Six-Dimensional Food Security Framework. Food Policy 106, 102164. Convivialist Manifesto. 2014. Convivialist Manifesto: A declaration of interdependence. Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research. D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., Kallis, G., eds. 2015. Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Abingdon: Routledge. Duncan, J., DeClerck, F., Báldi, A., et al. 2022. Democratic Directionality for Transformative Food Systems Research. Nature Food 3, 183–186. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s43016​-022​-00479​-x Fisher, A. 2017. Big Hunger: The unholy alliance between corporate America and anti-hunger groups. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. FoodCloud. 2020. Feeding Kindness: Nestlé Ireland supports FoodCloud’s emergency food and funding appeal through non-surplus food donations [online] FoodCloud. Available at: https://​food​.cloud/​ news/​feeding​-kindness​-nestle​-ireland​-supports​-foodclouds​-emergency​-food​-and​-funding​-appeal​ -through​-non​-surplus​-food​-donations [accessed 12 April 2022]. FoodCloud. 2021. Food Waste Hurts our Planet: Help us fight it. FoodCloud Annual Report 2020, Dublin. GFN. 2022. Our Corporate and Foundation Partners: The Global FoodBanking Network [online]. Available at: https://​www​.foodbanking​.org/​who​-we​-are/​our​-corporate​-and​-foundation​-partners/​ [accessed 12 April 2022].

Challenging corporate charity  55 Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. 2020. Towards a Sustainable Food System: Moving from food as a commodity to food as more of a common good. Independent expert report, Publications Office [online]. Available at: https://​data​.europa​.eu/​doi/​10​.2777/​37244 [accessed 12 April 2022]. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://​doi: 10.1126/ science.162.3859.1243 Helfrich, S., Bollier, D. 2015. Commons. In G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, G. Kallis (eds), Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 75–78. HLPE. 2020. Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. Hobsbawm, E. 1975. The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. IPES. 2019. Towards a Common Food Policy for the European Union: The policy reform and realignment that is required to build sustainable food systems in Europe. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems [online]. Available at: https://​www​.ipes​-food​.org/​_img/​upload/​files/​CFP​ _FullReport​.pdf [accessed 13 April 2022]. Irish Times. 2021. McDonald’s to Strengthen Ties with Irish Food Charity [online]. Available at: https://​ www​.irishtimes​.com/​business/​mcdonald​-s​-to​-strengthen​-ties​-with​-irish​-food​-charity​-1​.4657236 [accessed 12 April 2022]. Jackson, P., Rivera Ferre, M. G., Candel, J., et al. 2021. Food as a Commodity, Human Right or Common Good. Nature Food 2, 132–134. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​s43016​-021​-00245​-5 Kenny, T., Sage, C. 2019. Food Surplus as Charitable Provision: Obstacles to re-introducing food as a commons. In: J. Vivero-Pol, T. Ferrando, O. De Schutter and U. Mattei (eds), Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 281–295. Kenny, T., Sage, C. 2021. Surplus Food Redistribution and Healthy, Sustainable Diets: Exploring the contradictions of charitable food provisioning. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food 27(1), 71–78. Lakhani, N. 2021. ‘Corporate Colonization’: Small producers boycott UN food summit. The Guardian, 23 September. Lang, T., McKee, M. 2022. The Reinvasion of Ukraine Threatens Global Food Supplies. British Medical Journal 376, o676. Lohnes, D. 2021. Regulating Surplus: Charity and the legal geographies of food waste enclosure. Agriculture and Human Values, 38, 351–363. Messner, R., Richards, C., Johnson, H. 2020. The Prevention Paradox: Food waste prevention and the quandary of systemic surplus production. Agriculture and Human Values 37, 805–817. Midgely, J. 2020. Surplus Food Redistribution. In: C. Reynolds, T. Soma, C. Spring and J. Lazell (eds), Routledge Handbook of Food Waste. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 349–362. Moon, L. 2021. Opinion: Tackling SDG2 and SDG12.3—how food banks help address the paradox of hunger and food waste. Devex [online]. Available at: https://​www​.devex​.com/​news/​opinion​-tackling​ -sdg2​-and​-sdg12​-3​-how​-food​-banks​-help​-address​-the​-paradox​-of​-hunger​-and​-food​-waste​-99199 [accessed 12 April 2022]. Nature Editorials. 2020. Time to revise the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 583, 331–332. doi: https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​d41586​-020​-02002​-3 Nisbett, N., Harris, J., Backholer, K., Baker, P., Jernigan, V., Friel, S. 2022. Holding No-one Back: The Nutrition Equity Framework in theory and practice. Global Food Security 32, 100605. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.gfs​.2021​.100605 Riches, G. 2018. Food Bank Nations. Abingdon: Routledge. Spring, C., Garthwaite, K., Fisher, A. 2022. Containing Hunger, Contesting Injustice? Exploring the transnational growth of foodbanking – and counter-responses – before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Food Ethics 7, 6. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s41055​-022​-00099​-y Sunderland, C., 2020. Environmental Charity Launches National Food Appeal in Ireland. Irish Examiner [online]. Available at: https://​www​.irishexaminer​.com/​news/​arid​-40042874​.html​#:​~:​text​=​ People​%20in​%20Ireland​%20are​%20being​,the​%20target​%20of​%20280​%2C000​%20meals [accessed 12 April 2022].

56  Handbook of food security and society Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., et al. 2019. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. The Lancet 23(393), February, 791–846. van der Horst, H., Pascucci, S., Bol, W. 2014. The ‘Dark Side’ of Food Banks? Exploring emotional responses of food bank receivers in the Netherlands. British Food Journal 116(9), 1506–1520. Vivero-Pol, J. L. 2017. Food as Commons or Commodity? Exploring the links between normative valuations and agency in food transition. Sustainability 9(3), 442. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su9030442. Vivero-Pol, J. L. 2019. The Idea of Food as a Commons: Multiple understandings for multiple dimensions of food. In J. L. Vivero-Pol, T. Ferando, O. De Schutter and U. Mattei (eds), Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 25–41. Vivero-Pol, J. L., Ferando, T., De Schutter, O., Mattei, U. 2019. Introduction: The food commons are coming…. In J. L. Vivero-Pol, T. Ferando, O. De Schutter, U. Mattei (eds), Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–21. Willett, W., Rockstrom, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., et al. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393(10170), 447–492.

PART II THE RIGHT TO FOOD

4. Championing the right to food in South Africa: the Dullah Omar Institute’s experience Ebenezer Durojaye and Aisosa Jennifer Omoruyi

INTRODUCTION While countries strive towards the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), aimed at ending hunger by 2030, food insecurity remains a huge challenge across the world as millions of people go to bed hungry, including children. Socio-economic conditions, conflict, climate change, and natural hazards had been increasingly impacting access to food before COVID-19, and the situation has been further compounded by the onset of the pandemic, making the realisation of the SDGs somewhat uncertain and a distant dream (Sinha, 2021; Paslakis, Dimitropoulos & Katzman, 2021). The situation is more precarious for people in poor regions of the world, including Africa, as many countries are facing heightened levels of food insecurity, reversing gains made in previous years. The war in Ukraine, which has resulted in global food price hikes, has again intensified food insecurity problems, even worsening the situation caused by COVID-19 (Otekunrin et al., 2020; World Bank, 2022). This chapter outlines the key legal arguments for food security, including litigation. Footnotes are provided for the legal judgments, as is the standard practice for legal footnotes, while other references are provided in standard Harvard format. While the right to food is constitutionally guaranteed and South Africa is party to international and regional human rights instruments on this right, the enjoyment of it remains a pipe dream for millions of the people, and has been worsened by the pandemic (Hunt et al., 2021; Odunitan-Wayas, Alaba & Lambert, 2021). Like other countries across the world, South Africa has not been spared the impact of COVID-19 on food and nutrition security (StatsSA, 2019). Statistics South Africa reported that in 2020, almost 23.6% of South Africans were affected by moderate to severe food insecurity while almost 14.9% experienced severe food insecurity compared with 2019 when it was 17.3% and 7% respectively (StatsSA, 2022). The food insecurity is more intense for people in informal areas, in rural communities or of low social status. The enjoyment of the right to food is further compounded by the legacy of apartheid, deep inequality and high unemployment rates. Despite several laws, policies and programmes to address food insecurity, millions of South Africans are still food insecure for several reasons, including lack of implementation of policies, accountability challenges, and lack of integration of food security programmes, among others. There have been efforts from civil society, academia and other stakeholders campaigning for the right to food in South Africa aiming to push government institutions to address food insecurity especially among vulnerable and marginalised communities. These efforts have been intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen a deepening of food insecurity for households because of containment measures that affected sources of income for many. Prominent among these was the case of Equal Education and Others v Minister of Basic 58

Championing the right to food in South Africa  59 Education,1 in which the decision of the government to halt the National School Nutrition Programme2 following school closures during COVID-19 lockdown was challenged. This case was instituted to compel the Department of Basic Education to continue providing food to learners during COVID-19 lockdown, as many children relied on this as a source of food daily. However, the harsh realities of the lockdown, with many parents losing jobs, meant that children who relied on the school feeding programme would go hungry. The Court’s decision ordering the continuation of the programme reinforces the link between rights of the child to basic nutrition and education; and also that retrogressive measures even during a pandemic constitute violation of these rights. In 2015, the Socio-Economic Rights Project (SERP) of the Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Rule of Law (the DOI for short)3 launched its right to food project supported by the Centre of Excellence on Food Security. The emphasis was on adopting a rights-based approach to realising the right to food of vulnerable and marginalised groups in South Africa and ensuring accountability of state and non-state actors towards the realisation of the right. With a combination of research and advocacy, the DOI has attempted to address the challenges militating against the realisation of the right to food in South Africa. On this project, the DOI has organised several roundtables, webinars, and workshops featuring stakeholders from government and private sectors and civil society, as well as academics and private persons.4 The work of the DOI in this space has mostly involved issues relating to access to safe and nutritious food especially for the vulnerable and marginalised, as well as holding the government and other private actors accountable for the violation of the right. There has been a lot of emphasis by South African civil society on promoting the right to food of various vulnerable groups in South Africa, and the rights of children stand tall among them. This chapter discusses the activities of the DOI in advancing the right to food in South

Equal Education and Others v Minister of Basic Education 2020 (1) SA 198 (GP). The Department of Basic Education (DBE) handles the National School Nutrition Programme, which reaches over 9 million learners aimed at alleviating short-term hunger and improving concentration, as well as encouraging school attendance and retention. See Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME), DBE (2009). 3 The DOI is a research institute based at the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. For over 30 years it has been involved in quality research, advocacy and teaching on various issues in relation to human rights, good governance, democracy and constitutionalism. Currently, the DOI is made up of 6 units including the Children’s Rights Project, the Womxn and Democracy Initiatives, the Applied Constitutional Laboratory Project, the Multilevel Government, the African Criminal Justice Reform and the Socio-Economic Rights Project. The SERP has long experience in research and teaching to ensure the realisation of socio-economic rights for vulnerable and marginalised groups within South Africa and Africa as a whole. It focuses on issues such as the right to health, food, water and sanitation, housing, and social security. The Project has played an important role in shaping the jurisprudence of socio-economic rights in the country by acting as amicus curiae in some of the landmark cases on socio-economic rights such as the Grootboom and Treatment Action Campaign cases. At the regional level, SERP has continued to provide technical support to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other UN Special Mechanisms by way of developing important norms and standards on socio-economic rights. See https://​dullahomarinstitute​ .org​.za/​(accessed 25 April 2023). 4 Details of these events are often published in the event/update section of the Economic and Social Rights Review. The ESR Review is a quarterly journal published by the Dullah Omar Institute. It features articles that address a range of socio-economic rights issues in and beyond South Africa. See https://​ journals​.co​.za/​journal/​esrrev/​contact (accessed 25 April 2023). 1 2

60  Handbook of food security and society Africa. It notes that DOI research has focused on the right to food of students in tertiary institutions, a vulnerable group whose challenges in accessing food sometimes go unnoticed given that their problems are deemed the business of the university. In terms of accountability, the DOI in research and advocacy has emphasised the importance of litigation in holding government accountable; the need for a guiding legislation on the right to food; a designated institution of government to address issues relating to food in place of the currently fragmented processes; as well as the role of the Chapter 9 institutions especially the South African Human Rights Commission in this regard. It has also emphasised empowering people especially those from marginalised communities to understand their right to food, the duty bearers, the ways in which the right has been violated over time and more importantly the channels through which to insist on the respect, protection and fulfilment of this right. The discussion in the rest of the chapter highlights the extent of these issues in South Africa and the work of the DOI in that regard.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW The right to food is recognised in several international and regional human rights instruments, both specific and general. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) contains a framework for the recognition of the right to adequate food including freedom from hunger.5 The provision imposes obligations on states parties to take necessary measures, including specific programmes, aimed at ensuring improved methods of production, conservation and distribution of food; and ensuring an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.6 The former UN Special Rapporteur has defined the right to food as the right to have ‘regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear’ (Ziegler, 2008, p. 9). The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 12 has noted that the right to adequate food is realised when ‘every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement’ (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999, para. 6). The former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food has noted that critical elements of the right to food including availability, accessibility, adequacy and sustainability must be built into legal entitlements and secured through relevant accountability mechanisms (De Schutter, 2014). In Africa, although not contained in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria,7 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has implied the right to food particularly in the rights to life, health, and the right to economic, social and cultural development (Article 22). The Commission also emphasised its interrelatedness with the right Article 11(1–2) ICESCR. Article 11(2)(a and b). 7 Communication 155/96, (2001) African Human Rights Law Reports 60 (ACHPR 2001), paras 64–67. 5 6

Championing the right to food in South Africa  61 to dignity as well as being essential for the enjoyment and fulfilment of such other rights as health, education, work and political participation.8 In this vein, the protection of the right to life is seen to include eliminating threats such as malnutrition,9 and lack of adequate food has been considered as a form of inhuman and degrading treatment (Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2015).

THE RIGHT TO FOOD IN SOUTH AFRICA While the South African Constitution of 1996 is recognised as one of the few constitutions in the world that explicitly guarantees the right to adequate food and nutrition, the realisation of this right remains illusory for many people. The Constitution guarantees everyone a right of access to sufficient food;10 every child a right to basic nutrition;11 and every detained person and prisoner a right to adequate nutrition.12 In line with South Africa’s international obligations and as required by the Constitution (Nkrumah, 2019),13 the government has an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil this right,14 and to take reasonable legislative and other steps, within its available resources towards the realisation of the right like other socio-economic rights.15 The Court in Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education held that the state is obligated to ensure the realisation of the right to food of vulnerable and marginalised groups, and taking retrogressive steps is at variance with realising the right.16 The Food and Agriculture Organization has noted critical complementary approaches to legislating the right to food, such as inclusion in the Constitution; developing a framework law on the right to food; as well as review of other sectoral laws that affect the enjoyment of the right to food to ensure compatibility with the right (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2009). In addition to the constitutional provisions on the right to food, the South African government has in place policies that are critical to realising the right to food at the national level, such as the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy 2013. During his visit to South Africa, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food noted that the problem with the realisation of the right in the country is not so much about a lack of laws or policies but rather poor implementation of the laws, policies and programmes, and weak accountability mechanisms to ensure the realisation of the right (De Schutter, 2012). He recommended to the government to take a more holistic approach towards ensuring the realisation of the right to food in the country. He specifically calls on the government to work towards the enactment of a right to food legislation in the country. This sentiment has been echoed by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, during its concluding observations to the initial report of South Africa in 2018 (Knipe, 2020). The Committee had called on the government to address the barriers to SERAC Case para 65. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life CCPR/C/GC/36 Para 26. 10 Section 27(1)(b). 11 Section 28(1)(c). 12 Section 35(2)(e). 13 Section 7(2) of the Constitution. 14 CESCR General Comment No. 12 para 15; Section 7(2) of the Constitution. 15 Section 27(2). 16 Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education 2021 (1) SA 198 (GP). 8 9

62  Handbook of food security and society redistribution of food and expedite action towards the enactment of right to food legislation (De Schutter, 2012). In the same vein, several policies and initiatives aimed at addressing food insecurity similarly prioritise addressing hunger and are less focused on ensuring access to adequate nutrition across the life cycle (Department of Health [DoH], Department of Social Development [DoSD], & DPME, 2014). Also, some laws and policies in South Africa, including those related to economic growth, are at variance with the enjoyment of the right to food particularly in terms of curtailing the activities of the food industry that impact on access to nutritious food.

THE WORK OF THE DOI IN CHAMPIONING THE RIGHT TO FOOD IN SOUTH AFRICA The Right to Food of Vulnerable Groups: Students in Tertiary Institutions in South Africa In 2017, following an exploratory roundtable probing issues as well as possible solutions to student hunger (Durojaye, 2017), the DOI launched its Access to Food for Students Project focused on realising the right to food of students in South African tertiary institutions. The rationale for this project is that hunger and food insecurity is a reality among students in tertiary institutions. While initiatives exist to address hunger and food insecurity on campuses, there is yet to be a national and sustained effort to address this issue from a policy perspective. Thus, this project advocates a policy framework to address hunger among students in tertiary institutions. Using a rights-based approach, the project aims at ensuring that the government, private actors and other stakeholders play important roles in realising access to food for students in tertiary institutions. Engagement between government departments and other stakeholders will ensure effective deliberations that will produce widely accepted policies and programmes in response to the students’ food needs. The food insecurity situation on campuses mirrors the challenge with hunger in wider society affecting young people. Studies within South Africa have demonstrated the extent of this problem in some South African universities despite the limited attention it has received over time (Rudolph et al., 2018). Students in tertiary institutions are often perceived as an elite group whose minimum basic needs are met (Wegerif, Adeniyi, 2019). The South African government has in place policy initiatives and safety nets such as social grants to economically disempowered persons to address poverty and hunger although their adequacy and effectiveness is arguable. Private actors such as manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and non-profit organisations also make efforts daily to address manifestations of chronic hunger in society through the establishment of initiatives such as food banks and soup kitchens. These initiatives notwithstanding, food insecurity is a reality for many South African students for several reasons. Most students are not yet employed but no longer fall within the age bracket of persons entitled to social grants from the government and are therefore wholly reliant on income from parents or other caregivers, which is split among other contesting needs. Unlike school learners, they do not have access to a regular feeding scheme such as the National School Nutrition Programme. Also, inefficiency and poor coordination on the part of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme result in long delays with disbursement of funds, and the inadequacy of food vouchers has further intensified the situation. The high cost of living

Championing the right to food in South Africa  63 coupled with inflation, and increases in food prices and transportation costs all have implications for food insecurity on campuses. This in turn can have implications on drop-out rates and overall academic performance of students. Most students affected by hunger on campuses are from historically disadvantaged backgrounds or households that rely on social grants that are often inadequate (Wegerif, Adeniyi, 2019). Hunger among young people because of social inequality, besides being a cause of drop-outs, is a fertile ground for several social ills, including engaging in relationships of dependence (Wegerif, Adeniyi, 2019). The project involves research on the right to food for students in South Africa, the extent of food insecurity among this group, as well as government and other stakeholders obligated to ensure that students do not experience hunger and food insecurity. The research so far has emphasised the need for cooperation between the government and the private sector as well as civil society in ensuring the realisation of the right to food for school students in tertiary institutions. As part of actualising the aims of this project, the DOI developed a booklet and an infographic to educate people about the challenges students in tertiary institutions face regarding their right to food (Adeniyi, Durojaye, 2020). Several policy meetings were held in Cape Town and Johannesburg. These meetings featured civil society groups, activists, academics and policy makers. The debate during these meetings centred on the need to pay specific attention to the right to food of students in tertiary institutions, including advocating for a gender-based dimension to the realisation of the right. A major highlight of this project was the colloquium on the right to food, which was organised in Cape Town and involved different stakeholders. This national colloquium attracted diverse participants, including civil society groups, policy makers, and academics within and outside South Africa. The colloquium kickstarted the advocacy process of the Access to Food for Students Project. In doing this, it becomes necessary to contextualise the issues of student food insecurity on a national scale. The colloquium created a platform for experiential knowledge exchange among researchers and academics on the problem of student food insecurity, as well as relevant stakeholders who have a role to play in addressing the food insecurity problem among students of tertiary institutions. It also galvanised the advocacy process with a view to addressing systemic issues, as well as commencing the call for policy review on food security among students in South African higher institutions. The colloquium also explored the dynamics and utility of a rights-based approach to addressing food insecurity of students in tertiary institutions in South Africa. One unique approach of this colloquium was the active participation of students’ representatives from different institutions in the Western Cape. The representatives of students from each of the institutions in the Western Cape gave their particular experiences of students’ hunger. This ensured that students who are on the receiving ends of hunger and food insecurity on campuses are part of the discussions towards finding lasting solutions to these challenges. As part of the advocacy on this project, the DOI submitted a petition to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to investigate the rate and pervasiveness of hunger of students in tertiary institutions. Among the mandates of the SAHRC is to monitor the activities of the government regarding the realisation of human rights, including socio-economic rights.17 The petition urged the SAHRC to embark on a national study to assess the causes and state of hunger among students in tertiary institutions. It further urged the SAHRC to conduct

Section 184(1)(c) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

17

64  Handbook of food security and society a public hearing on food insecurity among students in South African tertiary institutions. It is hoped that the outcome of the public hearing will profile the seriousness of food insecurity and galvanise government and other stakeholders to act timeously. Despite the explicit recognition of the right to food in the Constitution, very few cases have gone to court in relation to the right. Experience from other jurisdictions, such as India, has shown that litigation can be a powerful tool to hold the government accountable for the realisation of the right to food. Thus, the DOI in conjunction with other partners sought to explore launching a public interest litigation focusing on student hunger in South African tertiary institutions. The idea was to challenge the failure of the government to enact a right to food legislation. It would be argued that this failure has exacerbated the situation of students in tertiary institutions. Given that litigation is expensive and requires substantial resources, the case is yet to be filed. The DOI is still consulting with partners with a view to determining the appropriate time to launch this case. In 2020, as part of its webinar series, the DOI hosted a webinar on student hunger and COVID-19 with the aim of identifying the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in addressing the impact of food insecurity on students during the pandemic and identifying collective solutions. Participants in the webinar shared initiatives for addressing student hunger on campuses and discussed how they were facilitated to extend reach and preserve the dignity of students, who mostly preferred anonymity. The webinar drew attention to the willingness of private individuals to contribute to addressing student hunger, but the challenge of linking potential donors to needy students remains. It also highlighted that those potential donors often in the private sector are usually discouraged by university bureaucracy. Among the take-aways from the webinar is that that there is no single solution to student hunger; rather, it needs the collaborative effort of stakeholders in pursuit of a holistic approach; and very importantly, to involve students in the planning processes of addressing hunger on campuses (Nkrumah, 2021). It was also considered important to educate students in financial literacy, to help them make informed decisions about their resources (Macharia, 2020). Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food The right to food is without substance if it is focused on just alleviating hunger rather than ensuring access to safe and nutritious food. The CESCR in substantiating the normative content of the right to food emphasised ‘the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture.’18 It is important for food to be safe for consumption. The DOI undertook a study to review legislation protecting consumers from malpractices in the branding and labelling of food. While it is noted that laws and policies exist in this regard, lack of implementation has made it difficult to hold manufacturers or retailers accountable for human rights violations. The study notes that one of the essential elements of the right to food is that people should enjoy access to safe and nutritious food without adverse effects. This requires the government to monitor the activities of manufacturers and retailers of food so that their activities will not jeopardise people’s enjoyment of the right to food. Drawing experience from other jurisdictions, it suggests that the government, Chapter 9 institutions and civil society

CESCR General Comment No. 12 para 8.

18

Championing the right to food in South Africa  65 groups would need to do more in ensuring accountability of manufacturers and retailers in the realisation of the right to safe food (Adeniyi, 2015). The evolving understanding of the right to food goes beyond ensuring stomachs are filled up; it is much about the nutritional quality of the food available. The CESCR provides content to the meaning of dietary needs. It notes, ‘dietary needs in this context implies that the diet as a whole contains a mix of nutrients for physical and mental growth, development and maintenance, and physical activity that are in compliance with human physiological needs at all stages throughout the life cycle and according to gender and occupation.’19 This speaks to the importance of ensuring access not just to food but to an adequate diet, which must be diverse for optimal health. According to the Committee, this would entail measures to ‘maintain, adapt or strengthen dietary diversity and appropriate consumption and feeding patterns, including breastfeeding, while ensuring that changes in availability and access to food supply as a minimum do not negatively affect dietary composition and intake.’20 Ensuring people have access to nutritious meals is key to combating malnutrition in terms of preventing deficiency diseases due to undernutrition as well as overnutrition related to overweight, obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The reasonableness of government action in realising this right to food must be assessed based on efforts to ensure access to nutritious food irrespective of income through addressing influences that perpetuate unhealthy dietary patterns. South Africa is up against the double burden of malnutrition demonstrating the coexistence of undernutrition as well as overnutrition in the form of obesity, overweight and diet-related NCDs even within households. NCDs, which are leading causes of mortality globally and in South Africa, are associated with four known risk factors: tobacco use, unhealthy diet, alcohol abuse and physical inactivity. The metabolic risks associated with NCDs, such as high blood pressure, high blood glucose and cholesterol levels, overweight and obesity, are in part linked to unhealthy diet, which makes ensuring that people have access to a healthy diet throughout the lifecycle and irrespective of income a critical element of the realisation of the right to health at all levels. Eating patterns are determined by various factors, including social influences, cost of food, geographical location, and food insecurity, as well as commercial influences. The role of the food industry, backed by economic growth priorities of the government, in nutrition transition and shaping dietary patterns across all income levels, especially towards unhealthy ultra-processed, energy-dense foods high in sugar, salt, and fat through aggressive marketing and advertising, is significant and requires appropriate regulation. There are regulations in South Africa to control labelling and advertising, sodium and fat content in processed food, as well as the Health Promotion Levy, which taxes sugar-sweetened beverages. The National Strategic Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases 2022–2027 in its strategic objective relating to unhealthy diet aims to promote healthy nutrition policies in certain prioritised settings, such as workplaces, schools and Early Childhood Development centres and public institutions, and undertake regular screening and awareness campaigns about adult and childhood obesity. Despite these, access to adequate nutritious food remains a challenge especially in the situation of food insecurity, which has been deepened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to rising food prices, healthy, nutritious and diverse diets

19 20

CESCR General Comment No. 12 para 9. CESCR General Comment No. 12 para 8.

