The Rise of Food Insecurity in England: Using Food Ladders to overcome the barriers

The full report is available to download here.

I was recently invited to present at a parliamentary breakfast. In fact, it was to be this morning. But a general election was called, so the breakfast was cancelled. I wrote a report to be handed out at the event about the state of Food Security in England and how it has increased alarmingly. 2018 before the pandemic, the rate was about 1 in every 10 adults. In the summer of 2020, the rate increased by 50%. The situation in 2022 was 1 in every 4 adults.

Vulnerabilities have also shifted over time. In 2020, gender was not a predictor of food insecurity. It now is. Women are more vulnerable compared to men. Those who are most vulnerable earn less than £32K (46.4%), those who are not in paid work (44.8%), and those living in the most deprived areas (39.9%). The groups with the largest percentage increase are those that earn less than £32K (20.5% increase), those not in paid work (16.5% increase), and those in the non-white British ethnic group (14.4%). The groups that showed the highest rates of growth, albeit starting from a lower base, are those who earn more than £32k per year and those over 65.

There are things we can do to address this increased barrier for many. We can work locally to help build the capabilities people need to be food secure, which means improving not just the financial resources people clearly need but also the other resources that facilitate food security in the longer term, such as health, well-being, community connections, and local access to good food. This is what the food ladders aim to do.

Other things could be done at a larger scale as well.

  1. Those who fund community interventions can provide adequate funding to enable these interventions, which includes helping to cover the longer-term costs of paying staff a living wage and providing funding that helps to cover running costs. There is a lot behind offering a service that needs to happen, which is not directly part of the service itself.
  2. The food industry can help organisations with food costs. Asking them to pay full price to offer food at a discount or for free is not sustainable for the organisations doing this work.
  3. In-store, offering incentives to purchase healthy food and making these foods less risky for customers is important as well. The Food Foundation has done some research that explores key metrics supermarkets are doing on this front. Some do better than others. The report has some good ideas.
  4. The government can empower local authorities to develop and deliver food strategies. This will require funding. This was a recommendation in the National Food Strategy, and it should be taken up. The government can also consider and support the need for social investment in levelling up strategies.
  5. Ensuring that people have an adequate income with opportunities for advancement and progression is also needed. Being food insecure should not be reserved for the wealthy. To have a workforce that is able to work in the long term requires that they be able to eat a healthy diet. Without this, health suffers ,and the need for support services increases.

Acknowledgements: This research was funded in part by a UKRI HIEF Knowledge Exchange grant.  Special thanks to Isaac Tendler for his work interviewing local authority officials and for the cover artwork.  Thank you also to Nicole Kennard for the interview material with people struggling in 2020. 

The living wage? A view from a discussion.

What are your thoughts? I have some views, but I am curious about what the hive mind thinks. I recently engaged in a thought-provoking discussion with charity trustees focused on supporting struggling individuals. Our conversation centred around the challenges related to wages and their broader impact.

One trustee highlighted the charity’s struggle to maintain wages in line with the cost of living to ensure employees earned the minimum wage. This led to tough decisions such as cutting back, making redundancies, and reducing certain services to cope with financial constraints, hindering expansion and sustainability efforts. Most funding comes from grants, yet providers often prioritize immediate costs over long-term sustainability in funding decisions.

Another trustee, a company’s managing director, shared concerns about the constraints of the minimum wage. They expressed a preference for employing more individuals at a lower rate to bolster the company’s future prospects.

Both trustees emphasized the importance of not increasing taxes and suggested higher earnings thresholds in the benefits system. They proposed the idea of paying lower wages to employees, with earnings supplemented by the benefits system, aligning their perspectives despite leading different entities—a business and a charity.

These insights shed light on a pressing issue: a significant portion of working adults—25%—struggle to afford sufficient food regularly, leading to food insecurity. Work status no longer guarantees food security, with negative health outcomes stemming from stress, isolation, and poor diet exacerbating the situation. The resulting health challenges further complicate maintaining food security and stable employment, consequently increasing reliance on charitable services.

The dilemma prompts reflection on sustainable solutions that address employee well-being and organizational viability, underscoring the intricate interplay between wages, social support systems, and community welfare. I’ll keep my views to myself for now, but please share your thoughts.