Since 2022 I have advised Comic Relief and Sainsbury’s on the Nourish the Nation Campaign. This campaign has now ended, but been replaced by ‘Let’s put hunger to bed’. I was asked to speak alongside Simon Roberts (CEO, Sainsbury’s) and Samir Patel (CEO, Comic Relief) at the celebration event hosted at Sainsbury’s headquarters. I wanted to share my talk.
Paula’s story is one covered in The Bread and Butter Thing’s podcast. These stories from real people who use their food clubs cover a range of topics and are very insightful. The other people mentioned are from interviews being conducted as part of a current research project looking at the impacts of climate induced price inflation on UK households who are already struggling to have the food they need to live thier best lives.
Paula described going from what she called a ‘normal life’ to not being able to buy a birthday present for her granddaughter after her husband suffered a brutal attack that left him unable to work.
Then she said this:
‘By the first Christmas after the attack, we were on our knees. I remember we had a loaf of bread and a packet of chicken crisps for Christmas dinner.’
What struck me about Paula’s story is how quickly an ordinary life can become fragile.
I’m a geographer at the University of Sheffield, and my work looks at how food insecurity is experienced in everyday life — not just as hunger, but as pressure, instability, and the erosion of resilience over time.
For the research with Comic Relief and Sainsbury’s, we surveyed more than 14,000 lower-income households across the UK to better understand the role food clubs play in people’s lives.
And what we found was that food insecurity is rarely a single crisis.
More often, it is a slow wearing down of people’s ability to cope.
A bereavement.
A health problem.
Rising costs.
Hours being cut at work.
Caring responsibilities.
And slowly, the foundations underneath everyday life begin to weaken.
One woman we spoke with —Donna — was in her forties. Her husband died the previous year, and she described struggling deeply with her mental health afterwards. Her adult son had moved back home because he was undergoing cancer treatment. They were both working, but things were still incredibly tight.
Donna also has Type 2 diabetes and needs to eat regularly because she takes insulin.
She talked about how, before joining the food club, she would skip meals so there would be enough food for her grandchildren, who live with them part of the week.
And then she said something very simple:
‘Kids come first, definitely.’
I think that sentence captures something very important about food insecurity in Britain today.
A huge amount of hardship is hidden.
Parents and grandparents absorb it quietly.
They stretch food.
Skip meals.
Keep the heating off.
Manage debts.
Make impossible calculations about what can wait and what cannot.
Donna carefully timed her heating so that when the children were there, they would at least be warm.
She talked about how transport costs could wipe out the money she needed for food.
She talked about making meals stretch with potatoes and soups.
That is not simply budgeting.
That is survival planning.
Again and again in the research, people demonstrated enormous skill, care, and resourcefulness.
One of the central findings from the study is that food insecurity is not simply about a lack of food.
It is what the report calls an ‘architecture of hardship’.
Housing.
Transport.
Health.
Energy costs.
And the constant struggle of trying to hold everything together.
These pressures interact and accumulate over time.
Importantly, the research also challenges a lot of assumptions.
First, people often imagine food insecurity as something that affects people outside of work.
But we heard from nurses, carers, pensioners, parents, and people working multiple jobs.
Second, the issue was not that people did not know how to cook or budget.
Many households experiencing food insecurity were already highly skilled at coping.
The issue was that people were trying to manage impossible pressures for prolonged periods of time.
One of the important findings from the research was that food clubs and food banks are not the same thing — and they are not competing with each other. In the report, I describe this through the Food Ladders approach: different forms of support helping people at different moments of hardship and recovery.
Food banks provide emergency support during an acute crisis.
But food clubs often operate differently.
They provide continuity.
Choice.
Fresh food.
Routine.
Social connection.
And importantly, dignity.
Donna described how the food club meant she no longer had to skip meals herself because there was enough food in the house for everyone.
And because she was eating more regularly, she was better able to manage her diabetes and be there for her son’s children.
That is important.
This is not just about food parcels.
This is about people’s physical and mental health.
Their capacity to cope.
Their ability to care for others.
Another woman, Amy, described how the food club helped her multigenerational household of five women, ranging from aged 8 to 82, maintain access to vegetables and fruit that would otherwise become too expensive.
She talked about cooking collectively, sharing responsibility but also sharing food with other struggling families in the village.
What comes through is not dependency, but active care, skill, and mutual support.
That matters because resilience is social.