66  Handbook of food security and society remain out of reach for low-income groups, hence their resorting to often unhealthy and cheap alternatives. In 2021, the DOI launched a new project on human rights and NCDs with a focus on diet-related NCDs. This study is prompted by the rising incidence of mortality from NCDs in South Africa, which can in part be linked to unhealthy diet. In partnership with the Global Center for Legal Innovations on Food Environments at the O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University, USA, the DOI is currently engaged in research on legal and policy framework on diet-related NCDs. The project emphasises the role of the law in preventing NCDs, through promoting healthy nutrition by addressing influences that shape unhealthy dietary patterns. The research involves exploring the possibilities within the South African legal and policy framework for addressing the double burden of malnutrition, including the prevention of diet-related NCDs. It involves examining relevant laws and policies in South Africa on food security, health and nutrition, as well as economic policies to determine the extent to which access to healthy nutrition is prioritised within these frameworks. Food security policies in South Africa, while acknowledging the double burden of malnutrition as well as the role that an unhealthy dietary pattern plays in this, appear to have a more undernutrition-focused approach and the means to improving nutrition is mostly food production oriented. The research mainly aims to draw attention to the role of the food industry in promoting unhealthy diets and the importance of regulating their activities through relevant laws, regulations, policies and action. It also aims to draw attention to the need to prioritise healthy nutrition in government food security policies and initiatives. As part of the project, the DOI hosted a webinar in March 2021 that explored the intersection between access to safe and nutritious food and NCDs in South Africa and how this has been exacerbated by high levels of food inaccessibility. The webinar provided a platform to identify collective solutions to responding to the increase of diet-related NCDs in South Africa and extend the conversation to advocacy strategies aimed at addressing this problem (Knipe, 2021). Accountability in Realising the Right to Food Research and advocacy on the right to food in the DOI has repeatedly emphasised the need to ensure accountability in the realisation of the right to food in South Africa. In this regard, the DOI undertook a study exploring accountability and the right to food involving a comparative study of India and South Africa (Durojaye, Chilemba, 2018). The report emphasised the importance of judicialisation of food as a significant tool for realising the right to food (Durojaye, Chilemba, 2018). It demonstrated that, despite the existing legislative framework on the right to food including ratification of international and regional human rights instruments, not only does its realisation remain a challenge in South Africa, but few attempts have been made to hold the government accountable through litigation (Durojaye, Chilemba, 2018). The situation in South Africa is compared with India, where the right to food, though not explicitly recognised in the Constitution, has been advanced through litigation that gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to promote the right through emphasising the interrelatedness and mutually reinforcing nature of rights, specifically the right to life and the right to food. The Indian experience showed the impact that the combination of advocacy and litigation can have in holding government accountable and pushing relevant government departments to address food insecurity. This is evident in the long-drawn litigation in People’s Union for Civil

Championing the right to food in South Africa  67 Liberties vs Union of India & Others,21 in which the Supreme Court gave key orders to ensure the government addresses food insecurity, especially among the most vulnerable and hungry through improvement of government food programmes as well as institutional mechanisms to ensure implementation. The case also paved the way for the success of other cases challenging government inaction in relation to food insecurity in India,22 created awareness about this right, and contributed significantly to the consolidation and expansion of the National Campaign on the Right to Food in India. This culminated in legal reforms for the realisation of the right to food in the country, particularly the National Food Security Act 2013, which established a legal framework for programmes that previously were implemented without clear entitlements and rights for beneficiaries as well as grievance mechanisms (Durojaye, Chilemba, 2018). Furthermore, the study also emphasised the important role of the SAHRC in the realisation of the right to food. The SAHRC is empowered among others to carry out specific objectives of determining the extent to which organs of state have respected, protected, promoted and fulfilled human rights; to determine the reasonableness of measures in realising human rights as well as making recommendations to advance the realisation of the rights in the Constitution.23 With this mandate, the Commission could play an important role in holding the government to account for the realisation of the right to food in the country. In the area of advocacy, the DOI organised a series of roundtable dialogues featuring academics, civil society groups and policy makers to discuss pertinent issues relating to the right to food. Some of the discussions related to the barriers to accessing food in the country and the role of Chapter 9 institutions24 in advancing the right to food. The dialogues emphasised the need for civil society groups and other stakeholders to work with institutions such as the SAHRC, with a view to holding the government accountable for the realisation of the right to food.25 Participants in the roundtable emphasised the need for the enactment of a specific legislation to address the right to food. Of all the socio-economic rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to food is the only one without a legislative framework to expound the normative content based on the South African context as well as government obligations. In addition, participants also canvassed for the establishment of a specific department to oversee the implementation of the right to food in the country. Currently, the right to food is implemented under different government departments, which makes it difficult to hold a specific department accountable for failure to realise the right to food. As a way of empowering people in informal settlements to realise their socio-economic rights, including the right to food, the DOI organised a series of workshops for community leaders in selected informal settlements in Cape Town (Nkrumah, 2021; Nanima, 2020).26

Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001 (Supreme Court of India). Amit Kumar Jain v State of Rajasthan; Sh. Ved Prakash; Gupta v State of Punjab & others; Ekta Shakti Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi Pradeep Pradhan v State of Orissa and Others. 23 Section 184(1) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. 24 Institutions created under Chapter 9 of the Constitution, such as the SAHRC, the Commission for Gender Equality, among others. 25 The SAHRC is empowered under section 184 of the Constitution to, among others, monitor and assess the implementation of socio-economic rights. 26 Since 2015, the Socio-Economic Rights Project of the Dullah Omar Institute has organised training workshops for community leaders on various socio-economic rights issues and constitutional matters. Some of these events are published in the update/event section of the ESR Review. 21 22

68  Handbook of food security and society Experience has shown that people in informal settlements often lack basic knowledge about their rights and are unable to seek redress whenever a violation occurs. Therefore, it became necessary to address this challenge through training programmes to empower community leaders about their rights. These workshops addressed various socio-economic rights issues, including the right to food. At these workshops, participants were provided with information about the constitutional recognition of the right to food and what this means for vulnerable and marginalised groups. More importantly, the workshops provided information on how to seek redress when the right to food has been violated. One of the challenges in holding government accountable is the absence of a designated government department mandated to manage affairs relating to food. Attempts at addressing food and nutrition in security in South Africa are made through several isolated programmes run by various government departments. In 2014, the Diagnostic/Implementation Evaluation of Nutrition Interventions for Children from Conception to Age 5 showed that, while the involvement of various departments lends credence to the need for multisectoral action in relation to addressing food insecurity, the absence of a single coherent, integrated strategy or plan to achieve food security or synergy among departments hampers success (DoH, DSD, & DPME, 2014). This is also a challenge in terms of accountability as it becomes difficult to identify which department to hold accountable for government underperformance in relation to the right to food. As such, like other rights, the right to food requires not just a coordinating department; there is a need to streamline policies and programmes for efficient monitoring and impact assessment. Furthermore, litigation has been relatively underutilised in South Africa as a tool for holding government accountable. The law plays a vital role in preserving and strengthening open societies; and in a world of continuing political intolerance, the court is the space to challenge power, voice dissent, and conduct independent scrutiny of government actions and inactions. Litigation is special given that, while several institutions and actors test government actions, court proceedings and judgments have the authority of the state. Judicial decisions derive their legitimacy in part because they are grounded in evidence and transparent reasoning and not just ideology or political preference. Through litigation, we can enforce, clarify, challenge, and reveal gaps in law, as well as set a precedent for future cases. In the context of human rights, it is useful not just to raise awareness about a human rights issue but also to hold government accountable, and to strengthen groups to challenge the violation of their rights or seek legal reform on their own. Courts in several countries have often stepped in to resolve situations in which survival was threatened because of failure of the government to act or inefficiency in realising the right to food. Litigation has also been used to compel government to take key steps in ensuring access to food and to prevent retrogressive actions. The dearth of impactful litigation on the right to food in South Africa remains a source of concern. Also, despite the discrepancy between policy and practice in respect to food and nutrition security, there is insufficient case law delineating the content of the right, especially the terms used in the bill of rights such as sufficient, basic and adequate as well as the nature of states’ obligations in this regard. There are only a few cases that have addressed the right to food in South Africa in terms of normativity as well as obligations. There is Wary Holdings v Stwalo,27 relating to agricultural land and access to food. The court highlighted the dimensions

Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Stalwo (Pty) Ltd 2009 (1) SA 337 (CC).

27

Championing the right to food in South Africa  69 of availability and accessibility of the right to food and how these are affected by access to agricultural land (Serie, Chenwi, 2009). In Huang v Head, Grootvlei Prison,28 the court had to consider whether prisoners were entitled to have special dietary requirements based on their religion. The judgment recognised the additional component of cultural acceptability as forming part of the right. The Equal Education Case is especially significant in advancing the rights of children to food and the need for states not to take retrogressive measures. With its immediate impact in reinstating the school feeding programme, such a public interest case can be harnessed as a catalyst for advancing the right of children and other vulnerable groups to adequate nutrition through litigation.

CONCLUSION This chapter has highlighted the work of the DOI in relation to the right to food as part of the broad research and advocacy efforts championing socio-economic rights in South Africa. As COVID-19 has intensified food insecurity well above pre-pandemic levels, there is a need to strengthen efforts towards attaining food security for the vulnerable and marginalised in South Africa. The country can learn from this experience through mobilisation of civil society towards the realisation of the right to food. Rather than working in silos, such a movement must include different stakeholders, including academics, civil society groups and activists, joining forces to ensure accountability for the realisation of the right to food. The right to food itself can be understood as a bundle of rights to be realised on different levels, composed of different aspects or components, and that most of them open possibilities for litigation and adjudication against state and non-state actors. It is useful for the interpretation of the normative content and state obligations and balancing the right to food against other competing rights (Brand, 2003). It extends to issues relating to food safety as well as especially challenging the activities of the food industry that are at variance with advancing access to nutritious foods through, for instance, advertising of unhealthy foods to children. The pending case Tiger Brands Limited v Pillay,29 a class action concerning food safety following a listeriosis outbreak, if successful, could advance the right to food further in South Africa. No doubt, litigation can be resource intensive and time consuming in the face of an uncertain outcome, as well as presenting some technical hurdles to cross such as in class actions (Abdool Karim, Kruger, 2021). However, it is still a viable tool and efforts at holding government and other private actors to account should not slow down. The rights framework exists, together with an independent and knowledgeable judiciary and civil society with capacity to frame social problems as rights violations, and to litigate. This is evident in active litigation within other socio-economic rights, such as housing, water and sanitation, and health, in which over the years the South African Constitutional Court has developed a rich body of jurisprudence. Many of these cases have had immense social and policy impact that is visible today, including creating awareness and empowering disadvantaged groups as well as creating useful precedents for further cases.

Huang v Head, Grootvlei Prison [2008] JOL 21089 (O). Tiger Brands Limited v Pillay (2019/25309; 2018/12835; 2019/36431) [2020] ZAGPJHC 160 (23 June 2020). 28 29

70  Handbook of food security and society

REFERENCES Abdool Karim, S., & Kruger, P. 2021, ‘Unsavoury: How effective are class actions in the protection and vindication of the right to access to food in South Africa?’, South African Journal on Human Rights, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 59–82. Adeniyi, O., & Durojaye, E. 2020, The right to food of students in tertiary institutions in South Africa, Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law, Governance and Human Rights, University of the Western Cape. Adeniyi, O.F. 2015, Access to safe food in South Africa as a human rights imperative, LLM dissertation edn, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. Brand, D. 2003, ‘Between availability and entitlement: The Constitution, Grootboom and the right to food’, Law, Democracy & Development, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–26. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1999, CESCR General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art. 11) 12 May 1999 Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 para 6, United Nations, New York. De Schutter, O. 2014, Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations, Washington, D.C. De Schutter, O. 2012, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, ‘Mission to South Africa’, United Nations, New York. DoH, DoSD, & DPME 2014, Diagnostic/Implementation Evaluation of Nutrition Interventions for Children from Conception to Age 5, available at https://​health​-e​.org​.za/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2015/​ 04/​Summary​-Evaluation​-of​-Nutritional​-Interventions​-for​-Children​-from​-Conception​-to​-Age​-5​-​.pdf (accessed: 25 April 2023). Durojaye, E. 2017, Roundtable focuses on access to food for students in tertiary institutions, Economic and Social Rights Review, Dullah Omar Institute for Constitutional Law. Governance and Human Rights, University of the Western Cape. Durojaye, E., & Chilemba, E.M. 2018, Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa, Food Security SA Working Paper Series No. 003, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security, South Africa. FAO 2009, The right to food: Guide on legislating for the right to food, FAO, Rome. Hunt, X., Breet, E., Stein, D.J., & Tomlinson, M. 2021, The COVID-19 pandemic, hunger, and depressed mood among South Africans’ National Income Dynamics (NIDS)-Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (CRAM) Wave 5 (2021), Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (CRAM), available at https://​cramsurvey​ .org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​07/​6​.​-Hunt​-X​.​-Breet​-E​.​-Stein​-D​.​-​_​-Tomlinson​-M​.​-2021​-The​-COVID​ -19​-Pandemic​-Hunger​-and​-Depressed​-Mood​-Among​-South​-Africans​.pdf (accessed: 25 April 2023). Knipe, P. 2021, ‘Webinar: The link between access to safe and nutritious food and NCDs’, ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 23–25. Knipe, P. 2020, ‘CESCR concluding observations on the initial report of South Africa’, ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 34–35. Macharia, W. 2020, ‘Webinar: Student hunger and COVID-19: Stakeholders’ roles in realising the right to food of vulnerable groups (1 October 2020)’, ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 28–30. Nanima, R.D. 2020, ‘The community leaders training workshop, Cape Town, 10–11 March 2020’, ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 21–22. Nkrumah, B. 2021, ‘Beyond tokenism: The “born frees” and climate change in South Africa’, International Journal of Ecology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–10. Nkrumah, B. 2019, ‘Opening Pandora’s box: A legal analysis of the right to food in South Africa’, De Jure Law Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 47–64. Odunitan-Wayas, F.A., Alaba, O.A., & Lambert, E.V. 2021, ‘Food insecurity and social injustice: The plight of urban poor African immigrants in South Africa during the COVID-19 crisis’, Global Public Health, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 149–152. Otekunrin, O.A., Otekunrin, O.A., Fasina, F.O., Omotayom, A.O., & Akram, M. 2020, ‘Assessing the Zero Hunger target readiness in Africa in the face of COVID-19 pandemic’, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 213–222.

Championing the right to food in South Africa  71 Paslakis, G., Dimitropoulos, G., & Katzman, D.K. 2021, ‘A call to action to address COVID-19–induced global food insecurity to prevent hunger, malnutrition, and eating pathology’, Nutrition Reviews, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 114–116. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2015, Human rights implications of overincarceration and overcrowding (A/HRC/30/19 para 20–23), United Nations, New York. Rudolph, M., Kroll, F., Muchesa, E., Manderson, A., Berry, M., & Richard, N. 2018, ‘Food insecurity and coping strategies amongst students at University of Witwatersrand’, Journal of Food Security, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20–25. Serie, T., & Chenwi, L. 2009, ‘Some thoughts on litigating the right to food in South Africa possibilities and challenges’, ESR Review; Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 9–13. Sinha, D. 2021, ‘Hunger and food security in the times of Covid-19’, Journal of Social and Economic Development, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 320–331. StatsSA 2022, How COVID-19 affected food security in SA, Statistics South Africa, available at https://​www​.statssa​.gov​.za/​?p​=​15273​#:​~:​text​=​According​%20to​%20a​%20report​%20released​,9​%25​ %20experienced​%20severe​%20food​%20insecurity (accessed: 25 April 2023). StatsSA 2019, Measuring food insecurity in South Africa: Applying the food insecurity experience scale, Statistics South Africa, South Africa. Wegerif, M., & Adeniyi, O. 2019, Student hunger at South African universities needs more attention, 18 September, The Conversation, available at https://​theconversation​.com/​student​-hunger​-at​-south​ -african​-universitiesneeds​-moreattention​-123378 (accessed: 25 April 2023). World Bank 2022, Commodity Markets Outlook: The impact of the war in Ukraine on commodity markets, World Bank, available at https://​openknowledge​.worldbank​.org/​bitstream/​handle/​10986/​ 37223/​CMO​-April​-2022​.pdf (accessed: 25 April 2023). Ziegler, J. 2008, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations, New York.

5. Food as a right in addressing food insecurity: a case study from Scotland Pete Ritchie and Chelsea Marshall

INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling food insecurity has diverged markedly from the approach taken by the UK Government. While at the time of writing, 2022, it is too early to point to differences in rates of household food insecurity (particularly given the confounding storm of the pandemic followed by the cost-of-living crisis), there is a consensus in Scotland on ending the need for food banks, and increasingly a focus on a right to adequate food. For example, the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party following the 2021 Scottish Parliament election states: [A] Human Rights Bill will be brought forward which will give effect to international human rights law in Scots law, including a right to adequate food, as part of the overall right to an adequate standard of living. (Scottish Government and Scottish Green Party, 2021)

This Bill will be introduced in 2023. The Scottish Government’s consultation on ‘Ending the Need for Food Banks’ in 2021 located this policy in a wider context: Ending the need for food banks aligns with our national mission to eradicate poverty, our Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan and our Good Food Nation ambition. This is linked to our National Performance Framework Outcomes on poverty and human rights. This will contribute toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal commitments on ending hunger, eradicating poverty and ensuring good health and wellbeing. It also contributes to our commitment to realise the right to food as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. (Scottish Government, 2021b, p. 5)

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 requires ministers to consult on, publish and report on progress against a cross-cutting food plan (Scottish Parliament, 2022, sec 1). As part of this, they must have regard to the impact of the food plan on child poverty and to “the fact that adequate food is a human right.” Tackling food insecurity is now embedded in three areas of Scottish Government policy – human rights, social security and food. This chapter traces the evolution and convergence of these policies, which can only be understood in the context of devolution. Nourish Scotland is a food justice organisation that focuses on food policy and practice in Scotland, working towards a “fair, healthy and sustainable food system that truly values nature and people” (Nourish Scotland, 2019). Its role in the development of the Good Food Nation policy and early Scottish Food Commission, in the establishment of the ‘Dignity Principles’ and close work with community initiatives and local authorities to implement these principles 72

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity  73 in practice, and its engagement with Scottish Government policy makers across food insecurity, social security, diet and healthy weight, agriculture and human rights, has supported the opportunity to connect dignity and human rights in relation to food policy. As legislation to enshrine the right to food in Scots Law is developed, this chapter reviews the parallel processes that have influenced the ways in which policy and practice around food insecurity have increasingly drawn on dignity and human rights frameworks. Austerity measures led by the UK Government, compounded by the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and ‘Brexit’, have meant that Scotland still experiences significant levels of food insecurity. However, there are lessons to be learned about how the frameworks of dignity and human rights affect policy and practice during times of increased pressure on household food insecurity. Devolution: A Work in Progress The Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 following a long campaign for greater devolution of powers to Scotland. The 1998 Scotland Act reserved key powers to Westminster including social security, employment law, immigration (including eligibility for recourse to public funds) and taxation, but it devolved powers for example on health, education, agriculture, environment and local government to Scotland. Notably, human rights are also devolved, with Scottish ministers obliged to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s 1998 Human Rights Act. Following the 2014 referendum, which failed to secure Scottish independence, further powers were devolved in 2016, including the power to vary income tax and greater powers on social security. These powers have been used by the Scottish Government to create a more progressive set of income tax rates and bands than apply in England; and in 2022 to uprate social security benefits administered in Scotland by 6% rather than the 3% increase applied to those administered by the UK Government. The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been in government in Scotland since 2007, pursuing a broadly social democratic agenda. The UK has been governed by the Conservative party since 2010, which implemented a regressive austerity policy in response to the financial crash of the Great Recession of 2008. Working-age benefits administered by the UK Government were squeezed and made harder to access, particularly for families with three or more children, while static wages and high rents led to greater in-work poverty. These policies have been criticised by both the UN Special Rapporteurs for food and extreme poverty (De Schutter, 2013; Alston 2018). The proliferation of food banks across the UK was a response by communities to the growth in destitution. The Scottish Government has invested significant resources mitigating the impact of these UK policies, but it was not able to stop the rise in child poverty after 2010. There has also been divergence in the management of the health service and education, with less privatisation in Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI). Scotland historically has more social housing tenants and is building more affordable homes, which contributes to a lower rate of child poverty after housing costs. However, the UK Government still makes the economic and political policies – most recently on Brexit, where Scotland’s vote to remain was of no consequence. Despite its aspirations, Scotland – like England – is still more unequal than its European neighbours and has relatively high rates of child poverty and food insecurity.

74  Handbook of food security and society Human Rights After the 1707 Act of Union, Scotland retained its separate and distinctive legal system, which was closer to the European model of civil law than the common law system of England. Although the UK’s Supreme Court has the last word, the Scottish system of courts is organised along different lines and lawyers have different qualifications than those in the rest of the UK including Wales and NI. Human rights were explicitly part of the devolution settlement and over the past twenty years awareness of and support for human rights has grown in Scotland (Scottish Human Rights Commission, 2021). The Scottish Human Rights Commission, established in 2006, has, as a national human rights institution, had an active role at international level. This focus on international human rights standards has also been reflected in references to international human rights instruments in Scottish domestic legislation. Examples include the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015; s. 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016; the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018; s.1(1) of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014; and most recently the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022.1 While Scotland’s human rights community was initially more focused on civil and political rights, interest in economic and social cultural rights grew over time. The Equality Act (2010) was one of the last acts passed by the outgoing UK Labour Government, and this introduced a ‘socioeconomic duty’ requiring public bodies to consider how their decisions might help to reduce inequalities. This duty was never brought into force by the UK Government, but the Scottish Government introduced this duty once it acquired the necessary powers in 2016. The Brexit referendum of 2016 had major implications for human rights in Scotland. Although the UK’s membership of the EU is independent of its membership of the Council of Europe and adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights, these issues were routinely conflated during the campaign. Human rights were portrayed by some politicians and in the press as an external interference with UK sovereignty, while judges who upheld the law during the Brexit process were portrayed as ‘enemies of the people’. This repatriation of human rights to the UK has in 2022 reached the stage of a ‘Bill of Rights’, which proposes a “common-sense approach to human rights.” It has the policy intention to ensure that rights “are not interpreted over-expansively” and to strengthen the role of the UK Parliament in determining when public interest or public protection trumps individual rights. Following the 2016 Brexit vote, Scotland’s First Minister established an Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership to “recommend the next steps on Scotland’s human rights journey, including finding a way forward in the context of post-Brexit uncertainty.” The group’s report (2018) recommended a new Act of the Scottish Parliament to incorporate a wide range of human rights – civil and political rights, economic and social rights, environmental rights, and rights specific to particular groups. This advisory group was succeeded by a Taskforce co-chaired by the Scottish Government, which brought forward specific recommendations (2021) on how these rights would be incorporated into Scots law during the then current session of Parliament (2021–2026) (National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership, 2021).

1 At https://​www​.parliament​.scot/​-/​media/​files/​legislation/​bills/​s6​-bills/​good​-food​-nation​-scotland​ -bill/​stage​-3/​bill​-as​-passed​.pdf (accessed: 10 April 2023).

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity  75 Table 5.1

Social security benefits devolved to Scotland in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018

Disability Living Allowance

Sure Start Maternity Grants

Personal Independence Payment

Funeral Payments

Attendance Allowance

Cold Weather Payments

Severe Disablement Allowance

Winter Fuel Payments

Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

Discretionary Housing Payments

Carer’s Allowance

Social Security Under the 1998 Scotland Act, powers on pensions and social security were reserved to the UK Parliament. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) continued to administer welfare benefits in Scotland. The introduction of austerity by the new Conservative Government in 2010 saw a determination to restrict expenditure on benefits. Measures included freezes to payment levels, a cap on the maximum benefits a household can receive, a limit on the number of children a family can claim support for, and limits to the local housing allowance. Alongside this, there was a cultural assault on people facing poverty, with the then UK Chancellor George Osborne pitting ‘strivers’ against ‘shirkers’. This echoed the distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ embedded for centuries in the Poor Law. At the same time, claimants were subjected to harsher conditionality, with increasing use of sanctions if conditions were not met. This exacerbated the culture of mutual mistrust between the DWP and claimants, with a sense from claimants that staff were trying to catch them out and punish them. In this context, the devolution in 2016 of greater powers over welfare to the Scottish Parliament provided a unique opportunity to do social security differently. While the 11 benefits devolved to Scotland only accounted for 15% of total expenditure, they led to the creation of a new social security agency and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. This Act set out a set of social security principles, most notably that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland, and that social security is itself a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights. These principles were put into practice through the recruitment of more than 2000 people with experience of using different benefits to Social Security Experience Panels. Panel members were involved in shaping the delivery of benefits, considering issues such as the style and language used in letters and application processes, as well as the look and feel of the new agency’s buildings. In 2016, Scotland gained the power to create new benefits, which it has used explicitly to reduce child poverty – for example, Best Start Grants, Best Start Foods and the Scottish Child Payment. The Scottish Child Payment was introduced in 2021 as a monthly payment to low-income families with children under six. Originally £10 per week per child, the payment increased to £20 in April 2022. By the end of 2022, it will increase to £25 per child per week and be extended to cover all children aged under 16 years. The Scottish Welfare Fund – a discretionary fund administered by local authorities rather than the social security agency – has also provided an additional safety net in Scotland. Crisis grants are often paid to people who have run out of money for food. Grants increased to £20m per year during the pandemic. The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 also includes a specific duty on Ministers to promote take-up:

76  Handbook of food security and society The Scottish Ministers must— (a) keep under consideration what steps they could take to ensure that individuals are given what they are eligible to be given through the Scottish social security system, and (b) if the Ministers consider it appropriate to do so, take any of the steps identified by that consideration.

While it is early days for the new agency, these principles provide the foundation for a more responsive, trusting and progressive social security system. For example, automatic awards were introduced in 2022 to streamline application processes for families. The 2018–2021 client survey for Social Security Scotland showed satisfaction levels over 90%, with 94% reporting that they had been treated with kindness. Food: Connecting Food Insecurity with Wider Food Policy Food and agriculture are more significant in Scotland’s economy than in the UK as a whole. Salmon and whisky are major exports, and part of the economic case for independence. So Scotland’s first food and drink strategy ‘Recipe for Success’ (Scottish Government, 2009) had a strong industry focus, with not much more than a footnote on affordability. When the Scottish Government (2014) published the follow-up document, ‘Becoming a Good Food Nation’, there was a significant shift in the framing. There was much more emphasis on climate change, on food waste and a ‘systems’ approach. The vision set out was also less about business and more about people: “people from every walk of life will take pride and pleasure in the food served day by day in Scotland” (ibid., p. 5). The (non-statutory) Food Commission established alongside this policy document proposed a set of indicators for measuring progress against this vision – Social Justice, Health, Environmental Sustainability, Prosperity and Knowledge – with household food insecurity being the primary indicator for social justice. In their 2016 manifesto, the SNP undertook to bring forward a cross-cutting ‘Good Food Nation Bill’, and after the election, the Programme for Government committed to: begin work in 2017 on a consultation on a Good Food Nation Bill to provide the potential for a statutory framework to join up the Government’s approach on food. (Scottish Government, 2016a, p. 55)

In practice, this Bill was considerably delayed. Partly this was because the previous portfolio, which brought together food farming and environment, was split between a ‘rural economy’ portfolio and an ‘environment and climate change’ portfolio, making joined-up food policy more challenging. This split was partly reversed after the 2021 election, when the Bill was finally introduced. A Ministerial group on food has also been established to align action across portfolios, including social justice as well as health, environment, climate change and education.

JOINING THE DOTS: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY Over the past decade, civil society has worked to join up the food policy conversation, both vertically – linking local action to international institutions – and horizontally, linking people and policies across health, environment, farming, human rights, social justice and animal welfare. There were a number of strands to this work.

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity  77 Getting the Whole System in the Room Nourish Scotland’s 2013 conference ‘Feeding the Five Million’ called for repurposing the food system on “feeding everyone well, and on enhancing natural capital both in Scotland and in the countries from which we import food” (Nourish Scotland, 2013, p. 2). An activist with the Poverty Truth Commission (later renamed Poverty Truth Community, hereafter PTC) was the opening speaker at the event. She stole the show by describing a food system in which she could afford frozen sausage rolls but couldn’t buy fresh fruit. This began a long partnership between Nourish and the PTC. Nourish Scotland’s 2014 conference ‘Our Common Wealth of Food’ made connections between food producers in Scotland and from the Caribbean, India and Malawi, and focused explicitly on the right to food and food sovereignty (Nourish Scotland, 2014). The then UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food opened the event with a video message. The Food and Agricultural Organisation’s presentation on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale led to a commitment from Scottish Government to measure household food insecurity from 2017 through the Scottish Health Survey (this was later supplemented by measurement through the UK-wide Family Resources Survey). The conference also included speakers from faith communities, particularly the Church of Scotland, and from NGOs working on broader poverty issues as well as from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, elected politicians and Scottish Government. Conference participants worked to produce “an ethical food policy for Scotland”, which stated: “In a just society, the state has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that everyone has access, reliably and with dignity, to sufficient nutritious food that is culturally appropriate” (Nourish Scotland, 2014, p. 10) and called for the right to food to be enshrined in Scots law. Establishing Clear Values and Principles In early 2015, The Poverty Alliance2 (Scotland’s anti-poverty network) published a study of emergency food aid in Scotland, recommending: “The Scottish Government should take a strong policy position against the further institutionalisation of emergency food aid within mainstream welfare provision” (MacLeod, 2015). At the same time, the Church of Scotland was becoming increasingly engaged, and in autumn 2015, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice asked Rev. Dr Martin Johnstone to chair a short-life working group on food poverty. This working group included a range of stakeholders,3 including a representative of the Poverty Truth Commission4 with lived experience of food insecurity. There was also a helpful membership overlap between this group and the Scottish Food Commission.

At https://​www​.povertyalliance​.org (accessed on 10 April 2023). Membership: Big Lottery Fund, Bridging the Gap, Child Poverty Action Group, Church of Scotland, City of Edinburgh Council, FareShare, Food Commission, Nourish Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, Poverty Truth Commission, STV Appeal, The Poverty Alliance, The Robertson Trust, Trussell Trust. 4 The Poverty Truth Commission’s mission is to “build movements for change led by people and groups who experience poverty on a daily basis … we support people experiencing poverty to harness their creativity so they can incubate new initiatives and amplify their voices to bring about structural and policy change” (Faith in Community (Scotland), 2021, Report of the Trustees for the Year Ended 31 March 2021). 2 3

78  Handbook of food security and society The Working Group (2016, p. 13) was unequivocal in its report, Dignity: Ending Hunger Together in Scotland, and framed its recommendations and proposals around the understanding that dignity and human rights were central to any response to food insecurity: A truly dignified system would be one where everyone is food secure, with access to adequate, nutritious and culturally appropriate food, without the need of emergency food aid. It is one where the right to food is understood as a matter of justice rather than charity.

It made a series of recommendations on measuring food insecurity, on the new Social Security system, on requiring local authorities to produce food plans, and on the living wage. In her response to what became known as the Dignity report, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities (Scottish Government, 2016a) drew a link to the Good Food Nation agenda and the need for coherent policy making: Our aspiration is that Scotland becomes a Good Food Nation: a country where people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in, and benefit from, the food they buy, serve, and eat day by day. Tackling food poverty will be vital to achieving this aspiration and in doing so our actions must also be coherent across a wide range of policy areas including health and nutrition, tackling food waste and working with the food and drink sector.

She also committed to considering enshrining the right to food in Scots Law, commenting that this was “consistent with a number of existing commitments” of the Scottish Government, such as exploring options for incorporating wider economic social and cultural rights, and with “recommendations regularly made by United Nations treaty bodies” (ibid.). Building a Common Platform Policy and practice around food insecurity in Scotland have evolved iteratively and in parallel to the campaign by the Scottish Food Coalition (SFC) to incorporate the right to food in Scots Law as part a fair, healthy and sustainable food system. In 2015, Nourish Scotland and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Scotland) jointly established the SFC with an aim to bring together a wide range of organisations with an interest in food policy and create an effective voice for food system change. This partnership formed the core of a broad grouping that includes environmental and health NGOs, community food projects, organisations of small food producers, progressive food businesses, trade unions, faith groups, academics, anti-poverty groups and animal welfare organisations. The SFC set out its stall for a better food system in the Plenty report (Scottish Food Coalition, 2016). The SFC went on to agree a set of five asks for the proposed Good Food Nation Bill: ● ● ● ● ●

Enshrine the right to food in Scots law A national food plan Local food plans An independent statutory food commission A small number of high-level food system targets.

The SFC maintained a common position on these asks for several years while the Bill was dropped, resurrected, paused, reintroduced and finally passed. In the end the Act did not

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity  79 incorporate the right to food, with that scheduled to happen as part of the broader Human Rights Bill later in the 2021–26 parliament. However, the statutory food commission provides an independent mechanism for ensuring that local and national food plans have the effect of progressing the right to food – providing a necessary legal underpinning to food policy. Aligning to International Processes Nourish Scotland recruited a new team member in 2015 specifically to work on its right to food campaign. At that time, the UK’s human rights record was coming up for review by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Nourish submitted extensive evidence to the Committee, and its members attended the Committee hearing in person in Geneva. The Committee’s concluding observations included a concern about the lack of measures to realise the right to food and to reduce reliance on food banks. They recommended a national strategy for the protection and promotion of the right to adequate food (United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2016). In early 2017, Nourish Scotland co-hosted an informal visit to Scotland by Hilal Elver, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. During her visit she was able to address Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) at a reception in the Scottish Parliament, to meet both civil servants and the Cabinet Secretary, and to engage with wider civil society. This connection has been maintained with subsequent Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food, including Michael Fakhri, who has also met with Scottish Government officials and gave evidence to Parliament during the passage of the Good Food Nation Bill. The Scottish Government’s response to a joint letter from the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food and Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in 2020 demonstrated its interest in positioning itself favourably with such international actors. It explains that Scotland’s approach to tackling food insecurity is “founded on principles of dignity and respect as part of our overall approach to tackle inequalities and poverty” (Scottish Government, 2021b, para 24). The Scottish Government (ibid., para 30) also states, “In tackling food insecurity [it] consider[s] financial and physical access to food that is safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate” in the recognition that “the right to food is about much more than availability of sufficient calories and that the accessibility, acceptability and quality of food matter.” Local Action Local authorities in Scotland (as well as in the rest of the UK) began to establish food partnerships, particularly after the start of the ‘Sustainable Food Cities’ project in 2011. With food insecurity more apparent and the rapid growth in food banks during the recession, cities and local authorities saw the need for a shift in national policy. One early action in Scotland was a joint letter to the First Minister in 2015 from the leaders of Glasgow and Edinburgh, offering to work together with the national government to tackle food poverty. The network of food partnerships in Scotland grew rapidly, with more than half of Scotland’s local authorities formally signed up as ‘sustainable food places’ by 2022. The Good Food Nation Act requires local authorities to develop, publish and report on a cross-cutting food plan, and tackling food insecurity will be a key element in these plans. Following the publication of the Dignity report, the Scottish Government ended direct funding of emergency food aid provision and established a Fair Food Transformation Fund.

80  Handbook of food security and society This was a significant change in direction and reflected the report recommendation, “Any organisation which secures Scottish Government funding and support to work on tackling food poverty must demonstrate how its approach promotes dignity and is helping to transition away from emergency food aid as the primary response” (Independent Working Group on Food Poverty, 2016, p. 14). As part of this Transformation Fund, Nourish Scotland and the Poverty Truth Commission were funded to help community organisations across Scotland embed dignity in their work at a local level. Over the six years from 2016 to 2022, the project worked with dozens of projects and hundreds of people across Scotland and elsewhere in the UK to explore, reflect on and encourage practical action to enhance dignity in community food provision. Alongside this, A Menu for Change was a partnership project (2017–2019) between Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, Nourish Scotland, Oxfam Scotland and The Poverty Alliance that worked with local authorities and other stakeholders to promote a cash-first approach and more effective local co-operation in preventing and responding to food insecurity. Taken together, this work has helped to create a growing consensus across Scotland on the need to move away from charitable food aid and towards a rights-based approach.

BOX 5.1 THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SCOTLAND The initial reaction to the lockdown in March 2020 included significant levels of food provision in the UK, in response to financial and non-financial barriers to accessing food. The Scottish Government provided a series of ‘flexible funding’ streams during the pandemic to help local authorities tackle financial insecurity and to help people access food and other essentials. A review (Scottish Government, 2021c) of how local authorities used these flexible funds between April 2020 and October 2021 revealed a notable shift towards cash-based responses. Overall, the pandemic reinforced rather than disrupted the shift towards a cash-based response to food insecurity. In 2021, the Scottish Government consulted on a draft national plan for Ending the Need for Food Banks, positioning its efforts to tackle food insecurity in the context of wider commitments to human rights, the Sustainable Development Goals and the eradication of poverty in Scotland.

CONCLUSION Over the decade to 2022, the Scottish Government’s policy on food insecurity and the right to food diverged considerably from that of the UK Government. Some of the progress can be understood as part of Scotland’s effort to distinguish itself as a leader in human rights within the United Kingdom and in line with other countries in Europe. However, clear references to dignity and human rights in the Scottish Government’s approach to food insecurity also reflect the long-term engagement of individuals with experience of food insecurity, community groups working to respond locally and civil society arguing for food insecurity to be understood in relation to low wages and weakening social security protections, rather than a lack of food availability.

Food as a right in addressing food insecurity  81 Food insecurity policy in Scotland is now underpinned by legislation – on social security, on food, and in the near future on human rights. This chapter has provided one account of how and why that happened, and the role of civil society in the process. Others, for example politicians and civil servants, will have different accounts and will pick out other key events and decisions. There is a difference between stated commitments and the progressive realisation of human rights on the ground, and if lessons are to be drawn from Scotland’s experience, it will be important to pay attention to how legislation is implemented. Scotland’s commitment to co-production in the development of human rights and social security legislation provides a strong platform for engagement. The Good Food Nation Act provides a framework for an inclusive, rights-based transformation of the food system over the coming decades – but this will require consistent and organised efforts from civil society and other actors. There is one key aspect of the story that is indisputable. The Scottish Government and many other public bodies have a genuine commitment to the ‘Scottish approach’ of engaging people most affected by policies in the policy-making process – the principle of co-production. Work by Gallegos and Chilton (2019) and Wakeford (2016) helps show the way forward in terms of civil engagement and citizen science, as does the chapter by Gallegos and Dryland in this volume. Without this openness, and without the participation of key people from the Poverty Truth Community over the past decade, policy making would have proceeded with less determination and clarity.

REFERENCES Alston, P. (2018) Statement on Visit to the United Kingdom. United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. At https://​www​.ohchr​.org/​en/​statements/​2018/​11/​statement​-visit​ -united​-kingdom​-professor​-philip​-alston​-united​-nations​-special (accessed: 26 April 2023). De Schutter, O. (2013) The Right to Food in Times of Crisis, in Just Fair Freedom from Hunger: Realising the Right to Food in the UK. Just Fair (editor), Just Fair, London, pp. 7–11. First Minister’s Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership. (2018) Recommendations for a new human rights framework to improve people’s lives: Report to the First Minister. At https://​h​umanrights​ leadership​.scot/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2018/​12/​First​-Ministers​-Advisory​-Group​-on​-Human​-Rights​ -Leadership​-Final​-report​-for​-publication​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Gallegos, D., & Chilton, M.M. (2019) Re-Evaluating Expertise: Principles for Food and Nutrition Security Research, Advocacy and Solutions in High-Income Countries, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 4. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16040561 Independent Working Group on Food Poverty. (2016) Dignity: Ending Hunger Together in Scotland. At http://​www​.gov​.scot/​Publications/​2016/​06/​8020 (accessed: 26 April 2023). MacLeod, M.A. (2015) Making the Connections: A study of emergency food aid in Scotland. At https://​ www​.povertyalliance​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2019/​03/​Emergency​-Food​-Aid​-Report​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership. (2021) National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership Report. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​national​-taskforce​-human​-rights​-leadership​ -report/​pages/​2/​(accessed: 26 April 2023). Nourish Scotland. (2013) Feeding the five million: Conference Report. At http://​www​.nourishscotland​ .org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2013/​11/​AA​_Conference​-Report​-NovemberFINAL​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Nourish Scotland. (2014) Our Common Wealth of Food: Nourish Conference 2014 – Report. At https://​ www​.nourishscotland​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2015/​02/​Conference​-Report​-2014​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023).

82  Handbook of food security and society Nourish Scotland. (2019) About us. At https://​www​.nourishscotland​.org/​about/​vision​-and​-aims/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Food Coalition. (2016) Plenty: Food Farming and Health in a New Scotland. At https://​ www​.foodcoalition​.scot/​uploads/​6/​2/​6/​8/​62689573/​plenty​_complete​.pdf or https://​www​.gov​.scot/​ publications/​recipe​-success​-scotlands​-national​-food​-drink​-policy/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2009) Recipe for Success – Scotland’s National Food and Drink Policy. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​binaries/​content/​documents/​govscot/​publications/​strategy​-plan/​2009/​06/​ recipe​-success​-scotlands​-national​-food​-drink​-policy/​documents/​0083283​-pdf/​0083283​-pdf/​govscot​ %3Adocument/​0083283​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2014) Becoming a Good Food Nation: Discussion Document. At https://​ www​.gov​.scot/​binaries/​content/​documents/​govscot/​publications/​consultation​-paper/​2014/​06/​recipe​ -success​-scotlands​-national​-food​-drink​-policy​-becoming​-good​-food/​documents/​00453219​-pdf/​ 00453219​-pdf/​govscot​%3Adocument/​00453219​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2016a) A Plan for Scotland: The Government’s Programme for Scotland 2016–17. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​binaries/​content/​documents/​govscot/​publications/​strategy​-plan/​ 2016/​09/​plan​-scotland​-scottish​-governments​-programme​-scotland​-2016​-17/​documents/​00505210​ -pdf/​00505210​-pdf/​govscot​%3Adocument/​00505210​.pdf or https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​ recipe​-success​-scotlands​-national​-food​-drink​-policy​-becoming​-good​-food/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2016b) Scottish Government Response to the Report of the Short-Life Working Group on Food Poverty Nov 2016. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​food​-poverty​-response​-to​ -working​-group/​(accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2021a) Ending the need for food banks: consultation on a draft national plan. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​binaries/​content/​documents/​govscot/​publications/​consultation​-paper/​2021/​ 10/​ending​-need​-food​-banks​-consultation​-draft​-national​-plan/​documents/​ending​-need​-food​-banks​ -consultation​-draft​-national​-plan/​ending​-need​-food​-banks​-consultation​-draft​-national​-plan/​govscot​ %3Adocument/​ending​-need​-food​-banks​-consultation​-draft​-national​-plan​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2021b) Food Insecurity and Poverty: Response to UN Special Rapporteur Communication February 2021. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​scottish​-government​-response​ -un​-food​-insecurity​-poverty/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government. (2021c) Local Action to Tackle Food Insecurity: Summary of Activities, Trends and Learning, July 2021. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​local​-action​-to​-tackle​-food​-insecurity​ -summary​-of​-activities​-trends​-and​-learning/​pages/​trends/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Government and Scottish Green Party. (2021) Draft Shared Policy Programme: Working together to build a greener, fairer, independent Scotland. At https://​www​.gov​.scot/​publications/​ scottish​-government​-and​-scottish​-green​-party​-shared​-policy​-programme/​documents (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Human Rights Commission. (2021) Evidence to the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act. At https://​committees​.parliament​.uk/​writtenevidence/​23587/​pdf/​ (accessed: 26 April 2023). Scottish Parliament (2022) Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. At https://​www​.legislation​.gov​.uk/​ asp/​2022/​5/​contents/​enacted (accessed: 26 April 2023). United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). (2016) Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. At https://​digitallibrary​.un​.org/​record/​834917/​files/​E​_C​.12​_GBR​_CO​_6​-EN​.pdf (accessed: 26 April 2023). Wakeford, T. (2016) Signposts for People’s Knowledge, in People’s Knowledge and Participatory Action Research: Escaping the White-walled Labyrinth, ed. The People’s Knowledge Editorial Collective, Practical Action Publishing Ltd, The Schumacher Centre, Warwickshire, pp. 113–134.

PART III MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT

6. Nutrition measures and limits: the dominance of the USDA’s Food Insecurity and Hunger Module and its adaptations Sinéad Furey and Emma Beacom

INTRODUCTION: FOOD INSECURITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM The appropriate measurement of food poverty, the inability to afford or access a healthy diet (Radimer et al., 1990), is critical for targeting food and economic aid and informing cross-sectoral government policy. However, its progress is complicated by the complexity of the phenomenon and the multiple tools and approaches that exist to measure food poverty (Jones et al., 2013). In January 2019, the UK’s Environmental Audit Committee published its latest report on the Sustainable Development Goals in the United Kingdom (UK), highlighting the need to ensure government cross-departmental understanding and action on hunger, implement strategies for improvement and monitor progress. Unsurprisingly there have been numerous calls for the official, standardised and routine collection and analysis of data to determine the extent of food poverty in the UK (Taylor and Loopstra, 2016; Scottish Government, 2016). Until April 2019, having no agreed indicator, the UK Government had not measured the prevalence of food poverty over time to identify those who are unable to afford and access sufficient food. Indeed, there was a lack of ‘frequent, regular and methodologically consistent’ measurement of food insecurity in the UK (Pool and Dooris, 2021, p.1). Then, in February 2019, a delegation of like-minded social justice partners presented data and representation to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and secured their agreement that food insecurity be measured in a standardised way across all four UK nations using the North American ten-question Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) embedded within the Family Resources Survey, with first data reported in March 2021 (Butler, 2019). The formally recognised measurement of food insecurity will enable national, annual monitoring, allowing for more focused strategies and targeted interventions to tackle diet-related health inequalities in society and direct food and economic aid. However, the measurement of food poverty should not be considered to be a guarantee of achieving Zero Hunger. While measurement is an important and necessary contributor to the research agenda around food insecurity, it does not – in and of itself – provide solutions but contributes importantly to understanding the extent and severity of food insecurity (Furey, 2020). Therefore, parallel action must be taken to effect meaningful change on the ground. Rights-based Approach to Food Security Food insecurity is a citizen issue because food access is embedded in human rights language. Human rights literature has successively set a precedent for a rights-based approach to food justice (Beacom et al., 2020). Since 1948, food has been recognised in the Universal 84

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  85 Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR Article 25), wherein it is stated, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food.” However, the UDHR is not legally binding; instead it sets out basic standards to which all countries are expected to adhere. It has been followed and supported by several international legal instruments that are legally binding (for example, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR Article 11, and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child) because there has been a “general consensus among the nations that provision of this basic human right would be the primary responsibility of the States towards their citizens” (Bagchi and Ghosh, 2018, p.953). Additionally, the UK has signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that call for an end to poverty (No Poverty) in all its forms everywhere, to end hunger by 2030, achieving food security and improved nutrition (Zero Hunger) (Caraher and Furey, 2018, p.38).

MEASURING FOOD INSECURITY There have been numerous calls for the official measurement of food insecurity in the UK (Taylor and Loopstra, 2016; Scottish Government, 2016; Beacom et al., 2019). Due to the multifaceted nature of food insecurity, no universal global indicator is currently applied (Becquey et al., 2010). Food insecurity has been measured annually in the US since 1995 (Rafiei et al., 2009) and in Canada since 2004 (Tarasuk, 2016) using standardised indicators, but until 2019, food insecurity had not been measured via an agreed tool in the UK (Loopstra et al., 2019). Measuring food insecurity is important because it allows governments and development agencies to estimate the prevalence of food insecurity, identify causes, better target (geographically) high-risk populations, and monitor and evaluate programme intervention effectiveness at the household level. An effective food insecurity measurement needs to be simple to apply, cost efficient and easy to evaluate, representing accurate indicators of the actual level of food insecurity in the home (Hackett et al., 2008). To this we would add the need for measurement to be government-endorsed, publicly reported and sufficiently regular to facilitate meaningful comparisons across time and adjust strategies and action plans accordingly. Interestingly, measuring this phenomenon has revealed how food insecurity may be unexpectedly frequent even in a high-income country (Carlton et al., 1999). Recent studies have highlighted how food insecurity is a rising problem in affluent societies (Torheim et al., 2010; Davis and Geiger, 2017). This is particularly apt in the United Kingdom, which is recognised as the fifth-richest world economy (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], 2018; World Population Review, 2021). There are many means by which to measure food insecurity, including inter alia prevalence of undernourishment, share of food expenditure by the poor, relative dietary supply, domestic food price volatility, food consumption surveys, coping strategies indices, household dietary diversity scales, food insecurity access scale, food frequency questionnaires and anthropometrical measures (Leroy et al., 2015). Typically, indicators are important for providing means to differentiate those with and without a characteristic to support the estimation of prevalence of food insecurity (Frongillo et al., 2013). Most food insecurity scales are based on similar theoretical frameworks and constructs of food insecurity, although the number and wording

86  Handbook of food security and society of the questions differ, as well as the reference period (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], n.d.). There now follows an overview of the Household Food Security Survey Module alongside other food insecurity measures in use internationally.

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY SURVEY MODULE The HFSSM was devised following recommendations for a standardised approach to defining and collecting data to measure the prevalence of food insecurity in the United States (US). The need for and feasibility of a measure was outlined in the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, and at the subsequent National Conference on Food Security Measurement and Research in 1994 (Moshfegh, 1994; Coleman-Jensen, 2015). The HFSSM aims to estimate prevalence of food insecurity and monitor changes in incidence overall and for different groups, differentiating food insecurity from food security, assuming money as the constraint to food access (Frongillo et al., 2013). It has been used to monitor US household food security annually since 1995 (Coates et al., 2006; Rafiei et al., 2009) and Canadian household food security annually since 2004 (Tarasuk, 2016). The HFSSM experiential measure consists of eighteen questions (in households with children) or ten questions (in households without children), which assess the degree of food security experienced by households over the past twelve months (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2016). The HFSSM module questions focus on four underlying conditions or behaviours related to self-reported food insecurity status: (i) anxiety related to having enough food, (ii) the perception that food available is inadequate in either quality or quantity, (iii) reduced food intake in adults, and (v) reduced food intake in children (Kennedy, 2002). ‘Often’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘yes’ are considered affirmative (positive) responses (Leroux et al., 2018; United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2012). The module makes use of ‘skip’ patterns (Shropshire et al., 2009); therefore, if respondents answer particular questions negatively, they will skip a related subset of questions. Consequently, the number of questions asked will depend on the severity of the food insecurity experience and whether or not there are children present in the household, therefore reducing participant burden (Sharpe, 2016). When the scale was originally constructed, analytic software was used to compute a calibration score for each question according to the severity of the food insecurity or hunger condition that the question represents. This then allowed questions to be grouped and anchored along a continuous scale and in categories that indicate varying levels of food security (Coates et al., 2006). Module questions proceed along the scale, beginning with questions indicating low severity; and from these, respondents are grouped into one of four food insecurity conditions – high food security, marginal food security, low food security and very low food security (USDA, 2019), according to the number of affirmative responses, assuming frequency to correspond with severity. Marginal food security is indicated for all household types by a raw score of 1–2. Low food security is indicated by a raw score of 3–5 in adult-only households, and by a score of 3–7 in households with children. Very low food security is indicated by a raw score of 6–10 for adult-only households (and 8–18 for households with children) (USDA, 2018). Health Canada, however, uses a variation on this scoring methodology, classifying participants who respond affirmatively to at least two questions as having low food security (versus the minimum score of 3 required under USDA methodology for equivalent classifi-

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  87 Table 6.1

Original and revised HFSSM classifications and their related scores (Reichenheim et al., 2016; USDA, 2018)

Original classification (1995–2005)

Revised classification (2006–present)

Categorisation

Score

Categorisation

Score

Food secure

0–2

Food secure

0

Food insecurity without hunger

3–7

Marginal food security

1–2

Moderate food insecurity with hunger

8–12

Low food security

3–7

Severe food insecurity with hunger

13–18

Very low food security

8–18

cation) (USDA, 2012). The content of the module questions has remained the same since it was first introduced (USDA, 2018), but the metrics of the classifications of varying severity of food insecurity experiences have been revised (Table 6.1). These revisions were made following recommendations from an expert panel that reference to hunger should be removed in order to make a clear distinction between food insecurity and hunger (Reichenheim et al., 2016; USDA, 2018). In addition to the 18-item HFSSM (adult and children questions) and the 10-item HFSSM (adult-only questions), a shorter 6-item version of the module has been constructed. A shorter module may have cost benefits (e.g., it may be less expensive to include in a population survey, and may require less analysis time); however, it does not measure the most severe experiences of child and adult hunger; therefore the 18-item module is considered more specific and reliable (Kennedy, 2002). HFSSM questions have also been used for ‘rapid’ measurement of food insecurity, for example single- or 2-item questionnaires when assessing food insecurity in a practitioner or specific community setting (Swindle et al., 2013; Urke et al., 2014; Knowles et al., 2016). Analyses of single- and 2-item questionnaires have found these to be valid and feasible for identifying food insecurity in a practitioner setting (Swindle et al., 2013; Urke et al., 2014); however, due to the multifaceted nature of food insecurity, potential issues of reliability and sensitivity associated with single-item scales, and the varying severity of the food insecurity experience, a multi-item validated version of the HFSSM is recommended for general population assessment (Urke et al., 2014; Archer et al., 2017; Beacom et al., 2020). Further to USDA adaptations of the scale, various countries and populations have adapted the HFSSM (Vargas and Penny, 2010) for use in a particular culture or context (e.g., language translations or adaptations in terminology to increase understanding among the target population) (Beacom et al., 2020). The Brazilian Food Insecurity Scale was adapted from the HFSSM through focus group research, and the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale was derived from the Brazilian Food Insecurity Scale (Leroy et al., 2015). Furthermore, an adapted HFSSM has been trialled in developing countries including Bolivia, the Philippines, Burkino Faso (Leroy et al., 2015) and Lebanon (Sahyoun et al., 2014). In 2016, the Food Standards Agency ‘Food and You’ survey administered in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NI) began collecting data on food security using the 10-item adult HFSSM. The annual NI Health Survey included HFSSM questions from 2012 to 2016 (Department of Health, 2019). Marques et al. (2014) reviewed various measurement tools used in food insecurity studies and found that the HFSSM and its variants were most commonly used. More recently, Beacom et al.’s (2020) rapid evidence assessment of the academic literature on food insecurity measurement similarly found that the HFSSM and its various adapted forms were the most commonly used indicator among the sample of primary and secondary studies, with 37 studies overall (out of a sample of 59) having used either the full 18-item version (n = 22), the 10-item

88  Handbook of food security and society adult version (n = 1), the 6-item short version (n = 6) or an adapted/modified version (n = 8) of the HFSSM.