One of the strongest findings from the research was what we described as a buffering effect.
Food insecurity damages wellbeing across the board — physically, emotionally, and socially.
But people actively engaged with food clubs often appeared less isolated and more supported than we might otherwise expect, given the pressures they were under.
Both Donna and Amy described the people at the food club as becoming ‘practically a family.’
And I think that language matters.
Now, I do want to say something important here.
Food clubs are not a silver bullet.
No community organisation can solve poverty on its own.
No volunteer network can compensate for inadequate incomes, insecure work, rising housing costs, or weak social safety nets.
And this room reflects something very important: there is no single model that solves food insecurity.
Emergency food aid matters.
Community food projects matter.
Advice services matter.
Schools matter.
Local authorities matter.
Retailers matter.
National policy matters.
Different organisations are responding to different parts of the hardship equation.
But what food clubs help us see is that resilience is not built through food alone.
It is built through relationships.
Through continuity.
Through dignity.
Through creating spaces where people feel recognised and supported rather than judged.
And one of the findings I found most hopeful was that people who engaged with food clubs more regularly and over longer periods were more likely to be food secure.
That matters because it suggests we are not simply seeing emergency relief.
We are seeing the possibility of stabilisation.
Of recovery.
Of rebuilding.
And this matters enormously for children.
Because ultimately, well-fed children depend on well-supported adults and well-supported communities around them.
They need adults who are not constantly exhausted, anxious, isolated or forced into impossible trade-offs.
And that means tackling hunger is not just about responding to emergencies after they happen.
It is about building the conditions that allow people to live with dignity, stability, connection, and hope before a crisis becomes catastrophic.
That is why campaigns like Let’s Put Hunger to Bed matter.
Not simply because they help people eat tonight — though that is vitally important.
But because they help create the foundations from which people and communities can begin to rebuild resilience itself.
Thank you.
Here are the links to both Sainsbury’s and Comic Relief’s materials about the new fund.
You can find the research here, and another blog post where I talk about it a bit more.
Dear Megan
Thanks for sharing this blog. I have been reading them for a while, and I appreciate your writings that highlight the issue of food security in economically rich countries such as the UK. In your current piece and many others, you centre the voices and lived experiences of people and communities, along with highlighting that we need to focus on wider systems, such as the lack of employment for youth or support for elders, which sustains food insecurity experiences. While I may get emotionally charged and feel good about charity-based initiatives such as ‘Put Hunger to bed’, I fail to understand how corporations such as Sainsbury keep making millions in profit year after year through their actions, whether it’s by promoting unhealthy foods or introducing technology that reduces employment, and the common people, such as Paula, Donna or Amy, need to skip meals or their kids get cancer. I feel gutted. So, I would love to hear your thoughts on how we can achieve food or nutrition security without addressing the power that sustains profit in the food system. To clarify my position, I am someone who is looking for an honest answer, and my views are not intended to hurt you in a personal capacity.
Thanks Nishmeet
Thank you for this lovely comment. Let me start by saying we have to address that power dynamic. I love Sen’s work on Capabilities. I think there is room in the food system for profit focussed approaches. Without a more integrated food system we would be in the position of growing our own and all that that entailed. Advances in food production, with all its harms has also meant we have citrus in winter, time to devote to advances in health care, and life expectancies beyond 40.
But we in the UK have made the supermarket the only (acceptable) way to get food. The presumptive norm is that we stabilise people so they can go back to the supermarket. Cash handouts are based on this. My view is that we need multiple channels through which we can get food—some profit driven, some collective or utilising alternative economies, some gift, some self-provisioning, etc. This resonates with Sen’s concept of affordances. But making this change takes time—and perhaps mostly collective agreement and will. I am not sure we are realistically there. What I see is these interventions are beginning to build the social and physical infrastructure through which that diversification can happen. So much the better that it’s being paid for by those benefitting from the dominant system. As we have seen from recent discussion in the news direct challenges are met with strong resistance. Having said this supermarket profit is largely derived from sources that are not food. That in itself is a problem as it further reduces the value of food. How we regulate that as well as how we regulate the food system itself is a difficult problem I would not be able to answer. It takes planners, economists, designers and a whole host of other people. We’ve never had a food system in the history of the world that fairly meets everyone’s food needs (including nutrition, health, wellbeing, social connections, livelihood). But that does not mean we shouldn’t try.