STRENGTHS OF THE HFSSM The predominant use of the HFSSM globally to measure food insecurity (Marques et al., 2014; Beacom et al., 2020) provides some standardisation with regards to comparing food insecurity prevalence and severity across time and across locations. Standardisation of reporting food insecurity prevalence (and severity) is important as it provides a consistent evidence base upon which policy decisions can be made, such as actions regarding tackling the contributors of food insecurity. For example, in Canada, where food insecurity has been consistently measured since 2005 using the HFSSM, researchers have been able to identify the effects of provincial policies and economic environments on food insecurity prevalence between 2005 and 2018, and correspondingly recommend policy levers (increased minimum wage, increased welfare income, and lower income tax rates for the lowest-income bracket) that governments can use to reduce the prevalence of food insecurity in their jurisdictions (PROOF, 2021). In order for the most effective data analysis and related recommendations, however, it is recommended that compliance with measurement of food insecurity is made mandatory across regions, as it has been noted that in Canada in particular, during years when compliance with food insecurity measurement is optional for provinces, there has been less engagement (PROOF, 2021). Therefore, it is positive to see the introduction of an official annual measure (HFSSM) for food insecurity across all regions of the UK. Rigorous development and testing of the HFSSM have resulted in a scale that is highly specific and sensitive to capturing food insecurity, at varying levels of severity (Coates et al., 2006; USDA, 2012). Further, the module has been reviewed and corrected or changed as appropriate at various time points during its first introduction in 1995, in line with governmental recommendations regarding respondent burden and current practice concerning labelling of food insecurity severity levels (USDA, 2012). In practice, it has been demonstrated to be a valid, inexpensive and easy-to-use measure of food security for households and individuals alike (Frongillo, 1999; Rose et al., 1999; Derrickson et al., 2000; Kaiser et al., 2002; Nord et al., 2002), with several countries returning similar results proportionally across the classifications, with ‘anxiety’ being the most prevalent response and ‘going hungry’ least reported (Coates et al., 2006), and more affirmative responses to questions pertaining to limitations in quality of food as opposed to decreasing quantities of food consumed (Melgar-Quinonez and Hackett, 2008). Recent research (Beacom, 2019) among stakeholders working in various areas related to food poverty such as development and implementation of related policy, advocacy and community response, in one region of the UK (NI) found the HFSSM to be preferred over an alternative indicator (The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, food deprivation questions) used to measure food insecurity among the NI population. The HFSSM was preferred for reasons of perceived relevance to the food insecurity experience, being up to date in comparison to the EU-SILC questions, and providing useful insight in relation to the food insecurity experience. Likewise, an earlier study by Archer et al. (2017), which aimed to gather opinions from Australian stakeholders working in the area of food poverty to inform construction of a new food insecurity indicator, found that stakeholders preferred

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  89 a multi-item indicator (such as the HFSSM) as opposed to alternative single-item indicators, as multi-item indicators have the ability to gather data across different dimensions of the food insecurity experience (other than affordability), and to indicate severity of experience.

LIMITATIONS OF HFSSM The HFSSM, while widely used, is not without its dissenters. Interestingly, the measure is not viewed to be entirely comprehensive as it does not include within its scope the social and psychological indicators most relevant for mental health (Jones et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2020). There further exists some controversy regarding HFSSM’s method of measuring food insecurity on a unidimensional scale, which categorises four cut-offs according to the severity dimension, rather than aiming to capture the multidimensional nature of food poverty in the classification approach (Wolfe and Frongillo, 2001; Maynard et al., 2018). Such a conservative approach recognises only the most severely food insecure (those who skip meals), thereby missing the range of familial food insecurity experiences and excluding the social and psychological indicators most relevant for mental health (Johnson et al., 2020, p.1256). There is also some discord related to the omission of child-specific questions in the 10-item and 6-item versions of the HFSSM, as it is considered that the 18-item module presents a more accurate picture and a stronger basis for conclusion of the familial food security situation (Urke et al., 2014). The omission of the child-focused questions is an important consideration, since while food insecurity conditions may be similar among household members this cannot be assumed; adults’ food insecurity status will likely precede any childhood food insecurity in the same household, as caregivers will protect children against food insecurity in the same household (Ford, 2012). It should also be noted that nationally representative population surveys, for example the Family Resources Survey in which the HFSSM is embedded in the UK, while robust, do not claim to be representative of the entire low-income population and therefore may under-estimate the prevalence of food insecurity among the sample. A further methodological consideration is measurement frequency. HFSSM in the UK survey relies on a respondent recall period of 30 days, but Loopstra (2019) and Ip et al. (2015) recommend that a longer recall period is necessary to measure transient and persistent food insecurity. This accords with Johnson et al. (2020), who suggest that the HFSSM may not be fully capturing shifts in food insecurity.

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: FOOD INSECURITY EXPERIENCE SCALE SURVEY MODULE The Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Insecurity Experience Scale Survey Module (FIES-SM) is an 8-item experiential scale that originates from two widely used experience-based food security scales: the US HFSSM and the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale. This module was constructed in 2013 with the aim of providing a new global standard measure of food insecurity that would be comparable across countries and culturally relevant in both developed and developing countries (Ballard et al., 2013; FAO, 2019).

90  Handbook of food security and society The FIES-SM consists of eight questions that interrogate self-reported experiences and behaviours arising from problematic food access due to lack of money or other resources over a calendar-year recall period, irrespective of frequency of occurrence, thereby accounting for the food insecurity constructs of uncertainty/anxiety, changes in food quality and changes in food quantity. The composite questions are based on “well-grounded empirical research regarding the experience of hunger and poor food access” (FAO, n.d., p.6). Affirmative answers are used to classify the severity of respondents’ food insecurity experience into three categories anchored along a continuous scale representing severity of food insecurity: questions one to three relate to ‘mild’ food insecurity (experiencing anxiety regarding accessing enough food/inadequate food quality), questions four to six relate to ‘moderate’ food insecurity (insufficient food quantity), and questions seven and eight relate to ‘severe’ food insecurity (experiencing hunger) (Ballard et al., 2013; Sharpe, 2016). Results are typically reported at mild/marginal and moderate/severe thresholds to provide some differentiation between households with and without food. It has been identified as the measure used for progress tracking by the SDGs. It is also lauded because it resonates with the SDGs’ nutrition indicators, represents low-cost data collection and is relevant to multiple countries (FAO, 2019). However, unlike the HFSSM it does not directly measure food insecurity among children, nor does it enquire how often in the 12-month period certain indicators of food insecurity occurred.

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: EUROPEAN UNION STATISTICS ON INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is a survey developed to monitor deprivation and social exclusion across countries in the European Union (EU) (Alkire et al., 2014; Arora et al., 2015). Its strength is that it provides data on household income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions in the EU, as well as information regarding household hardship (Deidda, 2015). Since 2004 it has become the reference source for comparative statistics on income distribution and social inclusion in the EU. It was devised by EU Member States and the European Commission to provide reliable and timely statistics and indicators to monitor social protection and social inclusion efforts, while ensuring flexibility for each country to accommodate the instrument into its own national system of social surveys (Atkinson and Marlier, 2010). EU-SILC carries four questions pertaining to food insecurity, regarding affordability of food and minimal participation in social life: inability to afford a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent every second day; inability to afford a roast or vegetarian equivalent once weekly; whether during the last fortnight, there was at least one day (i.e., from getting up to going to bed) when the respondent did not have a substantial meal due to lack of money; and inability to have family or friends over for a meal or drink once per month. However, EU-SILC does not take account of food access, an important contributor to food insecurity (Carney and Maître, 2012). As these four food deprivation measures were constructed as part of a longer 20-item survey that included questions on markers of deprivation other than food consumption, these four questions have not been validated as a separate construct for measuring food insecurity (Whelan and Maître, 2006). Furthermore, unlike the HFSSM and FIES-SM, the EU-SILC

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  91 food deprivation questions have not been validated comparably in terms of categorising respondents into varying levels or categories of food insecurity (Whelan and Maître, 2006). However, the Republic of Ireland (ROI) has adopted a ‘two out of four’ or ‘one out of three’ index for analysis when detecting whether a household is food insecure (Carney and Maître, 2012). The ‘two out of four’ index classifies a household as experiencing food insecurity if its members answer affirmatively to at least two of the four deprivation items. Data analysis of responses to the four deprivation questions across the EU showed that question four, which refers to the household being unable to invite family/friends to their home for a meal, was responded to affirmatively by a large proportion; therefore it was decided that using a ‘two out of four’ approach would be better than ‘one out of four’, as this question would be likely to dominate the scale (Carney and Maître, 2012). The ‘one out of three’ index excludes question four relating to having family/friends over for food/drink, and instead categorises a household as food insecure if its members answer affirmatively to questions one to three (Carney and Maître, 2012). Rather than analysing the EU-SILC questions in a way similar to their ROI counterparts by following this method of categorising or generalising overall food insecurity status from the construct responses, the NI Health Survey data are instead reported by stating the results of each question separately (Department of Health, 2019). This means that statistics on food security in NI are reported, for example, as follows: “4% of NI households cannot afford to eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or equivalent every second day”, as opposed to “4% of NI households are food insecure”. In terms of food insecurity domains represented by the module questions, unlike the HFSSM and the FIES-SM, the EU-SILC does include an explicit reference to the social dimension of food insecurity. However, it does not enquire about the psychological dimension, focusing instead on quality and quantity.

COMPARISONS OF REPORTED FOOD INSECURITY MEASUREMENT Food insecurity has been measured across the UK via various tools, notably those cited above, and in various surveys, including the NI Health Survey, Food and You 2 (Food Standards Agency) and the Family Resources Survey (ONS). For example, Food and You 2 (Food Standards Agency, 2021a) classified 16% of respondents in England, Wales and NI as food insecure, while the Family Resource Survey found 13% to experience marginal, low or very low food security (DWP, 2021). While these analyses and reporting are welcome, they can present differing data that serve to confuse the state of knowledge around the prevalence of food insecurity, leaving their interpretation open to misreporting. While the differentiation between surveys is most clear in the ‘very low’ classification, the issue is more pronounced when analysis relies on different indicators. This is illustrated in reporting of results from the NI Health Survey 2015/16, which reported percentage agreement in the population with EU-SILC and HFSSM questions rather than classifying responses as having high, marginal or low food security. The issue is further complicated when other tools (Food and You Wave 4) report the results from the positive perspective reporting the percentage of respondents who have never experienced difficulty affording food. (Table 6.2 refers to using NI data for 2015–16 when respondents were asked all question formats.)

92  Handbook of food security and society Table 6.2

Food (in)security responses for different indicator questions

EU-SILC (Department of Health, 2019)

Result

During the last fortnight was there ever a day (i.e. from getting up to going to bed) when you did not have 4% a substantial meal due to lack of money? Could not afford to have a roast joint (or its equivalent) once a week?

3%

Could not afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month?

3%

Could not afford to eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day? HFSSM (Department of Health, 2019)

1%

There had been at least one day in the last fortnight that they did not have a substantial meal due to a lack of 4% money. Often or sometimes did not have enough to eat.

3%

Had enough to eat but not always have the kinds of foods they wanted. Food and You (Wave 4) (Food Standards Agency, 2017)

13%

Household had never worried in the last 12 months about running out of food before there was money to buy 82% more. In the last 12 months they had never experienced food running out and they did not have money to get more.

88%

Household had never experienced not being able to afford to eat balanced meals in the last 12 months.

88%

Another issue with the reporting of food insecurity is the time lag between data collection and reporting of results. For example, although headline statistics from 2019/20 are available, the most recent fully available NI Health Survey dataset is from 2014/15 (as of July 2021), and food insecurity data collected from April 2019 using the newly endorsed HFSSM were not available until March 2021. While the visibility of headline statistics is helpful, the inability to access freely the raw data in a timely way reduces the potential to inform policy making with the necessary impetus to effect change with the required immediacy.

CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Food insecurity is complex and requires measurement because we need to understand the prevalence and severity of food insecurity if we are to reduce/eradicate it (inter)nationally. This is an important distinction because what gets measured gets done! Furthermore, it is useful to apply a singular food insecurity measure to articulate the severity of its existence and avoid the potential for confusion that can come with having a plurality of indicators available. Irrespective of the indicator in use, food insecurity measurement should be protected as a module on robust, government-endorsed surveys that are collated and reported upon regularly to maintain the impetus to achieve No Poverty and Zero Hunger. Additionally, these food insecurity data should be made publicly available for secondary analysis. This chapter has presented the extant literature detailing how HFSSM dominates food insecurity measurement in the developed nations. It has been introduced (since February 2019, with first data reported on 25 March 2021) into UK food insecurity measurement as the indicator of choice, but there remains scope to refine it further to present the most comprehensive picture of food insecurity prevalence. Notably this includes the merits of introducing into the Family Resources Survey the full 18-item module, inclusive of children-specific questions, and longer recall periods to monitor chronic and transitional food insecurity trends. Again, irrespective of the indicator applied, food insecurity and its measurement should be embedded in rights-based language and action must be taken to address it in parallel with

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  93 ongoing and valid research efforts to quantify and describe it. Measuring food insecurity is important to understand the extent and severity of the problem. As discussed above, there are various indicators available to enumerate food insecurity, but extant research (Archer et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2020) recognises the requirement to broaden food insecurity comprehensions (beyond primary focus on affordability and quantitative deprivation to include physical access, and qualitative and social aspects including mental health considerations), in order to understand better the experiences of our most vulnerable citizens. This is particularly important given the emerging food insecurity and Covid-19 data that indicate there are newly emerging subgroups of people who are at risk of food insecurity (Loopstra, 2020). Additionally, there needs to be a balance between measurement of the problems, devising solutions and evaluating the solutions (Caraher and Furey, 2018, p.7).

REFERENCES Alkire, S., Apablaza, M., and Jung, E. (2014) Multidimensional poverty measurement for EU-SILC countries. OPHI Research in Progress, Oxford University, paper no. 36c. Anderson, P.M., Butcher, K.F., Hoynes, H.W., and Whitmore Schanzenbach, D.W. (2016) Beyond income: what else predicts very low food security among children? Southern Economic Journal, 82(4), 1078–1105. Archer, C., Gallegos, D., and McKechnie, R. (2017) Developing measures of food and nutrition security within an Australian context. Public Health Nutrition, 20(14), 2513–2522. Arora, V.S., Karanikolos, M., Clair, A., Reeves, A., Stuckler, D., and McKee, M. (2015) Data Resource Profile: The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(2), 451–461. Atkinson, A.B., and Marlier, E. (2010) Income and living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://​doi​.org/​10​.2785/​53320 Bagchi, S., and Ghosh, A (2018) A probe into rural households’ food accessibility scenario: a micro level study in West Bengal. Economic Affairs, 63(4), 953–962. https://​doi​.org/​10​.30954/​0424​-2513​ .4​.2018​.19 Ballard, T.J., Kepple, A.W., and Cafiero, C. (2013) The food insecurity experience scale development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: http://​www​.fao​.org/​economic/​ess/​ess​-fs/​voices/​en/​ [accessed 14.07.2021]. Beacom, E. (2019) Defining, measuring and predicting food insecurity in Northern Ireland: a stakeholder approach to inform business and policy implications and response. Thesis, (PhD), Ulster University. Beacom, E., Furey, S., Hollywood, L., and Humphreys, P. (2019) Improving societal health through measurement and monitoring of food poverty: a comparison of US HFSSM and EU-SILC measurement modules. Unpublished poster presentation at: 18th International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Annual Meeting, June 4–7, Prague. https://​doi​.org/​10​.13140/​RG​.2​.2​.19103​ .10407 Beacom, E., Furey, S., Hollywood, L.E., and Humphreys, P. (2020) Investigating food insecurity measurement globally to inform practice locally: a rapid evidence review, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​10408398​.2020​.1798347 Becquey, E., Martin-Prevel, Y., Traissac, P., Dembele, B., Bambara, A., and Delpeuch, F. (2010) The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale and an index-member Dietary Diversity Score contribute valid and complementary information on household food insecurity in an urban West-African setting. The Journal of Nutrition, 140(12), 2233–2240. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3945/​jn​.110​.125716 Butler, P. (2019) UK hunger survey to measure food insecurity. The Guardian, 27 February. Available from: https://​www​.theguardian​.com/​society/​2019/​feb/​27/​government​-to​-launch​-uk​-food​-insecurity​ -index [accessed: 14.07.2021].

94  Handbook of food security and society Caraher, M., and Furey, S. (2018) The economics of emergency food aid provision: a financial, social and cultural perspective, 1st edn, London: Palgrave Macmillan eBook. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​ -319​-78506​-6 Carlton, S.J., Andrews, M.S., and Bickel, G.W. (1999) Measuring food insecurity and hunger in the United States: development of a national benchmark measure and prevalence estimates. Journal of Nutrition, 129, 510S–516S. Carney, C., and Maître, B. (2012) Constructing a food poverty indicator for Ireland: social inclusion technical paper no. 3. Dublin: Department of Social Protection. Available from: https://​www​.esri​ .ie/​publications/​constructing​-a​-food​-poverty​-indicator​-for​-ireland​-using​-the​-survey​-on​-income​-and [accessed 14.07.2021]. Coates, J., Frongillo, E.A., Rogers, B.L., Webb, P., Wilde, P.E., and Houser, R. (2006) Commonalities in the experience of household food insecurity across cultures: what are measures missing? American Society for Nutrition, 136, 1438S–1448S. Coleman-Jensen, A. (2015) Commemorating 20 years of U.S. food security measurement. Washington: USDA. Available from: https://​www​.ers​.usda​.gov/​amber​-waves/​2015/​october/​commemorating​-20​ -years​-of​-us​-food​-security​-measurement/​ [accessed 14.07.2021]. Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., and Rabbitt, M. (2015) Food security in the US. United States Department of Agriculture. Available from: http://​www​.ers​.usda​.gov/​topics/​food​-nutrition​-assistance/​ food​-security​-in​-the​-us/​survey​-tools​.aspx​#household [accessed 14.07.2021]. Davis, O., and Geiger, B.B. (2017) Did food insecurity rise across Europe after the 2008 crisis? An analysis across welfare regimes. Social Policy and Society, 16, 343–360. Deidda, M. (2015) Economic hardship, housing cost burden and tenure status: evidence from EU-SILC. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36(4), 531–556. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10834​-014​-9431​-2 Department of Health (2019) Health survey trend tables Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Health. Available from: https://​www​.health​-ni​.gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​health/​hsni​-trend​-tables​ -19​-20​_1​.xlsx [accessed 15.07.2021]. Derrickson, J.P., Fisher, A.G., and Anderson, J.E. (2000) The core food security module scale measure is valid and reliable when used with Asians and Pacific Islanders. Journal of Nutrition, 130, 2666–2674. DWP (2021) National statistics. Family Resources Survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. Available from: https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​statistics/​family​-resources​-survey​-financial​-year​-2019​-to​-2020/​ family​-resources​-survey​-financial​-year​-2019​-to​-2020 [accessed 14.07.2021]. Environmental Audit Committee (2019) Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow-up: hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK. London: House of Commons. Available from: https://​publications​.parliament​.uk/​pa/​cm201719/​cmselect/​cmenvaud/​1491/​149102​.htm [accessed 14.07.2021]. FAO (n.d.) The food insecurity experience scale: frequently asked questions. Available from: http://​ www​.fao​.org/​3/​a​-bl354e​.pdf [accessed 14.07.2021]. FAO (2019) Voices of the hungry: frequently asked questions. Available from: http://​www​.fao​.org/​in​ -action/​voices​-of​-the​-hungry/​faq/​en/​ [accessed 14.07.2021]. Food Standards Agency (2017) The Food and You survey: Wave 4. Available from: https://​www​.food​ .gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​document/​food​-and​-you​-northern​-ireland​-report​_0​.pdf [accessed 15.07.2021]. Food Standards Agency (2021a) Food and You 2: Wave 1 key findings. Available from: https://​www​ .food​.gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​document/​fy2​-wave​-1​-report​-​_key​-findings​_1​.pdf [accessed 15.07.2021] Food Standards Agency (2021b) Food security in Northern Ireland. Available from: https://​ www​ .food​.gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​document/​fy2​-wave​-1​-ni​-food​-security​-short​-report​-doi​.pdf [accessed 15.07.2021]. Ford, J.D. (2012) Indigenous health and climate change. American Journal of Public Health, 102(7), 1260–1266. Frongillo, E.A. (1999) Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger. Journal of Nutrition, 129, S506–509. Frongillo, E.A., Fishbein, E.M., and Fram, M.S. (2013) Assessment and surveillance of child food insecurity and hunger. Washington D.C.: USDA.

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  95 Furey, S. (2020) Food Poverty: Zero hunger and the right to food. In Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Cham: Springer. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-319​-69626​-3 Hackett, M., Melgar-Quinonez, H., Perez-Escamilla, R., and Segall-Correa, A.M. (2008) Gender of respondent does not affect the psychometric properties of the Brazilian Household Food Security Scale. International Journal of Epidemiology, 37, 766–774. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​je/​dyn084 Ip, E.H., Saldana, S., Arcury, T.A., Grzywacz, J.G., Trejo, G., and Quandt, S.A. (2015) Profiles of food security for US farmworker households and factors related to dynamic of change. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e42–e47. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0379572116653509 Johnson, C.M., Ammerman, A.S., Adair, L.S., Aiello, A.E., Flax, V.L., Elliott, S., Hardison-Moody, A., and Bowen, S.K. (2020) The Four Domain Food Insecurity Scale (4D-FIS): development and evaluation of a complementary food insecurity measure. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 10(6), 1255–1265. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​tbm/​ibaa125 Jones, A.D., Ngure, F.M., Pelto, G., and Young, S.L. (2013) What are we assessing when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. Advanced Nutrition, 4, 481–505. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.3945/​an​.113​.004119 Kaiser, L.L., Melgar-Quinonez, H.R., Lamp, C.L., Johns, M.C., Sutherlin, J.M., and Harwood, J.O. (2002) Food security and nutritional outcomes of preschool-age Mexican–American children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102, 924–929. Kennedy, E. (2002) Keynote paper: qualitative measures of food insecurity and hunger. Rome: FAO. Available from: http://​www​.fao​.org/​3/​Y4249E/​y4249e0c​.htm [accessed: 14.07.2021]. Knowles, M., Rabinowich, J., de Cuba, S.E., Cutts, D.B., and Chilton, M. (2016) “Do you wanna breathe or eat?” Parent perspectives on child health consequences of food insecurity, trade-offs, and toxic stress. Maternal Child Health Journal, 20, 25–32. Leroux, J., Morrison, K., and Rosenburg, M. (2018) Prevalence and predictors of food insecurity among older people in Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 2511–2528. Leroy, J.L., Ruel, M., Frongillo, E.A., Harris, J., and Ballard, T.J. (2015) Measuring the food access dimension of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 36(2), 167–195. Loopstra, R. (2019) Food insecurity measurement on the Family Resources Survey: evidence and network on UK household food insecurity. Available from: https://​enuf​.org​.uk/​research​-blogs/​food​ -insecurity​-measurement​-family​-resources​-survey [accessed 13.07.2021]. Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., and Tarasuk, V. (2019) The rise of hunger among low-income households: an analysis of the risks of food insecurity between 2004 and 2016 in a population-based study of UK adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(7), 668–673. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1136/​jech​ -2018​-211194 Marques, E.A., Reichenheim, M.E., de Moraes, C.L., Antunes, M.M.L., and Salles-Costa, R. (2014) Household food insecurity: a systematic review of the measuring instruments used in epidemiological studies. Public Health Nutrition, 18(5), 877–892. Maynard, M., Andrade, L., Packull-McCormick, S., Perlman, C., LeosToro, C., and Kirkpatrick, S. (2018) Food insecurity and mental health among females in high-income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1424. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph15071424 Melgar-Quinonez, H., and Hackett, M. (2008) Measuring household food security: the global experience. Revista de Nutriçã, 21, Supplement, 27s–37s. Moshfegh, A.J. (1994) The national nutrition monitoring and related research program: progress and activities. The Journal of Nutrition, 124(9), 1843S–1845S. Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Winicki, J. (2002) Related articles: frequency and duration of food insecurity and hunger in US households. Journal of Nutrition Education Behavior, 34, 194–200. OHCHR (2018) Statement on Visit to the United Kingdom, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, 16 November. Available from: https://​www​ .ohchr​.org/​en/​statements/​2018/​11/​statement​-visit​-united​-kingdom​-professor​-philip​-alston​-united​ -nations​-special [accessed 14.07.2021]. Pool, U., and Dooris, M. (2021) Prevalence of food security in the UK measured by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale. Journal of Public Health, 44(3), 634–641. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​pubmed/​fdab120

96  Handbook of food security and society PROOF (2021) Provincial policy levers to reduce household food insecurity. Toronto: PROOF. Available from: https://​proof​.utoronto​.ca/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​05/​PROOF​_FACTSHEET​ _Provincial​-policies​-052021​.pdf [accessed 28.7.2021]. Radimer, K.L., Olson, C.M., and Campbell, C.C. (1990) Development of indicators to assess hunger. Journal of Nutrition, 120, 1544–1548. Rafiei, M., Nord, M., Sadeghizadeh, A., and Entezari, M.H. (2009) Assessing the internal validity of a household survey-based food security measure adapted for use in Iran. Nutrition Journal, 8(28). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​1475​-2891​-8​-28 Reichenheim, M.E., Interlenghi, G.S., Moraes, C.L., Segall-Correa, A.M., Perez-Escamilla, R., and Salles-Costa, R. (2016) A model-based approach to identify classes and respective cutoffs of the Brazilian household food insecurity measurement scale. The Journal of Nutrition, 146(7), 1356–1364. Rose, D. (1999) Economic determinants and dietary consequences of food insecurity in the United States. Journal of Nutrition, 129, S517–520. Rose, D., Strasberg, P., Jeje, J.J., and Tschirley, D. (1999) Household food consumption in Northern Mozambique: a case study in three northern provinces. MAP/MSU Research Paper No. 33. Directorate of Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Maputo. Sahyoun, N.R., Nord, M., Sassine, A.J., Seyfert, K., Hwalla, N., and Ghattas, H. (2014) Development and validation of an Arab family food security scale. The Journal of Nutrition, 144(5), 751–757. Scottish Government (2016) Dignity: Ending hunger together in Scotland. The report of the independent working group on food poverty. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Sharpe, L. (2016) Time to count the hungry: the case for a standard measure of household food insecurity in the UK. London: Food Research Collaboration. Available from: https://​foodresearch​.org​.uk/​ roundtables/​mapping​-the​-way​-forward​-on​-food​-poverty/​ [accessed: 10.09.2019]. Shropshire, K.O., Hawdon, J.E., and Witte, J.C. (2009) Web survey design. Sociological Methods and Research, 37, 344–370. Swindle, T.M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., and McKelvey, L. 2013. Food insecurity: Validation of a two-item screen using convergent risks. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(7), 932–941. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s10826​-012​-9652​-7 Tarasuk, V. (2016) Advancing food insecurity research in Canada. In: Advancing Food Insecurity Research in Canada, 17–18 November, Toronto. Available from: https://​proof​.utoronto​.ca/​conference/​ [accessed: 14.07.2021]. Taylor, A., and Loopstra, R. (2016) Too poor to eat: food insecurity in the UK. London: The Food Foundation. Torheim, L.E., Ferguson, E.L., Penrose, K., and Arimond, M. (2010) Women in resource-poor settings are at risk of inadequate intakes of multiple micronutrients. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 251–258. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3945/​jn​.110​.123463 Urke, H.B., Cao, Z.R., and Egeland, G.M. (2014) Validity of a single item food security questionnaire in Arctic Canada. Pediatrics, 133(6), e1616–1623. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3663 USDA (2012) U.S. adult food security survey module: three-stage design, with screeners. Washington: Economic Research Service, USDA. Available from: https://​docplayer​.net/​2788907​-U​-s​-household​ -food​-security​-survey​-module​-three​-stage​-design​-with​-screeners​-economic​-research​-service​-usda​ -september​-2012​.html [accessed: 14.07.2021]. USDA (2018) Measurement. Washington: USDA Economic Research Service. Available from: https://​www​.ers​.usda​.gov/​topics/​food​-nutrition​-assistance/​food​-security​-in​-the​-us/​measurement​.aspx [accessed: 14.07.2021]. USDA (2019) Definitions of food security. Washington: USDA Economic Research Service. Available from: https://​www​.ers​.usda​.gov/​topics/​food​-nutrition​-assistance/​food​-security​-in​-the​-us/​definitions​ -of​-food​-security/​ [accessed: 14.07.2021]. Vargas, S., and Penny, M.E. (2010) Measuring food insecurity and hunger in Peru: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of an adapted version of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module. Public Health Nutrition, 13(10), 1488–1497. Whelan, C.T., and Maître, B. (2006) Comparing poverty and deprivation dynamics: issues of reliability and validity. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 4, 303–323. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10888​-005​ -9017​-1

The dominance of the USDA’s food insecurity and hunger module and its adaptations  97 Wolfe, W.S., and Frongillo, E.A. (2001) Building household food security measurement tools from the ground up. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 22(1), 5–12. World Population Review (2021) Richest countries in the world – 2021. Available from: https://​w​ orldpopula​tionreview​.com/​country​-rankings/​richest​-countries​-in​-the​-world [accessed: 20.06.2021].

7. Comparative analysis of the measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy Catherine Littler, Susan Belyea and Jennifer Brady

INTRODUCTION Effective measurement of food insecurity is important for several reasons. Measuring food insecurity is necessary to understand the prevalence, severity, and socio-demographic distribution of food deprivation among populations, and at individual/household, national, regional, and global scales, to tracking trends over time, and to comparing variations across geographic locations. Effective measurement of the prevalence and severity of food insecurity is also vital to targeting and evaluating policies and programs that are aimed at reducing food insecurity. Measuring the impact of those policies and programs is important, but it is beyond the scope of this chapter, which focuses on the various means by which the prevalence and severity of food insecurity is measured around the world. How food insecurity is measured differs around the world with respect to what, how, when, how often, and by and from whom data are collected and used. To illustrate, food insecurity measures may focus on the market supply, access, utilization, stability, or a combination of these domains. Data may be collected at individual, household, regional, national, or global scales. Measurement tools may be deployed in clinics using standardized measures of health or anthropometric indicators, they may rely on intensive data collection in the home, or they may extrapolate from market data, tracking the availability and costs of food in the market. As food insecurity is of concern to multiple sectors—government, industry, health, social and development aid—each with different priorities and capacities to collect, process, and analyze data, different approaches to measuring food insecurity have been developed to measure different aspects of the problem. No one means of measuring food insecurity can assess the wide array of factors that contribute to, are impacted by, or that otherwise describe the problem. Each way of measuring food insecurity addresses deficits in one or more dimensions of food security, but because food insecurity is a multi-faceted problem, no single means of measurement captures deficits in all dimensions. What is more, this variability in measuring food insecurity creates challenges for tracking tends over time, setting into context data gathered at local, national, and global scales, and drawing comparisons across geographic locations. Thus, on a pragmatic level, each means of measuring food insecurity has strengths and limitations related to the scope, expediency, and utility of the data collected. Beyond these pragmatic features, the means by which the problem that we describe today as food insecurity is measured are also shaped by and shape how the problem is conceptualized, including what the problem is understood to be, its contributing factors and consequences, and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, which include those experiencing food insecurity, service providers, and decision makers. How the problem is conceptualized has implications for how it is measured, which together inform if, how, and what policy approaches, if any, are deemed appropriate to redress it. 98

The measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy  99 Ultimately, in order to collect and make sense of food insecurity data, or to develop effective policy solutions, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations, as well as the conceptual underpinnings, of the various means of measuring food insecurity. In one notably thorough piece of work, Jones et al. (2013) present a “compendium” of the dizzying array of tools and approaches to measuring food insecurity at individual/household, regional, national, and global scales. We draw on Jones et al.’s categorization of diverse means by which individual/household food insecurity is measured to comparatively and critically analyze three broad approaches—anthropometric measures, consumer reporting measures, and experiential measures—to highlight the advantages, limitations, underlying conceptualizations, and implications for policy of each. The analysis presented here unfolds in three sections. The first comprises a discussion of the implications for approaches to measurement that shifting conceptualizations of the problem of food deprivation have shown over time. Second, there is a review of three broad approaches to measuring individual and household food insecurity, and the strengths and limitation of each. Third, each approach is critically and comparatively discussed, together with the implications for policy to redress individual and household food insecurity.

FROM MARKET SUPPLY AND GLOBAL HUNGER TO FOOD INSECURITY A multitude of approaches and tools for measuring food insecurity has emerged with the shifting ways in which the problem of food deprivation has been understood over time. Prior to the early 1980s, measures related to food deprivation were primarily concerned with national food supply, and the prevalence, severity, and impact of hunger within the poorer countries of the global south (Coates, 2013). The focus on food supply in the marketplace and hunger as the predominant manifestation of food deficits reflected early conceptualizations of the contributing factors, prevalence, and impact of insufficient food (Barrett, 2010). Analysis centered on trends in and interruptions to domestic food supplies, threats to agriculture from natural disasters, and economic trade policies. These data were typically reported alongside anthropometric data on stunting and wasting as evidence of prolonged hunger and malnutrition, and together these indicators defined and described food deprivation internationally for decades (Barrett, 2010). The measurement of food supply in the market continues to have remarkable tenacity as an indicator of food security/insecurity globally, and remains one of the predominant ways that food insecurity is assessed in global forums. However, while food supply and evidence of malnutrition represent important dimensions of food insecurity, it is widely recognized that an adequate supply of food and/or kilocalories is not in itself sufficient to create the conditions for reliable access to an adequate quantity or quality of food in a population. By the early 1980s, researchers were redefining the way that food deprivation was understood (see Chapter 1, this volume, by Christine Kinealy). Amartya Sen’s publication of Poverty and Famines in 1982 recognized that people experience food deprivation not only because food is unavailable in the market, but also because their access to such food is constrained, and that constraint is primarily the result of limited financial resources. Sen’s work marked a shift away from the focus on national food supply and hunger, to what we now describe as food insecurity—a multi-dimensional problem that is associated with compromised food access long before hunger or malnutrition is present, let alone measurable.

100  Handbook of food security and society Today, individual/household food insecurity is defined variously, with each definition presenting a slightly different perspective and set of relevant features. For example, food insecurity may be defined as the result of deficits in one or more elements of food security as it was defined at the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996). This definition includes dimensions of food availability (supply), food access (e.g., economic or physical access), utilization of food (e.g., sanitation, food safety, access to water and fuel), and stability (chronic or transitory) of food supply, access, and utilization. Although means of measuring food insecurity today are more sensitive to the multi-dimensionality of food inaccessibility at individual/household levels, challenges remain due to the wide array of means of measuring food insecurity. Based on the compilation of food insecurity measurements by Jones, Ngure, Pelto, and Young (2013), we group food insecurity measurements into three broad approaches: (1) anthropometric measures; (2) consumer reporting measures; (3) experiential measures. Each of these approaches measures food insecurity by looking at the impacts of inadequate access to food at the individual and/or household levels.

APPROACHES TO MEASURING FOOD INSECURITY Anthropometric Measures Anthropometric measures are quantitative measurements of the human body and are accepted as an effective method for assessing whether or not a population has access to adequate calories for normal human development (Casadei & Kiel, 2021). Undernutrition is diagnosed when individuals’ anthropometric measurements of weight and height fall below international reference standards, and demonstrate the physiological effects of malnutrition, primarily in children and infants (Casadei & Kiel, 2021; Fryar et al., 2016). Anthropometric data speak to the access dimension of food insecurity by measuring the physiological effects of inadequate food intake. The most common body measurements for assessing food insecurity are height, to assess stunting, and weight, to assess wasting. In response to an emerging body of research on the relationship between obesity and malnutrition, particularly in countries of the global north, “obesity”1 is sometimes measured as a marker of malnutrition (Luo et al., 2020). However, researchers have cautioned against such individualistic and medicalized approaches to fatness, and advocate for interventions that target the social and structural inequities that undergird food insecurity (Brady et al., 2019; Cooksey Stowers et al., 2020). Anthropometric measures of food insecurity are typically reported for infants and children, and are frequently presented alongside population data such as live births per 1000, infant and childhood mortality, average lifespan, and population incidence of diet-related illness and disease to give a more comprehensive picture of the effects of food insecurity in a population. Anthropometric measures can map the effects of severe food 1 Scare quotes are routinely used, as they are here, to denote and reject the medicalization of fatness inherent in the word “obesity,” and in line with movements to end the oppression of fat bodies. For a discussion of the ways that “obesity” is often leveraged in calls for food systems change, including interventions to redress food insecurity, see Brady, Gingras and LeBesco (2019).

The measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy  101 Table 7.1

Advantages and limitations of anthropometric measures

Advantages

Limitations

Protocols are simple, cost effective, and easily carried out with Data alone do not capture the causes of food insecurity, which minimal training or resources.

may be multiple.

Normal weight and height measurements are standardized; results These reflect the effects of past events, such as maternal are highly comparable within and between populations.

malnutrition or early childhood illness, rather than current conditions. Thus policy or program responses may be out of sync with measurable outcomes.

With standardized metrics, we can compare changes in malnutrition Metrics are most often collected for infants and children, though rates over time to assess the impact of policy interventions and a more comprehensive picture of the effects of inadequate negative events such as famine.

nutrition in a population would include data for youth, adults, and seniors. Life events, genetics, and other factors result in higher variability in “normal” metrics for adults.

Provide actionable indicators that can be used to target specific This is ineffective for identifying or tracking food insecurity in interventions and to monitor changes in nutritional status.

populations where there are minimal physiological effects of food insecurity, or where food insecurity is correlated to obesity.

insecurity from the local to the national level. Anthropometric measures of food insecurity are used primarily in regions where food deficits result in physiological evidence of malnutrition such as stunting and wasting. This includes countries throughout the global south, and in some subpopulations in the global north (Huet et al., 2012). Consumer Reporting Measurements Consumer reporting measurements ask consumers to track food purchases and food consumption patterns over a period of time through the use of food recall forms, food frequency questionaries, and/or food journals. There are two primary consumer reporting-based approaches for assessing food insecurity. One is a Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey (HCES). This approach asks respondents to record all household food purchases over a period of time. These data are used to analyze the percentage of household income spent on food along with the adequacy of nutrition. HCESs typically measure food acquisition and consumption at the level of the household rather than the individual. The second consumer reporting measurement tool is a Dietary Diversity Score (DDS). DDS tools rely on dietary diversity as a measure of food access. DDS can also be used as a proxy measure for the utilization dimension of food insecurity, based on evidence that a more diverse diet is usually a healthier diet, richer in micronutrients (Abris et al., 2018). These tools can provide insight into the nutritive quality of diets at the household or individual level. DDS surveys ask consumers to report on types and portions of foods consumed over a set period of time according to defined dietary groups, such as cereals, vegetables, oils, meats, legumes, and so on. These data are analyzed to assess caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient access and intake. DDS surveys are used at the household or the individual level. Consumer reporting measures are often tailored to local food cultures and conditions. Some consumer reporting methods rely on the memory of participants through a 24-hour recall or food frequency questionnaire, while others rely on recording foods as they are consumed. Portion size estimations often rely on assisted memory (e.g., using food models). These portion size estimations are needed to estimate food type counts as well as nutrient intakes.

102  Handbook of food security and society Table 7.2

Advantages and limitations of consumer measures

Advantages

Limitations

Easily adapted for local conditions and local food cultures, Rely upon the memory of respondents, which may cause significant providing researchers with a detailed understanding of food measurement error. Careful training and adherence to standardized access and consumption patterns.

validated test models can mitigate this to an extent; however, the room for error remains high.

Can create opportunities for active participant engagement Households must commit to multiple 24-hour recalls, resulting in in data collection and reflection on their consumption more chances for measurement error and more opportunities for patterns.

participants to leave the study.

Allow researchers to assess both dietary quality (macro- and The specificity of local food cultures makes it difficult to compare micronutrients) and quantity (calories).

data across regions.

Can provide an accurate picture of proportion of income Data collection and analysis is costly and resource intensive for a large spent on food.

population.

Can be adapted to include food obtained through non-market Data alone do not capture the causes of food insecurity, which may sources including growing food, receiving gifts, or receiving be multiple. food aid. Data do not capture intrahousehold dynamics, such as women going without to feed others.

Experiential Measures Experiential measures survey people about their experience of food insecurity at the household level, typically over a 12-month period. These tools were developed to evaluate the access dimension of food insecurity. They measure the severity of food insecurity based on a series of questions about specific conditions and experiences, ranging from worrying about running out of food due to limited resources, to the inability to afford a balanced diet, to missing meals, and in extreme cases to going a day without eating because of a lack of food or resources for food (Tarasuk, Mitchell, & Dachner, 2016). Answers to survey question are analyzed and the degree of food insecurity, from mild, to moderate, to severe, is assessed. Importantly, experiential measures frame survey questions in terms of limited access to food due to insufficient resources, in recognition that food insecurity is most often a result of low income or inadequate resources relative to the cost of food (Wunderlich & Norwood, 2006). Since the introduction of this methodology in the 1990s (Kendall, Olson, & Frongillo, 1995), experiential tools for measuring food insecurity have been developed and validated in many countries and regions around the world (Beacom et al., 2020). Well-known models include the Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS); the Canadian and American versions of the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM); and the Latin American and Caribbean Food Insecurity Scale (ELCSA). The number and wording of questions varies with different models of these surveys; however, all strive to measure dimensions of food access and use the same underpinning theoretical and methodological approach. In 2014 the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) began promoting a modified validated version, the FIES-SM (Food Insecurity Experience Scale – Survey Module) to generate data that can be collated and compared across different regions (FAO, 2014). The FIES-SM includes eight questions: During the last 12 months, was there a time when, because of lack of money or other resources: 1. You were worried you would not have enough food to eat? 2. You were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food?

The measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy  103 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

You ate only a few kinds of foods? You had to skip a meal? You ate less than you thought you should? Your household ran out of food? You were hungry but did not eat? You went without eating for a whole day?

However, such measurement tools have been faulted for lacking capacity to describe the direction and strength of the causal relationships among food insecurity and various associated factors (Daly et al., 2018). Moreover, as more countries recognize the importance of measuring the access dimension of household food insecurity separately from a food supply balance and incidence of malnutrition, there is an international trend towards adopting experiential measures of food insecurity (FAO, 2016; Beacom et al., 2020). Table 7.3

Advantages and limitations of experiential measures

Advantages

Limitations

Tools have been rigorously validated and adapted to multiple Do not capture variations in intrahousehold food insecurity. populations. Assesses impacts of food insecurity on both quality and Results generated from versions that have been adapted for different quantity of nutrition.

countries will produce data that can’t be accurately compared or compiled.

Captures psychosocial dimensions of food insecurity such as Definitions of mild, moderate, and severe food insecurity may differ worrying about lack of food.

from country to country.

Data collection, processing, and analysis is straightforward May miss food insecurity due to forces other than resource and relatively inexpensive, allowing for the decentralization constraints, such as negative climate events or conflict. of data collection efforts. The same scale, with language adapted to the local context, may be applied in diverse sociocultural settings yielding valid and predictable results.

DISCUSSION: CRITICAL ANALYSIS On a pragmatic level, differences among measurement approaches may be seen as logistical considerations related primarily to the rigor, expediency, and accuracy of the food insecurity data collection process, or to limitations in the ability to collect and analyze data. Each of the above approaches to measuring food insecurity has advantages and limitations, and may be employed in different situations. Anthropometric measures are well standardized globally and easy to administer, but these capture only the physiological effects of severe malnutrition after the fact. Consumer reporting measures are easily adapted to local food cultures, allow for a detailed understanding of actual food consumption, and engage the research participants in a meaningful way; however, they are prone to significant measurement error and are costly and complicated to administer at a population level. The theory and method of experiential measures have been validated around the world and provide a useful scale for assessing the degree of food insecurity, but they only measure food insecurity as a function of financial or resource deprivation. The plethora of regionally adapted experiential surveys in addition to

104  Handbook of food security and society internationally standardized surveys may lead to inaccurate comparisons and compilation of data. Estimates and forecasts of the prevalence of food insecurity in populations drive governmental and international policy in arenas including agriculture, aid, social welfare, health, and economic development. It is therefore critical that researchers consider what is being measured and why. Determining which food insecurity measurement methods to use depends on factors including what the desired scale of food insecurity to be measured is (individual, household, national, regional, global), what dimension of food insecurity is of concern (i.e., malnutrition, diet quality, food access or utilization, food supply stability), available budget and resources to conduct, analyze, and report data, and sphere of influence for policy or programmatic responses. Given the limitations of each measurement approach, no one measurement tool can capture all dimensions of food insecurity for a population. Hence, many countries and influential international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the FAO use a composite approach whereby multiple approaches and measures are used to glean a more comprehensive picture of food insecurity. For example, composite approaches may combine agricultural and import/export data with clinical health measures and population surveys. One example of a composite approach is the FAO’s yearly report, The State of Food Insecurity and Nutrition in the World. In recent editions the FAO reports on data obtained through combining an experiential measure, the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), calculations of dietary energy supply (DES) or food available in the market, and selected anthropometric data such as stunting and wasting to describe and analyze the prevalence of undernutrition (PoU) across regions of the world (FAO et al., 2022). While combining data from different measurement tools for a composite picture of food insecurity generates a more comprehensive picture of the issue, it does not necessarily provide clear direction for policy and programming interventions. While the measurement tools described above aim to measure existing conditions of food insecurity, it is worth noting that some tools have been developed to attempt to predict household vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity by measuring a household’s capacity to withstand shocks. Building on Sen’s entitlement theory (1982) and sustainable livelihoods theory (Scoones, 1998), the Household Economic Approach (HEA) is used to predict the likely effect of crises on households’ ability to utilize available resources to avoid deprivation including food insecurity (Seaman et al., 2014). In addition to the tools outlined above, extensive research has been conducted on the lived experience of food insecurity (Neve et al., 2021). While experiential measures collect some information on the psychosocial experiences of food deprivation (i.e., worry about having enough food), for reporting purposes these are quantified into data primarily concerned with material deprivation. In other words, data collection and reporting do not address the social, cultural, and relational deprivation in the everyday lived experience of those who are food insecure. Moreover, data collection and reporting also overlook an array of other contextual elements, such as gender, racism, settler colonialism, cultural foodways, and urban versus rural location, that bear on people’s lived experiences of food insecurity. Food insecurity measures typically collect socio-demographic data (i.e., race, gender, age) that are used to make observations about the prevalence and severity of food insecurity within equity-seeking subpopulations (i.e., racialized and Indigenous people, women, lone parents). Yet, these data and subsequent observations reveal little about the unique meanings and experiences of food insecurity among these subpopulations. Ultimately, better approaches to measuring and

The measurement of food insecurity and implications for policy  105 reporting data are needed to shed light on food insecurity and to translate findings of lived experience research into concrete and robust policy recommendations.

CONCLUSION Despite an expanding body of international literature about food insecurity and an emerging consensus about how to measure it (FAO, 2016), the term food insecurity is still often used to mean the absence of any or all dimensions of food security, and thus can lead to inadequate policy solutions. When measuring food insecurity, it is important that those doing the research understand the advantages and limitations of their selected approach, and that they refrain from comparing data obtained through different measurement techniques. Where possible, composite approaches that use multiple measures to capture different dimensions of food insecurity may give a more comprehensive picture of the state of food insecurity and provide direction for policy development.

REFERENCES Abris, GP, Provido, SMP, Hong, S, Yu, SH, Lee, CB & Lee, JE, 2018, ‘Association between dietary diversity and obesity in the Filipino Women’s Diet and Health Study (FiLWHEL): A cross-sectional study,’ PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 11, p.e0206490. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1371/​journal​.pone​.0206490 Barrett, CB, 2010, ‘Measuring food insecurity,’ Science, vol. 327, pp. 825–828. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1126/​ science​.1182768 Beacom, E, Furey, S, Hollywood, L & Humphreys, P, 2020, ‘Investigating food insecurity measurement globally to inform practice locally: A rapid evidence review,’ Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 61, no. 20, pp.  3319–3339. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​10408398​.2020​.1798347 Brady, J, Gingras, J & LeBesco, K, 2019, ‘Because… “Obesity”: Reframing Blame in Food Studies,’ in Parker, B., Brady, J., Belyea, S. & Power, E. (eds), Feminist Food Studies: Intersectional Perspectives. Toronto, ON: Women’s Press, pp. 103–122. Casadei, K & Kiel, J, 2021, ‘Anthropometric Measurement’, in StatPearls [internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. https://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​books/​NBK537315/​ Coates, J, 2013, ‘Build it back better: Deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action,’ Global Food Security, 2(3), pp.  188–194. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.gfs​.2013​.05​.002 Cooksey Stowers, K, Marfo, NYA, Gurganus, EA, Gans, KM, Kumanyika, SK & Schwartz, MB, 2020, ‘The hunger-obesity paradox: Exploring food banking system characteristics and obesity inequities among food-insecure pantry clients,’ PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. e0239778. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1371/​journal​.pone​.0239778 Daly, A, Pollard, CM, Kerr, DA, Binns, CW, Caraher, M & Phillips, M, 2018, ‘Using cross-sectional data to identify and quantify the relative importance of factors associated with and leading to food insecurity,’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 15, no. 12, pp.  2620f. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph15122620 FAO, 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996. Rome. FAO, 2008, An introduction to the basic concepts of food security, viewed 2 May 2023, https://​www​.fao​ .org/​3/​al936e/​al936e00​.pdf FAO, 2016, Voices of the Hungry: Methods for estimating comparable rates of food insecurity experienced by adults throughout the world. Rome: FAO, viewed 25 February 2022, http://​www​.fao​.org/​in​ -action/​voices​-of​-the​-hungry/​en/​#​.Wi7nuEtrxsM FAO, 2017, The food insecurity experience scale: Measuring food insecurity through people’s experience, viewed 2 May 2023, https://​www​.fao​.org/​3/​i7835e/​i7835e​.pdf

106  Handbook of food security and society FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children’s Fund, World Food Program, & World Health Organization, 2022, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021: Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition, and affordable healthy diets for all, viewed 25 February 2022, https://​doi​.org/​10​.4060/​cb4474en Fryar, CD, Gu, Q, Ogden, CL & Flegal, KM, 2016, ‘Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 2011–2014,’ Vital Health Statistics, vol. 3, no. 39, pp. 1–46. PMID: 28437242. Huet, C, Rosol, R & Egeland, GM, 2012. ‘The prevalence of food insecurity is high and the diet quality poor in Inuit communities,’ The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 541–547. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3945/​jn​.111​.149278 Jones, A, Ngure, F, Pelto, G & Young, S, 2013, ‘What are we assessing when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics,’ Advances in Nutrition, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 481–505. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3945/​an​.113​.004119 Kendall, A, Olson, CM & Frongillo, EA, 1995, ‘Validation of the Radimer/Cornell measures of hunger and food insecurity,’ The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 125, no. 11, pp. 2793–2801. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1093/​jn/​125​.11​.2793 Luo H, Zyba SJ & Webb P, 2020, Measuring malnutrition in all its forms: An update of the net state of nutrition index to track the global burden of malnutrition at country level. Global Food Security, vol. 26, pp.  100453f. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.gfs​.2020​.100453 Neve, K, Hawkes, C, Brock, J, Spires, M, Isaacs, A, Gallagher Squires, C, Sharpe, R, Bradbury, D, Battersby, J, Chaboud, G, Chung, A, Conare, D, Coveney, J, Demmler, K, Dickinson, A, Diez, J, Holdsworth, M, Kimani-Murage, E, Laar, A, Mattioni, D, Mckenzie, B, Moragues Faus, A, Perrin, C, Pradeilles, R, Schuff, S, Shipman, J, Turner, C, Vargas, C, Vonthron, S, Wanjohi, M, Wertheim-Heck, S, Whelan, J & Zorbas, C, 2021, ‘Understanding lived experience of food environments to inform policy: An overview of research methods,’ Centre for Food Policy, City, University of London, London, viewed 25 February 2022, https://​researchnow​.flinders​.edu​.au/​en/​publications/​understanding​ -lived​-experience​-of​-food​-environments​-to​-inform​-pol Scoones, I, 1998, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Seaman, JA, Sawdon, GE, Acidri, J & Petty, C, 2014, ‘The Household Economy Approach: Managing the impact of climate change on poverty and food security in developing countries,’ Climate Risk Management, vol. 4, no. 5, pp.  59–68. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.crm​.2014​.10​.001 Sen, A, 1982, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon. Tarasuk, V, Mitchell, A & Dachner, N, 2016, Household food insecurity in Canada, 2014. Toronto: Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity (PROOF), viewed 25 February 2022, http://​proof​.utoronto​.ca Wunderlich, GS & Norwood, JL, eds, 2006, Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council of the National Academies.

8. Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity Christina M. Pollard, Sharonna Mossenson and Sue Booth

INTRODUCTION There is increasing evidence that in rich countries people are experiencing food insecurity due to poverty, unemployment, inequality, and other structural factors. Those most at risk include single parents, welfare recipients, people with disabilities, homeless people, and those with chronic conditions. Welfare programmes do not provide an adequate income for recipients to be able to afford a healthy diet and therefore food charity is the fall-back position. The ensuing response to food insecurity therefore is feeding programmes delivered via emergency food relief agencies. The lived experience of food insecurity and the use of food relief in developed countries is often not captured or understood, but it is essential to inform policy, including food and nutrition standards. The experience of the end-user is where food and nutrition standards development should start – a client-centred approach to decision making in policy formulation is best practice. This chapter starts with the story of “Ian” and his efforts and experience of food security and food relief. His story, derived from a composite of true stories from people accessing charity food assistance in Western Australia in 2016, is likely to be typical of other developed countries. “Ian”, a single man in his late forties, had worked as a casual labourer in the building industry since leaving school. A few years ago, work became scarce as the industry contracted and staff were laid off. Ian persevered and searched for work but only got a few days of employment here and there, and his savings started to dwindle. Ian became worried as he struggled to pay his rent and had little money left over for food. Estranged from his partner and family, Ian had no one he could turn to for financial support, so he reluctantly turned to charity for help. The assessment appointment to determine Ian’s eligibility for food assistance was highly embarrassing. He was told he could access food for the next 2–3 days, but after that he wouldn’t be eligible for another three months at that service. Ian was escorted to the food pantry and supervised by a volunteer while he chose an allocated number of food items (canned food, dry goods, bread, and some over-ripe fruit and vegetables), which were not the types he’d usually choose. Ian made his food last by eating one meal per day, but this played havoc with his diabetes. He went to different services over the next few months to secure more food but had to re-apply and be assessed each time, increasing his feelings of failure. Initially Ian assumed his situation was temporary, but as the months passed his rental arrears became significant and the property manager issued him with a notice to attend the rental tribunal. The hearing determined Ian was unable to afford the property and he was ordered to vacate the premises. Ian asked a friend if he could sleep on his couch for a few weeks, and during this time his mental health deteriorated and he became withdrawn. Trying to access enough suitable food was like a full-time job, and his friend became frustrated with Ian’s inability to contribute to the household costs or keep the place clean and asked him to leave. With nowhere to go, Ian packed his bag and went to the park. At dusk a group of people who had been sitting on the grass called out to him, asking if he was waiting for the soup van. Ian couldn’t remember the last time he had eaten and followed the group to the mobile food van, where a queue had already formed.

107

108  Handbook of food security and society Hunger, food insecurity, and food assistance impact people. Capturing the reality of the lived experience provides the human perspective and can expose key issues, and policy and system failures. While the case study above outlines an Australian experience, it is not unique, and parallels can be drawn in people’s experiences internationally. Ian’s story highlights many of the challenges facing food relief recipients and unfortunately reinforces the inadequacies, ineffectiveness, and cumbersome nature of the system for recipients (Poppendieck, 1999; Wakefield, Fleming et al., 2013; Garthwaite, 2016a, 2016b). Recipients’ journeys to a reliance on food relief are varied, with poverty, medical issues, acute financial stressors, and homelessness common. The chronicity of service need also varies from short term to over forty years and may be spasmodic. Most recipients are grateful, appreciative of any food, and resigned to poor quality, monotony, and unmet individual preferences. When asked, all want healthier food, more variety and better quality (Booth, Begley et al., 2018). The proliferation of non-government food charities in the US and in other wealthy nations gives the impression that hunger is being dealt with; however, this is a “tragic, evidence-adverse mistake” according to the CEO of Hunger-Free America (Berg and Gibson, 2022). Unfortunately, the mistake is repeated as many countries are adopting the charitable food model to address the short comings of government policy and supports. The operational flaws within the charitable food system are also being repeated. Over thirty years ago, the system was described as one of “cumbersome food collection, reprocessing, and redistribution, subsidized by huge amounts of volunteer labour” (Poppendieck, 1999, p. 430), and it is still this way today (Wakefield, Fleming et al., 2013; Pollard, Mackintosh et al., 2018; Zack, Weil et al., 2021). There is evidence that, despite a reliance on food banks, the majority of recipients remain food insecure (Rizvi, Wasfi et al., 2021). Hunger brings with it an urgent moral imperative to act, but clearly more than food is needed to end food insecurity. System limitations aside, food banks provide food to people who don’t have enough, and thus have emerged as an essential service.

WHY FOOD AND NUTRITION STANDARDS FOR CHARITY FOOD? Food and nutrition standards are not the solution to food insecurity, but they may improve the quality of the service provided to recipients. People are relying on food assistance for longer periods, and this has implications for their health as long-term reliance may exacerbate diet-related disease due to the types and amounts of food provided (Simmet, Depa et al., 2017a; Bowers, Francis et al., 2018). Given the chronicity of food bank use, the initial purpose of food relief agencies to distribute food in order to alleviate hunger in the short term no longer meets the nutritional and social criteria of clients (Wakefield, Fleming et al., 2013). Consequently, the primary purpose of food banks is beginning to move away from emphasising hunger alleviation towards supporting the health of their clients through the food they provide (Wetherill, White et al., 2019). Although food bank leaders are actively seeking to improve the nutrition quality of the food provided (Wetherill, White et al., 2019), they likely lack the skills or mandate to set food and nutrition standards. The demand for assistance makes the nutritive value of food provided especially important. Nutrition standards need to consider the triple burden of malnutrition (undernutrition,

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity  109 overweight, and micronutrient deficiencies), which is well articulated in policy for developing countries (Luo, Zyba et al., 2020) but absent in most economically developed country contexts. Reliance on food relief compounded with the independent risk factors associated with food insecurity makes providing nutrient-dense food an important priority for preventing chronic disease among an already vulnerable population (Chapnick, Barnidge et al. 2019). There is evidence that the food provided by food pantries is of sub-optimal nutritional quality and unable to support healthy diets (Simmet, Depa et al., 2017; Fallaize, Newlove et al., 2020). A recent study of 16 Minnesota food pantries found that the meals served by most were insufficient to meet adults’ daily energy and nutrient requirements (Caspi, Davey et al., 2021). Policies to improve healthy eating and address food insecurity tend to focus on food aid, nutrition education, and financial incentives, and not the cause of the problem, which is insufficient income to access healthy food (Penne and Goedemé, 2021). In Europe it has been estimated that at least 10% of the population in 16 European countries is confronted with income-related food insecurity, and there is a growing use of food banks (Penne and Goedemé, 2021). Given the scale of the problem, it is unlikely to be addressed by providing more food assistance through food banks. Food banks are publicly accepted providers of social support, but they provide basic support under conditions of social exclusion. Originally providers of food aid on a short-term basis to alleviate hunger, food banks are now a regular feature in many people’s lives. Food bank food and nutrition standards will not address poverty reduction, but they could improve the quality of poverty relief by changing the food offering to that of a higher quality to meet nutrition and social needs, particularly through enabling choice.

FIT-FOR-PURPOSE FOOD AND NUTRITION STANDARDS To protect public health, food and nutrition standards must be “fit-for-purpose”. This means that they should fulfil a user’s needs or achieve set outcomes. As with any system, the standards should be developed and considered as part of a quality improvement process (Lawrence, Pollard et al., 2019). Food and nutrition standards are used as a policy tool, usually by government, as one type of intervention to implement dietary guidelines, but in the food charity context they have been used to act as a deterrent to accessing food relief so as to encourage people to seek work. Standards can be voluntary or mandated and are already used to limit advertising and promotion of unhealthy food; on front-of-pack labelling; and to improve the nutrition provision of food service in various settings (e.g., schools, aged-care facilities, and hospitals). Standards must be context specific to meet their purpose (e.g., advertising restrictions versus food label information), and be relevant to the population impacted (e.g., nutrition needs across life stages, co-morbidities, and social circumstances). Standards are usually enacted to protect vulnerable population groups and are often aimed at inhibiting commercial vested interests. Most food and nutrition standards categorise and rank individual food from “good” (healthy – encourage consumption) to “bad” (unhealthy – discourage consumption). The next section outlines some key considerations to design fit-for-purpose food and nutrition standards for the charitable food sector.

110  Handbook of food security and society

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHARITABLE FOOD SECTOR FOOD AND NUTRITION STANDARDS Service and Client Context Prior to developing food and nutrition standards, it is important to review the service context, including the overall service vision, approach, and operational practices that define the users’ experience. Food bank users report experiencing stigmatisation and “othering” by staff and volunteers (Middleton, Mehta et al., 2018; De Souza, 2019; Bruckner, Westbrook et al., 2021; McNaughton, Middleton et al., 2021). One approach to addressing these issues is to co-develop consumer and provider charters to guide service delivery across the sector, as was done by the Western Australian Council of Social Service (James, Gray et al., 2018). The Charter and its principles provide the underpinnings for service delivery and ongoing quality improvement. Principles to guide food assistance include: respect, cultural need, recognition of struggle, safety, dignity of choice, responding to dietary needs, privacy, hope, and complaints processes. Co-creation approaches break down power differentials between services and their clients by offering clients input into service re-design and valuing the lived experience in policy formulation. The Scottish Working Group on Food Poverty identified similar principles, seeking to develop a dignified response, to challenge poverty stigma, and to gather and share evidence to address factors creating or exacerbating food insecurity (The Scottish Government, 2016). Food relief services in Brazil provide a novel context as the right to food is enshrined in the constitution and the state assumes their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil this right via three main strategies (food banks, community kitchens, and popular restaurants), providing adequate food (where the definition goes to nutrition) (Tenuta, Barros et al., 2021; Fagundes, de Cássia Lisboa Ribeiro et al., 2022). The approach focuses on the most vulnerable sub-population groups. The policy covers production, supply, marketing, and promotion of a healthy and sustainable food system, and public infrastructure for food storage, distribution, and provision is incorporated. However, increases in food insecurity prevalence, reductions in government spending (from R$64 million in 2014, no new funds in 2015/16, to R$8.7 million in 2017, R$3.8 million in 2018, and R$0.6 million in 2019), and a reliance on donations of waste food have meant that additional policies to improve nutritious food provision are needed (Fagundes, de Cássia Lisboa Ribeiro et al., 2022). Food and nutrition standards should be specific to the settings and the users they provide food for. Important contextual factors in food relief include the type, amount, and length of time food is required, and the living conditions of recipients including access to cooking and storage facilities. The standards should aim to meet the nutrition needs of most clients served. Service providers are likely to have information regarding the factors that have led individuals to seek food assistance in their local areas, so they can provide essential intelligence needed to specify the local context for food and nutrition standards. The following factors are important to inform the appropriate types and amounts of food required for food relief: demographic information including family compositions and living arrangements (number, age, gender, relationships e.g., extended family, unrelated adults residing in the same dwelling, housing situation accommodation type, etc.); employment status and financial circumstances (e.g., waged versus unwaged, income sources); food assistance programme participation; typologies of use of food relief (extent (how often?) and duration (how long?)); and food security status (e.g.,

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity  111 the USDA’s U.S. Household Food Security Module) (Kaiser and Cafer, 2017). Understanding clients’ cultural and health-related food requirements is essential in the development of standards to ensure food relief is equitable, efficient, and effective (Sengul Orgut, Brock et al., 2016). Another consideration is that of Wright et al. (2020), who assert, “it is important to meet the diverse needs of clients and build food systems that are socially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive” (p. 509). Food assistance clients often experience diet-related disease and other co-morbidities that require management and treatment. Consequently, consideration needs to be given to medication and physical vulnerabilities (e.g., poor dentition requiring texture modification), dietary requirements (e.g., diabetes, coeliac, allergies, heart disease, etc.), and medications to be taken with food at specific times of the day. The food currently provided by food banks may exacerbate pre-existing medical conditions for people who are long-term users and has been described as inappropriate, suggesting fit-for-purpose standards are urgently needed (Seligman, Lyles et al., 2015). Choice, an Essential Criterion A lack of food choice is a marker of social exclusion. Kessl, Lorenz et al. (2020) assert, “choice has become the main value in conducting one’s life. In choosing from the huge offerings provided by the affluent economy, consumers leave the non-chosen surplus on the shelves” (p. 61) and “having no choice is the analytical criterion of social exclusion” (p. 52). Food banks distribute surplus food to the poor, who are unable to exercise choice in the mainstream economy due to their tenuous consumer status. Including choice criteria in food and nutrition standards is one way to support active participation of clients similar to that enjoyed by everyone else in society, as opposed to the current situation where recipients are expected to feel grateful for any food and sponsors and donors celebrate their role in reducing food waste. Rizvi et al. (2021) found small but significant improvements in food insecurity and mental health for people who accessed food banks offering a choice or grocery shopping model; however, they concluded, “food banks offer some relief of food insecurity, but don’t eliminate the problem” (p. 771). Receiving poor-quality food increases recipients’ feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness, but what constitutes poor quality? Societal norms suggest poor quality encompasses foods that are unfamiliar, past their use by or best before date, or those that do not meet food preferences, including cultural or religious requirements. Providing culturally acceptable foods allows for cultural continuity and expression of identity (Wright, Lucero et al., 2020). Dietary Guidance (Types, Amounts, and Form of Food for Good Health) Nutrition needs vary across the lifecycle, a primary consideration when developing food and nutrition standards. Over ninety countries have developed culturally specific (Steur, Johnson et al., 2021) food-based dietary guidelines and food selection guides that recommend the types and amounts of food for good health (Herforth, Arimond et al., 2019). Universal messages promote the consumption of a variety of foods; some foods in higher proportion than others; consumption of fruits and vegetables, legumes, and animal-source foods; and limiting sugar, fat, and salt. Many incorporate environmental sustainability messages and address sociocultural factors. The terminology used to describe unhealthy food is challenging and continues to develop based on emerging evidence; for example, consumption of ultra-processed food

112  Handbook of food security and society (UPF) is associated with poor health outcomes, and UPFs are increasingly being used to describe unhealthy diets and unsustainable food systems (Elizabeth, Machado et al., 2020; Seferidi, Scrinis et al., 2020). As well as the types of foods they recommend, guidelines encourage choosing a wide variety of fresh food and limiting highly processed foods. As well as the nutrition quality, the form of a food (e.g., fresh, cooked, processed) influences its perishability and has implications for storage, preparation, and transport. Users’ needs may dictate the provision of pre-prepared food such as frozen meals or non-perishable foods. In food relief, food and nutrition criteria should recommend foods, meals, and snacks rather than nutrient-based recommendations for individual products. Food and nutrition standards for food relief must include criteria to address the food supply, food safety, and a specific approach concerning the different models of food relief and the clients they serve. The State of Nevada’s Aging and Disability Service Specifications for Food Pantries is a good example as it is tailored to a “service that provides purchased and/or donated, unexpired, non-perishable food items to individuals, age 60 and older, to assist with meeting their nutritional needs” (p. 1). Dietary Guidance (Food Supply and Access) Dietary guidelines are often developed based on the available food supply, contemporary eating habits, cultural needs, and emerging nutrition science. Access to a variety of nutritious food is paramount to compliance with dietary guidelines. Herein lies the dilemma for people who rely on food banks for most of their food. This is also the dilemma for food banks who have little or no control over the types and quantity of food that is donated, or the consistency of the supply. In some cases, food banks are able to use their cash donations to purchase appropriate food at times when supply is inappropriate, low, or erratic. The complexity and challenges of the food supply system are captured in this quote from a manager of an Australian food relief organisation: Like one week we get 350 dozen of eggs – those are the challenges. Or you get 450 kg of cream cheese that has to be used within 3 days – those are the big challenges.

This quote also highlights food safety issues created by the donation of surplus perishable food. Supply chain logistics are challenging for food relief organisations. There is no controlling the volume and timing of donations, which can lead to sorting, storage, and distribution issues. There are also logical considerations in the packaging and delivery of food relief, for example the amount of food that can be provided due to limitations on the weight of hampers, and how long food is stored for at services favours shelf-stable, non-perishable items. Standards must consider the form of food; most nutrient criteria encourage a dietary pattern high in whole and minimally processed (healthy) foods and limit the distribution of unhealthy foods – that is, UPFs. This must be done in a context where food supply relies on rescued or donated surplus food, which is often ad hoc, unsuitable, and constrained. Consideration must be given to the perishability of food and whether its intended purpose is for consumption at home, in public parks, or in other settings.

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity  113 A legitimate role for food and nutrition standards for food banks could be to draw nutritious foods that are currently not available into the system and to evoke a purposeful over-production of nutritious whole foods for food relief. Advocacy Best Practice As the development of food standards is a contested area due to the commercial vested interest of powerful global food companies, strong advocacy is needed to support changes. Advocacy lessons can be gleaned from the development of food policies and regulations in other settings. For example, Schwartz and Wootan (2019) report on advocacy best practice that led to the enactment of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a public health law to increase the provision of healthy food and beverages in schools across the US. The process took over twenty years and involves incremental change (from the development of local nutrition policies in some schools, research and real-life stories, community mobilisation to address barriers to policy change, and specific food industry advocacy). Who Should Develop Food and Nutrition Standards for Food Banks? Government develops food and nutrition policies and standards to protect the health of the population, ranging from population-based dietary guidelines, to food and nutrition standards for specific settings (e.g., hospitals, prisons, aged care, and schools), to food safety standards and consumer information with associated legislation for implementation. Apart from Brazil, where the right to food is enshrined in the constitution, the only legislation that applies to food relief in developed countries is that based on protecting the donor, usually called Good Samaritan or similar. This legislation indemnifies donors who provide food and grocery products in good faith for charitable or benevolent purposes. The conditions outlined in this type of legislation provide only minimal protection to clients; for example, they do not pay for the food. The legislation usually requires that food is safe to eat when it leaves the donor and that the donor provides “information” to the food bank regarding the ongoing safety of the food. Food provision in the sector is largely unregulated and unmonitored with no requirement to measure the types or quality of the “food” or its impact on human lives. This constitutes a significant policy gap. This is particularly ironic as even pigs are protected by legislation in Western Australia; here it is illegal to feed them surplus waste from food retailers as it is inconsistent with a “healthy, balanced diet” for the animal (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2021). A key question to ask is: Who benefits, and why is there a lack of food and nutrition standards for the food relief sector? One suggestion is that supermarkets and other food retailers have a vested interest in donating (to dispose of) surplus, unsalable foods, to avoid costly waste disposal and making the most of being seen as good corporate citizens (Pulker, Trapp et al., 2018). There is no doubt that food retailers can assist food relief, but questions should be raised as to the quality and suitability of the food provided. Nutrition standards would likely focus on removing unhealthy foods (e.g., shelf stable, highly processed, generally high in added sugar, fat, and salt, low in fibre, etc.) from the donation chain, leaving retailers to bear the cost of disposing of them. Food policy to protect public health is highly contested due to competing and often conflicting commercial interests. Food companies are often multi-national corporations with global

114  Handbook of food security and society reach and huge advertising and promotion budgets. Nutrition standards are designed to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods, the very foods that are the most profitable. Standards development and decision making can take years and they can be watered down during extensive consultations following industry lobbying, etc. (Lawrence, Pollard et al., 2019; Nestle, 2021). Food relief organisations are engaged in frontline service delivery and cannot be expected to have the time or skills to develop food and nutrition standards. Food and nutrition standards for food banks must be operationally practical and improve the quality of the food service. Government does not understand the nuanced issues faced by the food relief sector, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. This means that standards must be co-developed with key actors across the food relief sector including the food banks, direct services, and clients. The decision making should prioritise protecting clients’ health and will require a reorientation of the food system; therefore, the process must be protected from commercial vested interests. This requires appropriate expertise, nutrition science, and people with an understanding of food systems. Clear governance, appropriate decision making, and transparency are a priority. Decision making should be informed by science-based and humanitarian considerations and not be driven by food industry waste mitigation priorities. This means that although the food retail and other sectors are essential to the implementation of the standards and should be consulted, they are not the key decision makers on the policy. Food standards should be aspirational and based on a continuous quality improvement model to enable their progressive realisation. They should be routinely monitored and audited for client satisfaction. Food and nutrition standards are critical for disaster management and differ from those standards required for food banks and ongoing food relief. Although the considerations in the development of these standards apply, the context and the food system logistics are very different (Balachanthar, Zakaria et al., 2018; Fraser, Shapiro et al., 2021).

THE ASPIRATIONAL GOAL FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION STANDARDS IN FOOD RELIEF At their best, fit-for-purpose food and nutrition standards for food relief would benefit clients, agencies, donors, government, retailers, and other food system actors. Formalised partnerships guide the development and implementation of the standards that trigger system-wide improvement for public health. Context-specific, practical, and suitable criteria would ensure safe, nutritious, and appropriate food was provided for people seeking assistance. Confident that their clients’ food and nutrition needs are met, agencies would increase their focus on providing the support their clients need to address the underlying causes of food insecurity. Food system actors who supply food to direct services would celebrate the reorientation of their corporate social responsibility actions to a recipient-focused response. Waste mitigation strategies have been uncoupled from food relief and are focused on reducing over-production of unhealthy food, which has transformed the food system to promote health. Compliance with the standards is routinely monitored, and the sectors work together to continually improve the outcome for clients.

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity  115

CONCLUSION Food and nutrition standards for food relief need to be fit for purpose and aim to improve the health of recipients. Standards need to be relevant to the context in which they are operating and incorporate criteria appropriate to the complexity of the charitable food systems and the needs of people who are food insecure. These standards must go beyond those that simply categorise food as healthy or unhealthy based on nutrient criteria, to a focus on diet quality. Developing these standards as part of a government-led quality improvement system will support equity, efficiency, and effectiveness in food relief. Food system actors and lived experience should inform the standards development with good governance structures in place to combat commercial vested interest. These standards should not displace the focus on the range of strategies needed to reduce poverty and food insecurity.

REFERENCES Balachanthar, S., N. A. Zakaria, and L. K. Lee (2018). “Development of emergency food assistance design: a nutritionally balanced, culturally tailored and cost-effective strategy for flood mitigation.” Ecology of Food and Nutrition 57(4): 314–329. Berg, J. and A. Gibson (2022). “Why the world should not follow the failed United States model of fighting domestic hunger.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(2): 814. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph19020814 Booth, S., A. Begley, B. Mackintosh, D. A. Kerr, J. Jancey, M. Caraher, J. Whelan, and C. M. Pollard (2018). “Gratitude, resignation and the desire for dignity: lived experience of food charity recipients and their recommendations for improvement, Perth, Western Australia.” Public Health Nutrition 21(15): 2831–2841. Bowers, K. S., E. Francis, and J. L. Kraschnewski (2018). “The dual burden of malnutrition in the United States and the role of non-profit organizations.” Preventive Medicine Reports 12: 294–297. Bruckner, H. K., M. Westbrook, L. Loberg, E. Teig, and C. Schaefbauer (2021). “‘Free’ food with a side of shame? Combating stigma in emergency food assistance programs in the quest for food justice.” Geoforum 123: 99–106. Caspi, C. E., C. Davey, C. B. Barsness, J. Wolfson, H. Peterson, and R. J. Pratt (2021). “Applying the Healthy Eating Index-2015 in a sample of choice-based Minnesota food pantries to test associations between food pantry inventory, client food selection, and client diet.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 121(11): 2242–2250. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jand​.2021​.05​.007 Chapnick, M., E. Barnidge, M. Sawicki, and M. Elliott (2019). “Healthy options in food pantries—a qualitative analysis of factors affecting the provision of healthy food items in St. Louis, Missouri.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 14(1–2): 262–280. De Souza, R. T. (2019). Feeding the other: Whiteness, privilege, and neoliberal stigma in food pantries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (2021). “Pig feed: what you can and can’t feed pigs (swill).” Retrieved 4 February 2022, from https://​www​.agric​.wa​.gov​.au/​livestock​ -biosecurity/​pig​-feed​-what​-you​-can​-and​-can​%E2​%80​%99t​-feed​-pigs​-swill. Elizabeth, L., P. Machado, M. Zinöcker, P. Baker, and M. Lawrence (2020). “Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: a narrative review.” Nutrients 12(7): 1955. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​nu12071955 Fagundes, A., R. de Cássia Lisboa Ribeiro, E. R. B. de Brito, E. Recine, and C. Rocha (2022). “Public infrastructure for food and nutrition security in Brazil: fulfilling the constitutional commitment to the human right to adequate food.” Food security 14: 897–905. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s12571​-022​ -01272​-1 Fallaize, R., J. Newlove, A. White, and J. A. Lovegrove (2020). “Nutritional adequacy and content of food bank parcels in Oxfordshire, UK: a comparative analysis of independent and organisational provision.” Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 33(4): 477–486.

116  Handbook of food security and society Fraser, K. T., S. Shapiro, C. Willingham, E. Tavarez, J. Berg, and N. Freudenberg (2021). “What we can learn from US food policy response to crises of the last 20 years – Lessons for the COVID-19 era: A scoping review.” SSM-Population Health: 100952. Garthwaite, K. (2016a). Hunger pains: Life inside foodbank Britain. Bristol: Policy Press. Garthwaite, K. (2016b). “Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK.” Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 24(3): 277–289. Herforth, A., M. Arimond, C. Álvarez-Sánchez, J. Coates, K. Christianson, and E. Muehlhoff (2019). “A global review of food-based dietary guidelines.” Advances in Nutrition 10(4): 590–605. James, L., J. Gray, L. McDonald, T. Landrigham, and C. Pollard (2018). The WA Food Relief Framework. Western Australian Council of Social Service. Kaiser, M. L. and A. M. Cafer (2017). “Exploring long-term food pantry use: differences between persistent and prolonged typologies of use.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 12(1): 46–63. Kessl, F., S. Lorenz, and H. Schoneville (2020). Social exclusion and food assistance in Germany. In: The Rise of Food Charity in Europe, ed. H. Lambi-Mumford and T. Silvasti. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 49–78. Lawrence, M. A., C. M. Pollard, and T. S. Weeramanthri (2019). “Positioning food standards programmes to protect public health: current performance, future opportunities and necessary reforms.” Public Health Nutrition 22(5): 912–926. Luo, H., S. J. Zyba, and P. Webb (2020). “Measuring malnutrition in all its forms: an update of the net state of nutrition index to track the global burden of malnutrition at country level.” Global Food Security 26: 100453. McNaughton, D., G. Middleton, K. Mehta, and S. Booth (2021). “Food charity, shame/ing and the enactment of worth.” Medical Anthropology 40(1): 98–109. Middleton, G., K. Mehta, D. McNaughton, and S. Booth (2018). “The experiences and perceptions of food banks amongst users in high-income countries: an international scoping review.” Appetite 120: 698–708. Nestle, M. (2021). “Public health nutrition deserves more attention.” American Journal of Public Health 111(4): 533–535. Penne, T. and T. Goedemé (2021). “Can low-income households afford a healthy diet? Insufficient income as a driver of food insecurity in Europe.” Food Policy 99: 101978. Pollard, C. M., B. Mackintosh, C. Campbell, D. Kerr, A. Begley, J. Jancey, M. Caraher, J. Berg, and S. Booth (2018). “Charitable food systems’ capacity to address food insecurity: an Australian capital city audit.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(6): 1249. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph15061249 Poppendieck, J. (1999). Sweet charity? Emergency food and the end of entitlement. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Pulker, C. E., G. S. Trapp, J. A. Scott, and C. M. Pollard (2018). “Global supermarkets’ corporate social responsibility commitments to public health: a content analysis.” Globalization and Health 14(1): 1–20. Rizvi, A., R. Wasfi, A. Enns, and E. Kristjansson (2021). “The impact of novel and traditional food bank approaches on food insecurity: a longitudinal study in Ottawa, Canada.” BMC Public Health 21(1): 771. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​s12889​-021​-10841​-6 Schwartz, C. and M. G. Wootan (2019). “How a public health goal became a national law: the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.” Nutrition Today 54(2): 67–77. Seferidi, P., G. Scrinis, I. Huybrechts, J. Woods, P. Vineis, and C. Millett (2020). “The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods.” The Lancet Planetary Health 4(10): e437–e438. Seligman, H. K., C. Lyles, M. B. Marshall, K. Prendergast, M. C. Smith, A. Headings, G. Bradshaw, S. Rosenmoss, and E. Waxman (2015). “A pilot food bank intervention featuring diabetes-appropriate food improved glycemic control among clients in three states.” Health Affairs (Millwood) 34(11): 1956–1963. Sengul Orgut, I., L. Brock, L. Berrings Davis, J. Simmons Ivy, S. Jiang, S. Morgan, R. Uzsoy, C. Hale, and E. Middleton (2016). “Achieving equity, effectiveness and efficiency in food bank operations: strategies for feeding America with implications for global hunger relief.” In: Advances in Managing Humanitarian Operations, ed. C. Zorbel. Cham: Springer, pp. 229–256.

Food and nutrition standards to address food insecurity  117 Simmet, A., J. Depa, P. Tinnemann, and N. Stroebele-Benschop (2017a). “The dietary quality of food pantry users: a systematic review of existing literature.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 117(4): 563–576. Simmet, A., J. Depa, P. Tinnemann, and N. Stroebele-Benschop (2017). “The nutritional quality of food provided from food pantries: a systematic review of existing literature.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 117(4): 577–588. The State of Nevada Ageing and Disability Services Division (2015) Service Specifications – Food Pantry. Retrieved from https://​adsd​.nv​.gov/​uploadedFiles/​adsdnvgov/​content/​Programs/​Grant/​ ServSpecs/​FoodPantry​.pdf. Steur, M., L. Johnson, S. J. Sharp, F. Imamura, I. Sluijs, T. J. Key, A. Wood, R. Chowdhury, M. Guevara, and M. U. Jakobsen (2021). “Dietary fatty acids, macronutrient substitutions, food sources and incidence of coronary heart disease: findings from the EPIC-CVD case-cohort study across nine European countries.” Journal of the American Heart Association 10(23): e019814. Tenuta, N., T. Barros, R. A. Teixeira, and R. Paes-Sousa (2021). “Brazilian food banks: overview and perspectives.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(23): 12598. The Scottish Government (2016). Dignity: Ending Hunger Together in Scotland: The report of the Independent Working Group on Food Poverty. Wakefield, S., J. Fleming, C. Klassen, and A. Skinner (2013). “Sweet Charity, revisited: organizational responses to food insecurity in Hamilton and Toronto, Canada.” Critical Social Policy 33(3): 427–450. Wetherill, M. S., K. C. White, and H. Seligman (2019). “Charitable food as prevention: food bank leadership perspectives on food banks as agents in population health.” Community Development 50(1): 92–107. Wright, K., J. Lucero, and E. Crosbie (2020). “‘It’s nice to have a little bit of home, even if it’s just on your plate’ – perceived barriers for Latinos accessing food pantries.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 15(4): 4960513. Zack, R. M., R. Weil, M. Babbin, C. D. Lynn, D. S. Velez, L. Travis, D. J. Taitelbaum, and L. Fiechtner (2021). “An overburdened charitable food system: Making the case for increased government support during the COVID-19 crisis.” American Public Health Association 111: 804–807.

9. What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure? Danielle Gallegos and Rhonda Dryland

INTRODUCTION Household food insecurity in high-income countries ranges from 4% to 14% (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2021) but is markedly higher in some population groups, including those on low incomes, who are geographically isolated, experiencing structural racism or struggling with debt (Gallegos et al., 2017). Most high-income countries have highly developed agri-business and trade infrastructures, meaning that food availability is largely assured. They also tend to have established social protection measures, providing the appearance of adequate financial safety nets. Both factors perpetuate the myth that food is easily and cheaply attainable by households living in relative financial security. This leads to food insecurity in these countries being largely invisible. Food insecurity manifests in three forms, all of which compromise socio-cultural, psycho-emotional, and physical health and development (Gallegos et al., 2021; Gallegos et al., 2017; Maynard et al., 2018). The first is the anxiety and worry about putting food on the table, the second is compromising diet quality by prioritising energy-dense foods that are filling, and the third is reducing the quantity of food consumed, leading to physical hunger. Food insecurity in high-income countries is exacerbated by neo-liberal policies that are characterised by the promotion of the market economy and the retraction of the welfare state or austerity measures. The long-term promotion of neo-liberalism as the preferred governmental approach has resulted in a focus on individual responsibility and the abrogation of public responsibility for ensuring citizens have access to the entitlements and capabilities leading to productive, healthy and fulfilling lives. Sen (1983, 1999) argues that people have entitlements (income, housing, healthcare, education) that can be strengthened over time and can then be exchanged for other goods and services that cocoon against shocks and vulnerabilities. With entitlements come capabilities (ability to work, resilience, literacy and numeracy), which is an individual’s ability and freedom to live and prosper (Hartworth et al., 2020). Neo-liberal policies have led to a growing state of precariousness or uncertainty. Precarity is multi-faceted and complex but is characterised by: low wages, stagnant wages growth, insecure and unstable labour markets (including increased uncertainty about amount and timing of hours), minimal social assistance, limited public housing, high cost of housing, de-regulation of fuel and energy markets (resulting in highly variable utilities costs), and increasingly poorly aligned and difficult-to-access services (financial, health and childcare) (Schneider and Harknett, 2019; Spurway and Soldatic, 2016; McKenzie et al., 2019; Hartworth et al., 2020; Harknett et al., 2022). Any discussion of food insecurity within currently neo-liberal contexts requires a focus on income as the predominant determinant for food security. Food is the most flexible component of a household budget, and as such trade-offs occur to ensure consistency of other 118

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?  119 materialities such as housing, utilities, schooling, transport and communication (Dowler and Lambie-Mumford, 2015). Consequently, food management practices become an important element of managing precarity and livelihoods. This chapter explores the experiences of households living with precarity and the rising costs of living in high-income countries and the strategies used to manage income and food. It also discusses the repercussions of these experiences and strategies on households.

INCOME VOLATILITY AND PRECARITY The association between financial and food security has always been complex but is increasingly so in high-income country contexts. At the time of writing, food insecurity is experienced not only by those living on low incomes (who can be employed or on social welfare) but also by those on middle incomes living with debt that limits cash flow and by those who need to maintain local standards of what is considered socially acceptable (Dryland et al., 2021). As such, food insecurity can be experienced across income brackets, but the cascade of financial strategies used varies depending on the access to entitlements and capabilities as well as the severity and persistence of food insecurity. There has been a general increase in precarity – that is, a convergence of an insecure and uncertain labour market and a retraction or weakening of social assistance (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2018). In many high-income countries this is exacerbated by a rising or volatile cost of living characterised by increasing fossil fuel prices, impacting on the cost of petrol and utilities; and by the impact of climate change and adverse weather events impacting on food affordability (see for example Harari et al., 2022). Precarity is characterised by entitlement failure, including: ● low-paid, low-work-intensity, insecure jobs (increased casualisation, no-contact-hours contracts, unstable and unpredictable work hours) ● stagnant wages growth ● limited public housing and high-cost housing ● high mobility, eroding social networks ● limited access to or cessation of social protection payments (discussed below) ● punitive accounting of paid employment negatively offsetting social protection payments ● poorly aligned and difficult-to-access systems and services (Banks and Bowman, 2020; McKenzie et al., 2019; Spurway and Soldatic, 2016; Hartworth et al., 2020; Harknett et al., 2022). In many high-income countries, those unable to participate in the labour market have access to social protection (Richards et al., 2016). The level of social protection varies but is generally below a living wage that would enable individuals to live with dignity and participate fully in social life (Parker et al., 2016). In addition to the inadequacy of the social protection income, there is the implementation of an ever-increasing range of eligibility criteria and an increasing onus on recipients to demonstrate that they are “deserving” (Richards et al., 2016). Meeting eligibility criteria for receiving social payments often requires being in constant communication with employment and welfare agencies and attending job interviews or parenting programmes at some distance from where the recipient lives to ensure continuation of payments (Hartworth et al., 2020). Continuation of payments also requires accurate accounting of income, and

120  Handbook of food security and society increased income volatility makes predicting income difficult again resulting in overpayments (requiring repayment) or underpayments (creating hardship) (Banks and Bowman, 2020). From an income perspective, there are two categories of experiences or strategies used: one to try to optimise the income available, and the second to minimise outgoings – income smoothing and consumption smoothing respectively. These rely on individual or collective capabilities.

INCOME SMOOTHING In financially volatile times, a range of strategies is used in efforts to increase income or to smooth out income peaks and troughs. Income Pooling Income pooling is when members of one or more households pool their labour resources and income to enable more efficient allocation across time and contexts (Dagdeviren and Donoghue, 2019). For example, in some low-income households, there is an expectation that adolescents will supplement the household income, by taking on caregiving and house management duties enabling others to work, by working to meet their own needs (basic food, clothing and schooling) so they are not drawing on communal resources, or by becoming secondary earners (Mott et al., 2018). “[S]o they [parents] don’t have to buy you nothing. You can buy your own stuff and… money they had they could spend on you, they can use for… the needs in the house, and they’d have more money for [them].” (Boy, USA in Popkin et al., 2016, p. 13)

Using Skills and Available Resources For those in formal employment, income can be optimised by increasing reliance on overtime and taking on additional shifts. Alternatively, individuals draw on their social networks to undertake unreported work, with undeclared income. “Do you want some work, you come with me, you lay tarmac, I’ll show you what to do, I’ll pay you by the day at the end of the day. … No questions asked, no paperwork, no names, nothing.” (UK, single man in his 40s, in Dagdeviren and Donoghue, 2019, p. 557)

Some households rely on more informal, flexible employment that engages minimal skills, such as gardening, labouring, housework, washing and ironing, babysitting (Mott et al., 2018; McKenzie and McKay, 2018). In some cases, services are bartered where skills are exchanged for material goods or in-kind payments. Less socially acceptable “work” includes transactional sex used as a livelihood strategy either in exchange for income or directly for food (Popkin et al., 2016; Whittle et al., 2015b). “If like you having money problems or whatever, you probably get yourself a sugar daddy and you might not, you probably have to do stuff with him in order for him to give you the money and all that.” (Girl, USA, in Mmari et al., 2019, p. 2264)

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?  121 Resources also include material assets that can be sold to smooth or generate income. This could be pawning items with a view to reclaiming them at a later date, or selling possessions such as games, shoes or clothing (Popkin et al., 2016). Less socially acceptable strategies include selling drugs, gambling and stealing (Popkin et al., 2016; Mmari et al., 2019; Whittle et al., 2015a). “And they must sell drugs or dope just to get food on the table for their family. Just do anything mostly just to get fed.” (Girl, USA, in Mmari et al., 2019, p. 2264)

Creating Income Buffers Food-insecure families are very cognisant of the need for having income buffers in the form of savings. Many are willing to experience hardship in the present with a view to decreasing risk in the future (see consumption smoothing below) (Mott et al., 2018). “Only spend on what you need… not what you want. Just be careful because once you run out of money and don’t have a job then you’re broke and how are you gonna pay your rent and all that?” (Mott et al., 2018, p. 212)

For those who were employed, paying tax was considered enforced savings, which enabled them to pay down debt or to use the funds to purchase essential or non-essential items. Tax returns were also manipulated by overstating income, which effectively reduced benefits during the year, creating a lump sum repayment once per year. Earned tax income credits (USA), which closely resemble the Family Tax Benefit (Australia) and Universal Credit (UK), are described as an income subsidy but often function as a savings tool (Halpern-Meekin et al., 2018; Kramer et al., 2019). “[T]ax that’s usually our catchup period and that’s when we can pay the credit card off.” (Married woman, two children, Australia, in Dryland et al., 2021, p. 95) “I get a refund from Child Assistance because I overestimate our income.” (Married woman, two children Australia, in Dryland et al., 2021, p. 95)

Using Credit “When I stopped working, I would use the credit card until there was no more money to meet the minimum repayment and the credit card actually gets cancelled so you’re still making minimum repayments but can’t use the credit card any more.” (Single mother, Australia, in Dryland et al., 2021, p. 278)

Appleyard et al. (2021) describe the financialisation of everyday life, where the use of credit has been normalised as a safety net, in place of or to supplement social assistance. Families across a range of income brackets are more reliant on credit facilities to smooth income. This is particularly true when savings buffers have been exhausted and families experience income shocks such as loss or reduced hours of employment, emergent or escalating medical issues requiring treatment, and failure of household equipment. Techniques include the use of credit cards, mortgage redraws, high-interest short-term credit (payday loans) (Brown et al., 2020; Bartfeld and Collins, 2017), and accessing yearly cash advances on social protection payments (Dryland et al., 2021).

122  Handbook of food security and society

EXPENDITURE SMOOTHING One of the salient characteristics of food-insecure households is the constant juggling act to manage the shortfall between incoming and outgoing expenses. As a result, households employ strategies that smooth expenditure. These smoothing practices lead to a range of trade-offs, most of which relegate food to the lowest priority. The food management practices used are described in more detail later. This section highlights the prioritisation, budgeting and changes to consumption in other areas in order to manage outgoings. Prioritising Essential Expenses and Bill Smoothing Essential materials such as housing and utilities (electricity, water, heating) are the usual components of household budgets that are prioritised. Households either adhere to strict budgets and/or negotiate payment plans for larger outgoing expenses over longer periods of time (Tan et al., 2017; McKenzie and McKay, 2018). The fluctuating supply of energy and water and the shrinking of social housing markets has resulted in utility and housing price volatility, which compounds income volatility, creating additional stress and uncertainty. In countries where heating is essential for life, there is the “heat or eat” trade-off and so households make decisions about the relative cost to health and prioritise accordingly (Snell et al., 2018). Minimising “Non-Essential” Expenses Another strategy used by households was to minimise “non-essential” spending. What is considered “non-essential” varies according to the level of deprivation being experienced and micro-decisions about daily priorities. “Non-essential” spending could include entertainment, fuel in the car, toiletries, new clothes, new school uniforms, school outings and extra-curricular activities for children (Banks and Bowman, 2020; Whittle et al., 2015a; Ferret et al., 2020); although, in some instances, these are prioritised in order to maintain outward facing social identity (Dryland et al., 2021). “I don’t go to the hairdresser’s or to bars. I don’t know how we can cut back on anything else.” (ESP, RH1, couple with two adult sons, in Dagdeviren and Donoghue, 2019, p. 555)

In some instances, families are forced to make decisions about accessing healthcare and medications for both adults and children and to relegate health as “non-essential” in the face of competing expenses (Whittle et al., 2020; Spurway and Soldatic, 2016). Medication may be prioritised, but healthcare appointments may be missed (Whittle et al., 2020; Ferret et al., 2020).

FOOD MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES In many low- to middle-income households, food availability, quantity and quality has been shown to be cyclical, based around the household income cycle with expenditure on food significantly higher when income is available (Chen, 2016). However, towards the end of the income cycle, there is a significant decrease in the quantity and quality of food due to com-

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?  123 peting fixed expenditures, which are often prioritised (Chen, 2016). Consequently, food management strategies become a form of consumption smoothing that can be used episodically or become adaptive over the long term (Slater and Yeudall, 2015). In high-income countries, physical hunger is less prevalent; and for those where it is present, it is less visible. Households experiencing food insecurity will engage strategies that protect children from hunger, and children and other household members from moral judgement and social stigma (Dryland et al., 2021; Mott et al., 2018; Kleve et al., 2018; Graham et al., 2018). Changing Purchasing and Cooking Behaviours With food affordability in many high-income countries decreasing significantly, one of the first strategies households will engage to buffer or protect the food supply relates to changing purchasing and cooking behaviours. This includes buying from multiple stores, purchasing non-perishable products, sourcing low-cost options/substitutes, buying in bulk, improving storage to prevent wastage, using leftovers, utilising seasonal produce, bartering, bulking out meals with less expensive ingredients, and relying on family and friends (Dryland et al., 2021; Jovanovski and Cook, 2020). Other common strategies include substituting cheaper cuts of meat and only relying on a limited repertoire of dishes that could be fully and confidently budgeted (Dryland et al., 2021). “I might buy mince, sausages, maybe a bit of chicken and then I just try to make do with all that….” (Grandmother, married with custody of grandchild, in Dryland, 2021, p. 94) “[T]o reduce amount of meat I just add more vegetables and lentils and beans. I cook things like casseroles and things like that where there is a lot of water content, because they are more filling.” (Single mother, two older children, in Dryland, 2021, p. 100) “Because I was buying the same thing every week, I knew what it was going to come to.” (Married, single income, two children, in Dryland, 2021, p. 102)

Changing Diet Quality When these strategies are no longer able to guarantee food for the household, caloric density is prioritised over diet quality (McKenzie and McKay, 2017). In high-income countries, energy-dense diets are more affordable, palatable and accessible (Drewnowski, 2004). Women living in food-insecure households will purchase low-cost energy-dense and potentially nutrient-poor foods such as bread, rice, pasta, instant noodles, hot dogs/sausages in an attempt to avoid hunger, minimise food expenditure (Mott et al., 2018; Chen, 2016; Tan et al., 2017; Fafard St-Germain and Tarasuk, 2018; Nielsen et al., 2015). When asked how they would manage if the household income for a particular month is lower than normal, Adam tells us that the family survives on rations, explaining that the bulk of their food budget goes toward dry rations, most of which are instant noodles or canned food, as that is the kind of food that can sustain the family until the next paycheck. (Married man, with children, Singapore, in Tan et al., 2017, p. 958)

124  Handbook of food security and society Food Rationing Another food management practice involves the rationing of available food or limiting the food consumption of individuals based on cyclic pay periods. This could result in feast and famine cycles, where food is over-consumed when available and rationed when it is not. In these instances adults, and particularly women, will reduce their portions or skip meals to protect other household members (Nielsen et al., 2015; Chen, 2016; Dryland et al., 2021). Parents also become hypervigilant, monitoring how the food they purchase is being used and checking the food consumption of their children. Such rationing can result in social isolation. “I pick and choose when the kids can have friends over. I may only allow it when the cupboard is full. I’ll say no to sleepovers to my kids because I know their friends will be over for dinner and I’ll have to stretch the food—I don’t feel comfortable doing that.” (Runnels et al., 2011, p. 163)

Strategies employed by food insecure households become multigenerational, with children and young people adhering to adult strategies aimed at extending available resources, managing existing food, or taking action to increase the availability or financial resources to acquire additional food (Mott et al., 2018; Popkin et al., 2016). Young people also describe skipping meals, being strategic regarding which meals were skipped (Popkin et al., 2016). “Breakfast really isn’t, like I’d rather save my food so that I can eat, so I can actually sleep, because I can’t sleep when I’m hungry.” (Adolescent, USA, in Popkin et al., 2016, p. 9)

Finally, families are now using school meals, in countries where they are available, as a form of income supplementation and food rationing. School breakfast programmes, school lunch programmes and meals provided by childcare facilities (before and after school care) have emerged as critical contributors to household intakes (Ferret et al., 2020; Ralston et al., 2017). This becomes more obvious during school holidays, when children are inclined to eat more, resulting in families stockpiling food or enforcing stricter budgets, or adults skipping meals more frequently (Shinwell and Defeyter, 2021).

SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE FOOD ACQUISITION One of the most visible elements of entitlement failure in high-income countries is the increased use and normalisation of emergency food relief (EFR) agencies and food banks delivered by predominantly charitable organisations as the primary food safety net (Middleton et al., 2018; Caraher and Davison, 2019; Purdam et al., 2016). Although EFR agencies and food banks offer a solution to hunger through redistribution of surplus food, it does not ensure the requirement for a sustainable food system and the basic human right to food (Pollard and Booth, 2019). In accessing EFR, there is an element of shame and indignity (Caraher and Davison, 2019; Garthwaite, 2016). “It’s very uncomfortable applying for food stamps. Or anything that’s social service related. It’s very uncomfortable, it’s demeaning, it’s demoralizing. Nobody in their right mind would choose that…. Because there’s just something about, like, when you do stuff like that, or when you go to food banks, or if you were to have to go to a soup kitchen.” (Female, USA, in Whittle et al., 2020, p. 7)

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?  125 In high-income countries where there is an abundance of food, the inability to afford or access food is commonly seen as a failure of the individual and it is this seeking of a ‘hand out’ that makes accessing these services an act of desperation (Purdam et al., 2016). “I was willing to turn to prostitution if I did not get help from the food bank.” (participant, in Purdam, 2016, p. 1080)

CONCLUSIONS: REPERCUSSIONS OF FOOD INSECURITY IN PRECARIOUS TIMES What is emerging in high-income countries is the growing impact of precarious livelihoods, rising debt, the shrinking welfare state and food insecurity on a range of households across income brackets. Negotiating and managing multiple threats to income and expenditure including food management creates cognitive load and time poverty (Lloyd-Evans et al., 2020). Strategies are employed that attempt to reduce stigma and maintain social identity but at a cost to mental and physical health (Dryland et al., 2021; McKenzie and McKay, 2017). The strategies households use, including the range of food management practices, lead to social isolation through overtaxing social networks as a consequence of hiding the situation to minimise stigma, or because of hypermobility related to the search for stable employment and housing (Mott et al., 2018). Food insecurity in high-income countries is a symptom of much broader social disruption and neo-liberal policies. It is untenable in countries producing a surfeit of food that any of their citizens are unable to put food on the table without significant cost to health and identity. This chapter has highlighted the resilience and creativity of households who use their capabilities to smooth income and expenditure, including food management practices. It is evident that there are increasing inequities associated with accessing entitlements that are fundamental human rights. In order to alleviate food insecurity, high-income countries are going to need to look beyond providing food for “emergencies” to a deeper shift in income, utilities, housing, and health policies and systems.

REFERENCES Appleyard, L., Packman, C., Lazell, J., & Aslam, H. 2021. The lived experience of financialization at the UK financial fringe. Journal of Social Policy, 52(1), 1–22. Banks, M., & Bowman, D. 2020. Bad timing: The temporal dimensions of economic insecurity. Critical Sociology, 46, 511–525. Bartfeld, J., & Collins, J. M. 2017. Food insecurity, financial shocks, and financial coping strategies among households with elementary school children in Wisconsin. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51, 519–548. Brown, J. T., Banks, M., & Bowman, D. 2020. From me to us: Strengthening our financial capabilities. Economic Papers, 39, 407–417. Caraher, M., & Davison, R. 2019. The normalisation of food aid: What happened to feeding people well? Emerald Open Research, 1, 1–22. Chen, W.-T. 2016. From “junk food” to “treats” how poverty shapes family food practices. Food, Culture and Society, 19, 151–170. Dagdeviren, H., & Donoghue, M. 2019. Resilience, agency and coping with hardship: Evidence from Europe during the great recession. Journal of Social Policy, 48, 547–567.

126  Handbook of food security and society Dowler, E., & Lambie-Mumford, H. 2015. How can households eat in austerity? Challenges for Social Policy in the UK. Social Policy and Society, 14, 417–428. Drewnowski, A. 2004. Poverty and obesity: The role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 6–16. Dryland, R. 2021. Exploring Household Food Insecurity through the Livelihoods Framework. PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. https://​eprints​.qut​.edu​.au/​212522/​ Dryland, R., Carroll, J.-A., & Gallegos, D. 2021. Moving beyond coping to resilient pragmatism in food insecure households. Journal of Poverty, 25, 269–286. Fafard St-Germain, A., & Tarasuk, V. 2018. Prioritization of the essentials in the spending patterns of Canadian households experiencing food insecurity. Public Health Nutrition, 21, 2065–2078. FAO 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Rome: FAO. Ferret, M. P., Baylina, M., & Guitart, A. O. 2020. Children and families coping with austerity in Catalonia. In: Hall, S. M., Pimlott-Wilson, H., & Horton, J. (eds), Austerity Across Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 55–67. Gallegos, D., Eivers, A., Sondergeld, P., & Pattinson, C. 2021. Food insecurity and child development: A state-of-the-art review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 8990. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph18178990 Gallegos, D., Booth, S., Kleve, S., McKechnie, R., & Lindberg, R. 2017. Food insecurity in Australian households: From charity to entitlement. In: Germov, J., & Williams, L. (eds), A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–74. Garthwaite, K. 2016. Hunger Pains: Life Inside Foodbank Britain. Bristol, Policy Press. Graham, R., Hodgetts, D., & Chamberlain, K. 2018. Hiding in plain sight: Experiences of food insecurity and rationing in New Zealand. Food, Culture and Society, 21, 384–401. Halpern-Meekin, S., Greene, S. S., Levin, E., & Edin, K. 2018. The rainy day Earned Income Tax Credit: A reform to boost financial security by helping low-wage workers build emergency savings. Journal of the Social Sciences, 4, 161–176. Harari, D., Francis-Devine, B., Bolton, P., & Keep, M. 2022. Rising Cost of Living in the UK: Research Brief. House of Commons Library CBP-9428.pdf (parliament.uk). Harknett, K., Schneider, D., & Luhr, S. 2022. Who cares if parents have unpredictable work schedules? Just-in-time work schedules and child care arrangements. Social Problems, 69, 164–183. Hartworth, C., Richards, C., & Convery, I. 2020. Entitlements, capabilities, and crisis in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Social Science, 14, 40–54. Jovanovski, N., & Cook, K. 2020. How Australian welfare reforms shape low-income single mothers’ food provisioning practices and their children’s nutritional health. Critical Public Health, 30, 340–351. Kleve, S., Booth, S., Davidson, Z. E., & Palermo, C. 2018. Walking the food security tightrope: Exploring the experiences of low-to-middle income Melbourne households. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 23, 249–256. Kramer, K. Z., Andrade, F. C. D., Greenlee, A. J., Mendenhall, R., Bellisle, D., & Lemons Blanks, R. 2019. Periodic Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payment, financial stress and wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40, 511–523. Lloyd-Evans, S., Ord, J., Zischka, L., Allen, P., Ashcroft, L., Banas, A., Clare, S., Duval, S., & Lee, N. 2020. Beyond coping: families and young people’s journeys through austerity, relational poverty and stigma. In: Hall, S. M., Pimlott-Wilson, H., & Horton, J. (eds), Austerity Across Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 110–124. Maynard, M., Andrade, L., Packull-McCormick, S., Perlman, C. M., Leos-Toro, C., & Kirkpatrick, S. I. 2018. Food insecurity and mental health among females in high-income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 1424. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph15071424 McKenzie, H. J., & McKay, F. H. 2017. Food as a discretionary item: The impact of welfare payment changes on low-income single mother’s food choices and strategies. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25, 35–48. McKenzie, H., & McKay, F. H. 2018. Thinking outside the box: Strategies used by low-income single mothers to make ends meet. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 53, 304–319. McKenzie, H. J., McHugh, C., & McKay, F. H. 2019. Life on newstart allowance: A new reality for low-income single mothers. Journal of Family Studies, 25, 18–33.

What are the lived experiences of people who are food insecure?  127 Middleton, G., Mehta, K., McNaugton, D., & Booth, S. 2018. The experiences and perceptions of food banks amongst users in high-income countries: An international scoping review. Appetite, 120, 698–708. Mmari, K., Offiong, A., Gross, S., & Mendelson, T. 2019. How adolescents cope with food insecurity in Baltimore City: An exploratory study. Public Health Nutrition, 22, 2260–2267. Mott, R., Keller, K., Britt-Rankin, J., & Ball, A. 2018. ‘Out of place around other people’: Experiences of young people who live with food insecurity. Children & Society, 32, 207–218. Nielsen, A., Lund, T. B., & Holm, L. 2015. The taste of ‘the end of the month’, and how to avoid it: Coping with restrained food budgets in a Scandinavian welfare state context. Social Policy and Society, 14, 429–442. Parker, J., Arrowsmith, J., Fells, R., & Prowse, P. 2016. The living wage: Concepts, contexts and future concerns. Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 26, 1–7. Pollard, C. M., & Booth, S. 2019. Food insecurity and hunger in rich countries: It is time for action against inequality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1804. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ijerph16101804 Popkin, S. J., Scott, M. M., & Galvez, M. 2016. Impossible Choices. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Purdam, K., Garratt, E. A., & Esmail, A. 2016. Hungry? Food insecurity, social stigma and embarrassment in the UK. Sociology, 50, 1072–1088. Ralston, K., Treen, K., Coleman-Jensen, A., & Guthrie, J. 2017. Children’s Food Security and USDA Child Nutrition Programs. Economic Information Bulletin, Number 174. Washington D.C.: USDA. Richards, C., Kjærnes, U., & Vik, J. 2016. Food security in welfare capitalism: Comparing social entitlements to food in Australia and Norway. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 61–70. Runnels, V. E., Kristjansson, E., & Calhoun, M. 2011. An investigation of adults’ everyday experiences and effects of food insecurity in an urban area in Canada. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 30, 157–172. Schneider, D., & Harknett, K. 2019. Consequences of routine work: Schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review, 84, 82–114. Sen, A. 1983. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 1999. Commodities and Capabilities. New Delhi, India, Oxford University Press. Shinwell, J., & Defeyter, M. A. 2021. Food insecurity: A constant factor in the lives of low-income families in Scotland and England. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 588254. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​ fpubh​.2021​.588254 Slater, J., & Yeudall, F. 2015. Sustainable livelihoods for food and nutrition security in Canada: A conceptual framework for public health research, policy, and practice. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 10, 1–21. Snell, C., Lambie-Mumford, H., & Thomson, H. 2018. Is there evidence of households making a heat or eat trade off in the UK? Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 26, 225–243. Spurway, K., And Soldatic, K. 2016. “Life just keeps throwing lemons”: The lived experience of food insecurity among Aboriginal people with disabilities in the West Kimberley. Local Environment, 21, 1118–1131. Tan, N., Kaur-Gill, S., Dutta, M. J., & Venkataraman, N. 2017. Food insecurity in Singapore: The communicative (dis)value of the lived experiences of the poor. Health Communication, 32, 954–962. Whittle, H. J., Palar, K., Hufstedler, L. L., Seligman, H. K., Frongillo, E. A., & Weiser, S. D. 2015a. Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy. Social Science & Medicine, 143, 154–161. Whittle, H. J., Palar, K., Napoles, T., Hufstedler, L. L., Ching, I., Hecht, F. M., Frongillo, E. A., & Weiser, S. D. 2015b. Experiences with food insecurity and risky sex among low-income people living with HIV/AIDS in a resource-rich setting. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 18, 20293. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.1.20293 Whittle, H. J., Leddy, A. M., Shieh, J., Tien, P. C., Ofotokun, I., Adimora, A. A., Turan, J. M., Frongillo, E. A., Turan, B., & Weiser, S. D. 2020. Precarity and health: Theorizing the intersection of multiple material-need insecurities, stigma, and illness among women in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 245, 112683.

10. Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity and their effects on malnutrition syndemic in South Africa Zandile J. Mchiza, Yul D. Davids and Laurentia J. Opperman

BACKGROUND ON POLICY INITIATIVES TO MITIGATE FOOD SECURITY IN SOUTH AFRICA South Africa (SA) is regarded as an international leader in the initiatives that address social injustice. It is also regarded as a pioneer in the struggle to reduce poverty (also referred to as food insecurity) and its consequence, namely malnutrition (as presented by under- and overweight, a condition known as the double burden of malnutrition); and if these nutrition-related conditions are accompanied by micronutrient deficiencies they may also be regarded as the triple burden of nutrition or malnutrition syndemic or food insecurity (Luo et al., 2020; Masters et al., 2022; Swinburn et al., 2019). Food and nutrition security, unlike other services of delivery, are essential to well-being and human development. While the World Food Summit (1996) defined food security as “the availability and access of food to all people,” the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2006) defined nutrition security as existing when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” SA also has a history of bold strategies and policy initiatives to prevent food and nutrition insecurity and promote a healthy lifestyle among the population (see Chapter 4 in this volume, on the right to food). Section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of SA, 1996, states, “everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water,” while Section 28(1)(c) points out that all children have the right to basic nutrition. Since 1992, the South African (SAn) government also enacted the Foodstuff, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act No. 54 (South African Department of Health, 1993), which was designed to regulate the control of the sale, manufacturing, and importation of foodstuffs into the country. However, it became apparent that the guidelines within the act were contravened by the food industry and other actors. The government therefore formulated a representative body, the Food Legislation Advisory Group that took on the task to examine the shortfalls and close the loopholes that enabled the abuse of the guidelines. In 1994, the government approved the Zero Vat Rating of Basic Foodstuff policy, which aimed to remove or reduce tax in selected foodstuffs that are regarded as healthy and those that are staples for SA. This was an initiative to reduce hunger and improve food and nutrition security in the country, because this tax exemption would be an incentive that encourages food producers and other actors to produce and market healthy food, and the consumers to procure and consume these healthy foods. Despite these initiatives, the problem of food and nutrition insecurity was not eradicated. In 1995, the SAn government further approved the national Integrated Food Security Strategy to 128

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  129 streamline, harmonize and integrate the diverse food and nutrition security programs, with an end goal being to halt food and nutrition insecurity determinants. This strategy was followed by a series of other strategies or policy initiatives that have been put in place to address the disproportionate burden of food and nutrition insecurity. Among many of these nutrition-related policy initiatives, Boatemaa et al. (2018) gave emphasis on national policy actions organized by the Social Development as well as the National Planning Committee and National Treasury and supported by the departments of Health, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Trade and Industry, and Economic Development. These policy actions are further outlined and defined in Figure 10.1 below. They have been developed to address specific food and nutrition-related problems, and hence they have been given a timeframe, after which these will be either amended or revamped.

Notes: *Developed in 1994 and reviewed in 2018. oDeveloped in 2016 and implemented in 2018. Source: Author.

Figure 10.1

Food and nutrition policy initiatives in South Africa

With the help of all these policy actions, the SAn government managed to meet some of its commitments, for example to halve poverty (presented as household hunger; see Figure 10.2) by 2004. But it becomes clear that poverty cannot be fully eradicated in SA. Of note is that during the 2013 SAn State of Nation Address (SONA), the SAn government reaffirmed the National Development Plan (NDP): Vision 2030 (South African Department of Social Development and South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013) as the development blueprint and recognized the proposals for “tackling the problems of poverty, inequality and unemployment. This has been the roadmap to a SA where all will have water, electricity, sanitation, jobs, housing, public transport, adequate nutrition, education, social pro-

130  Handbook on food security and society tection, quality healthcare, recreation and a clean environment.” The SAn NDP is informed by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as it outlines various methods and targets to eradicate poverty, reduce unemployment and eliminate inequality by 2030 (see the Introduction of this volume for more on the SDGs). It also identifies food and nutrition insecurity as a key consequence and a cause of both poverty and inequality. As such, the NDP makes reference to several steps that needed to be followed to improve food and nutrition security and address inequality. These include encouraging sustainable development, in the form of supporting food producers by implementing expanded use of irrigation; ensuring security of land tenure, especially for women; and the promotion of nutrition education.

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT TRENDS OF FOOD INSECURITY IN SOUTH AFRICA? Amidst all the aforementioned ambitious policy actions, the SAn evidence is suggesting that food and nutrition security cannot be easily eradicated (Altman et al., 2010; Devereux and Waidler, 2017; Dube, 2013; Labadarios et al., 2009; Misselhorn and Hendriks, 2017; Steyn et al., 2022). This improvement has further been stifled by the global economic meltdown that occurred in 2008 and now the current (2020 to date) COVID-19 pandemic. The next section outlines the trends of food and nutrition security against the backdrop of the two aforementioned burdens. Firstly, food and nutrition insecurity have far-reaching health and developmental consequences that have become evident across the life-course. In SA, for instance, food and nutrition insecurity are multidimensional phenomena that are difficult to define and understand, so SAn researchers use numerous indicators to measure them (see chapters 6 to 11, this volume). These indicators are often gathered using different sampling strategies and methodologies to measure food and nutrition security. They also cover four dimensions of food and nutrition security as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at the World Food Summit (1996). The dimension of these indicators is outlined extensively in the reviews of Dube (2013), Altman et al. (2009), Labadarios et al. (2009), Misselhorn and Hendriks (2017) and recently Steyn et al. (2022). For instance, indicators chosen to represent food and nutrition security are designed to cover issues relating to food availability (as influenced by domestic production, import capacity, food stocks and food aid), access to and ability to afford healthy food (as influenced by income, purchasing power, own food production, transport and market infrastructure, and food distribution), utilization (as influenced by food safety and quality, clean water, health and sanitation, care, as well as feeding and health-seeking practices of healthy food) and stability (as influenced by weather variability, seasonality, food price fluctuations, and political and economic factors). These indicators are also developed to fulfill the objective of the aforementioned SAn policy actions. The next section will include an outline of some of the indicators mentioned above as an effort to cover the two dimensions of food security, namely access and expenditure.

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  131

SOUTH AFRICANS’ ACCESS TO FOOD The current SAn statistics indicate that the SAn government has been showing some successes in reducing inequality. It has achieved these by increasing opportunities that provide access to food for the SAns and helping SAns to secure employment, by supporting sectors that employ them, including the agricultural and private sectors; promoting economic development; and reducing food insecurity. However, the COVID-19 crisis as it ran from March 2020 to December 2021 seems to have undone these efforts or to some extent it has stifled a multitude of these ambitious policy actions. In fact, according to Figure 10.2 it is apparent that the SAn government has managed to halve the proportion of households and individuals who grappled with hunger between 2002 and 2006 and kept it at this lower level for eleven years. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 10.3), the proportion of SAns who reported being hungry in 2020 almost doubled. This occurred during the countrywide lockdown, a situation practiced worldwide that requested citizens stay away from areas where there were group gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infections. The percentage of hungry SAns increased from 4.3 before the lockdown to 7 after the country lockdown had been implemented. Moreover, during the hard country lockdown, more SAns reported experiencing food insecurity (Figure 10.4). According to this figure, the food insecurity proportion has since declined, but it is not close to where it was before the onset of COVID-19.

Source: Stats SA, 2020a.

Figure 10.2

Proportion of South Africans who have access to food (General Household Surveys)

EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SOUTH AFRICANS Access to food in SA is influenced by several factors, including employment status and financial freedom. For instance, according to Figure 10.5, it is clear that the SAn government has struggled to create employment, given the steady increase in the proportion of unemployed SAn citizens on a yearly basis. If we consider those discouraged workers who do not seek employment, the official unemployment figure of 30.8% rose to 43.1%. In short, if we expand

132  Handbook on food security and society

Source: Stats SA, 2020b.

Figure 10.3

Proportion of South Africans experiencing hunger (COVID-19 study)

Source: University of Johannesburg and Human Sciences Research Council COVID-19 Democracy Survey 2020.

Figure 10.4

Proportion of South Africans experiencing food insecurity during the current COVID-19 pandemic

the Statistics SA definition to include those unemployed between the ages of 15 and 59 who do not actively seek employment, the South African unemployment situation will be much worse (Reuters, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the number of employed people in SA. For example, according to Figure 10.5, the percentage of SAns reporting to be unemployed used to range from 0.2 to 1.1 on a yearly basis; this has recently (between 2020 and 2021) jumped more than threefold (to 4.3%). The International Monetary Fund (2021) has also projected that this proportion increase of unemployed SAns will increase steadily even in the next five years. According to the quarterly economic surveys conducted in SA, the proportion of total and part-time SAn employees seems to have declined and became the lowest in 2020 (Figure 10.6). However, there is some hope, since the proportion of part-time workers appears to be recovering, owing to the downgrade of the country’s softer lockdown levels to 1 and 2 since late 2021.

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  133

Source: International Monetary Fund, 2021.

Figure 10.5

Proportion (%) of unemployed South Africans

Source: Stats SA, 2021b.

Figure 10.6

Percentage change of the number of total employees in South Africa between 2017 and 2021

THE FINANCIAL FREEDOM OF SOUTH AFRICANS Amidst the aforementioned struggles with unemployment in SA, according to Figure 10.7, the income secured by employed SAns seems to be relatively reasonable despite a few dips observed in 2008 and 2016. This could be due to the global economic slowdowns during these times. However, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the upward trend seen between 2017 and 2019 seems to have been undone. In fact, the dip of SA income in 2020 is clearly demonstrated in figures 10.8 and 10.9, where the gross income secured by SA

134  Handbook on food security and society decreased from US$1532.491 in the first quarter of 2020, before the country’s hard lockdown, to US$1204.378 (Figure 10.8) during the lockdown. Figure 10.9 also shows that this income trend is most apparent in employees in the formal non-agricultural sector. In the last few months, SA has been seeing some promising income improvements that show a steady upward trend from the third quarter of 2020 to date.

Source: World Bank Data, 2022.

Figure 10.7

Estimated gross national income of South Africans

Source: CEIC Data, 2022.

Figure 10.8

Total quarterly gross earning paid to South African employees between 2009 and 2021 (ISI Emerging Market Group, CEIC – Foresight 2022, published in December 2021)

While Figure 10.10 presents the outcomes of research from a small proportion of SAns (i.e., a sample of 1200 participants who are investors of one of the SA financial/banking institutions, Old Mutual), it is clear that in 2020 the financial situation of SAns has deteriorated, such that lesser proportions of SAns were satisfied about their financial standing, lived comfortably

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  135

Source: Stats SA, 2021a.

Figure 10.9

Average monthly earnings in the formal non-agricultural sector of the economy in South Africa

Source: Old Mutual, 2021.

Figure 10.10 The financial situation in South Africa (%) within their financial means and had enough money to last them for the entire month. The proportion of those who were struggling to get by increased from 5.9% in 2019 to 8% in 2020. According to Figure 10.11, all sources of financial income for SA seem to have deteriorated during the COVID-19 hard lockdown. As such, people resorted to using their “retirement” investments and some relied on financial loans to get by, while those who lost their jobs also accessed their unemployment insurance funds. Even though we could not find the data for 2020, judging from the steady upward trend of the proportion of SAns who rely on social

136  Handbook on food security and society security grants in the last two decades (Figure 10.12), it is possible that the proportion of this group in 2020 has escalated if not doubled.

Figure 10.11 The proportion of South Africans reporting salaries/wages as their source of income

Source: Stats SA, 2020a.

Figure 10.12 Proportion (%) of households and individuals who benefit from social grants in South Africa (General Household Survey)

FOOD AFFORDABILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA Statistics SA (2021a) reported that the year-on-year increase in food and non-alcoholic beverage prices is estimated at an average of 6%, while transport and other basic household needs’ prices normally rise by an average of 10%. A comparison study of 2019 and 2021 food

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  137 prices, conducted by the FoodForward SA group (2021), shows that basic food prices have increased by 9.8%. This points to a reality that SA may be nowhere near affording a normative nutritional standard of consuming the recommended calories that range from 512 calories for infants to 2500 calories for adult males as outlined in the 2000 document prepared by the Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on Dietary Reference Intakes. This calorie range is recommended for daily energy requirements across the lifespan. In fact, reaching nutritional adequacy may be a situation that is farfetched for those SAns who are not getting minimum total energy requirements. As presented above, the majority of SAns are grappling with financial difficulties, many struggling to make ends meet, some living on financial loans, while others are relying on social security grants. Moreover, according to the review of the money secured by the recipients for social security grants between 2018 and 2020, this money is not enough to secure a healthy diet for an average SAn. Figure 10.13 below also shows that while the grants afforded to disadvantaged SAns increased between the financial years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, the average increase is too little and still sits at about ZAR69.29 (US$4.54) (04 February 2022 exchange rate of ZAR1 = US$15.25).

Source: Department of Social Development, 2020.

Figure 10.13 Income secured by South Africans from social security (ZAR) According to the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group (PMEJD) (2021), which collected data from 44 supermarkets and 30 butcheries in Pietermaritzburg from September 2020, the average basic nutritional food basket in these metros costs an average of ZAR4001.17 per month. The group has started collecting similar national data and included four other Metropolitan Areas (i.e., Durban, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Springbok). Figures 10.14 and 10.15 depict the cost of a basic nutritional food basket of seven household members (a typical household in SA) (PMEJD, 2021) in five SAn provinces compared with the basic income of a general worker in SA. The outcomes outlined in these figures clearly show that because general workers in SA earn less each month, they may be nowhere near affording to buy groceries that would provide seven nutritionally balanced diets each month for their families, while at the same time managing to pay for other household basic needs including transport money.

138  Handbook on food security and society

Source: PMEJD, 2021.

Figure 10.14 Average salary of a general worker in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa versus the cost of a food basket for a 7-member household.

Source: PMEJD, 2021.

Figure 10.15 Average salary of a general worker in South Africa versus the cost of a food basket per province for a 7-member household

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  139

DISCUSSION What Are the Consequences of Food and Nutrition Security in South Africa? The above-presented statistics indicate that SAn citizens and households are nowhere near being food secure (Hendriks, 2005; Aliber, 2009). This is despite the revised government strategies and a myriad of initiatives to mitigate these conditions. Furthermore, reviewing the indicators outlined in figures 10.2 to 10.6 above, it is evident that there are inadequacies in terms of access to food, employment status and financial freedom. These are important aspects that support healthy eating. For instance, when considering the conceptual framework presented by the University of Cape Town’s Children’s Institute website and the World Food Programme’s Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework, it seems that the shortfalls in food access, employment and income are influenced by wider socio-economic and political challenges. Among these challenges are households experiencing lack of access to adequate quality and quantity of resources, such as land to grow one’s own food. Moreover, the inferior education system may not be equipping some SAn communities with the basic skills necessary to secure decent employment that will afford them decent income (Hendriks, 2005; Aliber, 2009). Considering the aforementioned issues implicated by food insecurity, coupled with the burdens brought about by the COVID-19 country lockdown crisis at the time of writing – including food supply chain disruptions and people losing their livelihoods – we are concerned that if these conditions are not improved, to make ends meet, food-insecure households in the country will continue to seek and procure poor-quality diets containing high levels of saturated fat, refined sugar and salt, with this ultimately leading to individuals in those households experiencing severe problems of malnutrition (i.e., being under- or overweight and micronutrient deficient). Consequently, there is growing evidence suggesting that in SAn households it is common to find children who are undernourished (those who present with stunting) and adults who are obese. This is called the double burden of malnutrition, and if accompanied by micronutrient deficiency is further called the malnutrition syndemic (Swinburn et al., 2019). Malnutrition syndemic, or synergistic epidemic, is regarded as the presence of two or more disease states that adversely interact with each other, affecting the mutual course of each disease trajectory, enhancing vulnerability, and which are made more deleterious by experienced inequities (Swinburn, 2019). Moreover, Singer and Clair (2003) define syndemic as a synergistic interaction of two or more co-existent diseases and the resultant excess burden of disease. In SA, the nutrition syndemic is not just a problem of poor households, but it is a problem for those households who may be regarded as falling within the “middle class.” While the proportion of stunting in SAn children under the age of five years decreased from 28.1% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2017, the proportion remains high. Of concern is that in the past three years the proportion of stunted SA children seems to have shown an upward trajectory (see Chapter 13 of this volume, on stunting). Childhood stunting is a strong indicator of ill health later in life (WHO, 1995). Other concerns are that the prevalence of wasting in the country seems to be stagnant, while the proportion of overweight children indicates a steady but upward trajectory (see Figure 10.16). If not monitored, all these trends may reach unacceptable levels, to a point that might cripple the SA economy, as the future generation will be a sick generation that may struggle to keep the economy going.

140  Handbook on food security and society

Source: UNICEF, 2021.

Figure 10.16 The nutritional status of South African children under the age of five years

Source: NCD-RisC, 2017.

Figure 10.17 The prevalence outcomes on the nutritional status of South African men 18 years and older In Figure 10.17, we show that, while the majority of adult men in SA have maintained body sizes (i.e., body mass indices, BMI) within the normal range of weight (i.e., between 20 and 24.9 kg/m2) for almost two decades, the prevalence outcomes observed between 2014 and 2016 indicate that the proportion of men who are overweight surpassed the proportion of those who are within the normal range of weight. For 2002 and 2003, it is shown that there is a collision between the proportion of underweight and obese men. This is an indication that the double burden of malnutrition has long been entrenched in SAn men, such that in recent years more men are becoming obese. Figure 10.18 shows an even worse picture, where adult women’s mean BMI sits at the upper level of overweight and is threatening to reach the obesity level. Furthermore, over the years we have been seeing a steady decrease in the proportion of overweight adult SAn women, and an escalation of the proportion of those women who are obese (Figure 10.18). This may suggest that the majority of overweight adult women quickly

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  141 transition to becoming obese. Hence, we see the highest level of obesity in this gender in SA when compared with women in other African countries. The existing evidence shows that nutrient deficiencies also exist within SAn households (Mchiza et al., 2018). For instance, in a secondary analysis of data for 1123 SAn adult women and their adolescent daughters who participated in the SANHANES-1 (South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; Shisana et al., 2014), it was shown that 17%, 21%, and 9% of the households had at least one adolescent, one adult and one adolescent–adult pair, respectively, who were anemic in 2012. These results also showed that iron-deficiency anemia (the most common health condition that shows micronutrient deficiencies globally) is more prevalent in SAn households where green leafy vegetables were consumed fewer than four times per week and in those households that do not have access to good sources of protein, red meat in particular (Shisana et al., 2014). More importantly, in the aforementioned survey it is also shown that anemia is most prevalent in the black SAn community; it is an indicator of overconsumption of dietary fat and a marker of socio-economic disadvantage.

Source: NCD-RisC, 2017.

Figure 10.18 The prevalence outcomes on the nutritional status of South African women 18 years and older

CONCLUSION In this chapter we have presented data to show the outcomes of most of the food and nutrition-related indicators in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, we uncovered that the proportion of SAns reporting to be unemployed has jumped more than threefold from 1.1 in 2020, with the proportion of total and part-time SAn employees appearing to have declined to become the lowest in 2020. The upward trend that was also seen between 2017 and 2019 has somewhat been undone and “reversed” by the 2020 COVID-19 country lockdown situation, with the proportion of SAns who reported that they struggle to get by in this new era showing an upward trend. Even though we could not find available data for 2020, judging from the steady upward trends in the proportion of SAns who rely on social security grants,

142  Handbook on food security and society those who are overweight and obese, as well as children who are stunted and/or underweight in the last two decades, it is possible that the proportion of these population groups in SA might have increased drastically, if not doubled during this era of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In fact, in this review we have uncovered that, despite the efforts made by the SAn government, the household food security situation has increasingly deteriorated and COVID-19 and the countrywide lockdown situation since March 2020 have contributed substantially to these food-insecure circumstances. The SAn government and all stakeholders must seriously convene to examine the real state of food security in SA and show willingness to cooperate and to work towards a long-term strategy that is inclusive and considers the complex nature of securing food that is healthy and nutritious. Moreover, the high unemployment rate coupled with the lack of income has a devastating impact on especially destitute households because they will continue to buy poor-quality food that includes high levels of saturated fat, refined sugar, and salt. These diets have negative consequences since they contribute to malnutrition and ill health. The SA government must therefore urgently address this situation to prevent the growing concern of the double burden of malnutrition, that is accompanied by micronutrient deficiency. If not monitored, these problems will severely impact on the health as well as economic status of the SAn population. However, it is important to note that the SAn government should be acknowledged for the interventions introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown.

REFERENCES Aliber, M. 2009. Exploring Statistics South Africa’s national household surveys as sources of information about household-level food security. Agrekon, 48, 384–409. Altman, M., Hart, T. G., & Jacobs, P. T. 2009. Household food security status in South Africa. Agrekon, 48, 345–361. Altman, M., Hart, T., & Jacobs, P. 2010. Food security in South Africa. Human Sciences Research Council. Boatemaa, S., Drimie, S., & Pereira, L. M. 2018. Addressing food and nutrition security in South Africa: A review of policy responses since 2002. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 13(3), 264–279. CEIC Data. 2022. Available: https://​www​.ceicdata​.com/​en [accessed 13 April 2022]. Department of Social Development. 2020. Available: https://​www​.dsd​.gov​.za/​[accessed 13 April 2022]. Devereux, S., & Waidler, J. 2017. Why does malnutrition persist in South Africa despite social grants? Food security South Africa working paper series no. 001. Department of Science and Technology/ National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Food Security, South Africa. Dube, M. E. 2013. Food security in South Africa: A comprehensive review of the past two decades. University Gent. Available: https://​libstore​.ugent​.be/​fulltxt/​RUG01/​002/​063/​674/​RUG01​-002063674​ _2013​_0001​_AC​.pdf [accessed 13 April 2022]. FAO. 2006. Food Security: Policy Brief [online]. FAO, Rome. Available: www​.fao​.org [accessed 3 February 2022]. FoodForward SA. 2021. Most South Africans Can’t Afford Basic Foods [online]. Available: https://​ foodforwardsa​.org/​news/​most​-south​-africans​-cant​-afford​-basic​-foods/​ [accessed 9 February 2022]. Hendriks, S. L. 2005. The challenges facing empirical estimation of household food (in) security in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 22, 103–123. Institute of Medicine Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. 2000. DRI Dietary Reference Intakes: applications in dietary assessment. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2021. Available: https://​www​.imf​.org/​external/​datamapper/​LUR@​ WEO/​ZAF​?year​=​2022 [accessed 3 February 2022].

Tracking the extent and drivers of food insecurity in South Africa  143 Labadarios, D., Davids, Y. D., Mciza, Z., & Weir-Smith, G. 2009. The assessment of food insecurity in South Africa. Available: http://​hdl​.handle​.net/​20​.500​.11910/​4891. Luo, H., Zyba, S. J., & Webb, P. 2020. Measuring malnutrition in all its forms: An update of the net state of nutrition index to track the global burden of malnutrition at country level. Global Food Security, 26, 100453. Masters, W. A., Finaret, A. B., & Block, S. A. 2022. The economics of malnutrition: Dietary transition and food system transformation. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 6, 4997–5083. Mchiza, Z. J., Parker, W. A., Sewpaul, R., Job, N., Chola, L., Mutyambizi, C., Sithole, M., Stokes, A., & Labadarios, D. 2018. Understanding the determinants of hemoglobin and iron status: Adolescent– adult women comparisons in SANHANES-1. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1416, 31–47. Misselhorn, A., & Hendriks, S. L. 2017. A systematic review of sub-national food insecurity research in South Africa: Missed opportunities for policy insights. PLoS One, 12, e0182399. NCD-Risc. 2017. National Adult Body-Mass Index [online]. Available: https://​ncdrisc​.org/​data​ -downloads​-adiposity​.html [accessed 3 February 2022]. Old Mutual. 2021. Old Mutual Savings and Investment Monitor 2021: Full Detailed Research Report, Peppercorn Research. Pietermartzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group (PMEJD). 2021. Household Affordability Index [online]. Available: https://​pmbejd​.org​.za/​[accessed 9 February 2022]. Reuters. 2020. South Africa’s unemployment rate reaches record high above 30% [online]. Available: https://​www​.reuters​.com/​article/​safrica​-economy​-unemployment​-idUSKBN27S25D [accessed 4 April 2021]. Shisana, O., Labadarios, D., Rehle, T., Simbayi, L., Zuma, K., Dhansay, A., Reddy, P., Parker, W., Hoosain, E., Naidoo, P., Hongoro, C., Mchiza, Z., Steyn, N.P., Dwane, N., Makoae, M., Maluleke, T., Ramlagan, S., Zungu, N., Evans, M.G., Jacobs, L., Faber, M. & SANHANES-1 Team. 2014. The South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2012: SANHANES-1: the health and nutritional status of the nation [online]. Available: http://​hdl​.handle​.net/​20​.500​.11910/​2864. Singer, M., & Clair, S. 2003. Syndemics and public health: Reconceptualizing disease in bio-social context. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17, 423–441. South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. 2022. Available: www​.dffe​.gov​.za [accessed 13 April 2022]. South African Department of Health. 1993. Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, No. 54 of 1972. Regulations Governing the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs. Government Gazette, 14596, Notice No. 299, Regulation No. 5034, 26 February. South African Department of Health. 2022. Available: www​.health​.gov​.za [accessed 13 April 2022]. South African Department of Social Development. 2020. Available: https://​www​.dsd​.gov​.za/​[accessed 13 April 2022]. South African Department of Social Development and South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2013. The National Policy on Food and Nutrition Security for the Republic of South Africa. Department of Social Development and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. South African Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. 2022. Available: www​.thedtic​.gov​.za [accessed 13 April 2022]. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2020a. General Household Survey, 2019. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2020b. Results from Wave 2 survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment and income in South Africa. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2021a. Consumer Price Index (CPI) [online]. Statistics South Africa Pretoria. Available: https://​www​.statssa​.gov​.za [accessed 9 February 2022]. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). 2021b. Quarterly employment statistics (QES). Available: http://​www​ .statssa​.gov​.za/​publications/​P0277/​P0277September2021​.pdf [accessed 13 April 2022]. Steyn, N. P., Nel, J. H., Drummond, L., Malczyk, S., & Senekal, M. 2022. Has Food Security and Nutritional Status Improved in Children 1–