About geofoodie

Food Scholar, Interdisciplinary Thinker, Social Justice Researcher, and Excellent University Teacher

Food insecurity is not a competition.

Posted on February 9, 2023 by geofoodie

I give a lot of talks and interviews about food security. Last week I gave 2; the week before, I gave one; and at the beginning of January, I gave another. I am grateful that people what to hear what I have to say and that it is, hopefully, helping in the fight to get people to listen to the issues that people are facing around food security.

Food insecurity exists in wealthy economies where there is enough food to feed everyone, but it is not available to everyone. Food insecurity is not just something that people somewhere else experience, be they in war-torn or poor countries or places where there has been a disaster. I am not trying to diminish the experience and trouble people in these “other” places face. Indeed, their trouble is awful.

But food insecurity is experienced in bellies and in minds and in bodies. It is personal. Food Security becomes geographical when multiple people from the same place are similarly impacted.

Saying that support should go to the “most needy” creates an insidious competition. To get help, you have to prove you fit into this category. Many people don’t see themselves that way–there are always others we can point to who are worse off. Many don’t want to participate in that competition because of the stigma of failure surrounding it–you win but lose simultaneously.

Some who provide help get worried that they are not reaching the “most needy” and create all sorts of barriers and demands for proof. The logic is that if we give this thing to you and someone needier comes along, we won’t have any for them. At the same time, there are worries about “foodbank tourism”, where people go from location to location to get help. They have “won” the race to the bottom and are using this success as a survival strategy. And then are stigmatised and denied because they have successfully proved their need. Note that success here is encouraged and created by those most worried that the “most needy” won’t get what they need. In the meantime, people don’t get the help they need. Some of whom may indeed be the neediest.

This competition is also something that involves judges and competitors. You cannot be both, but you can undoubtedly become one or the other if your circumstances change. But who are we to judge? Food insecurity is experienced individually.

So what do I propose? Let’s stop with the competition. Mutual support recognises that giving and receiving help is not a competition and that everyone can participate equally and in multiple roles.

If you are interested in hearing more. The talk I gve in early January to Gather Movement is here:

Talk about food scapes and food support

The talk I gave about my Food Ladders approach to the EU Joint Health Initiative: A healthy diet for a healthy life can be seen here:

Webinar for @JPI_HDHL

The interview was included in a BBC radio 4 broadcast as part of the Inside Health programme. The interview is available here:

The radio show is really well done. It highlights the advantages of pantries. The women interviewed highlight the stress and anxiety of food insecurity, but also the belief that projects are not for them. Pantries, and now some food banks, provide fruit and veg, bringing in additional support to help people move on from their food services. People are also introduced to new food. These women also demonstrate just how capable they are. These women are not failures. They have strategies and capabilities. They want to feed their families well and can do so.

The data I discuss–and more analysis–is provided in this report I wrote. You can download and read the report here. It also provides some further detail about different forms of support.

Doing Academic Impact: A metaphor

Posted on February 7, 2023 by geofoodie

Research impact is increasingly recognised as a valuable academic output. For years, much of the focus has been on translating hard science research findings into commercial products, but that is not all that research impact can be. It is sometimes difficult for those in the social sciences and humanities to understand, however, what their research impact might be when it is not easily translated into a commercial product, or as in my case, the researcher is not interested in marketing what they have produced.

My joy as an academic comes from doing research that can be mobilised to make a difference for people. I do work on food (in)security in wealthy economic contexts. I tend to focus on the United Kingdom, where I live, but this also applies to countries like the United States. I work in and with community organisations, national and international charities, government and non-government bodies, and commercial food industry organisations.

In the United Kingdom, we have a periodic review of research that includes a measure of the impact derived from research outputs. This is known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Units of assessment (UOAs, effectively departments) submit case studies to indicate the impact that research being conducted by academics within those units is having beyond the academy. The most recent REF period extended from 2014-2021. REF impact case studies account for about 25% of the total research score that a UOA achieves, with the remaining focusing on publications and a narrative of the research environment (see more about the REF here).

While the number of case studies submitted is relatively small from each UOA, this is not a full measure of what actually happens. As someone who supports other members of staff to consider the impact that their research is having, I can attest to the fact that what becomes a case study is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the change that research can, and does, have.

My research was submitted as an impact case study in the REF2021. It focused on the change that my work on food security has had as I’ve tried to translate what communities are doing into a framework that enables people to “see” and then build landscapes of food support to enable people to have the food they need to live a good life free of stigma, shame, and poor health. You can read the case study here.

Many academics who are motivated by making change with their research may not want to participate in the processes associated with REF impact case studies. Producing a case study is difficult. There is a lot of work involved in writing and rewriting the narrative. You have to ask people to write testimonial letters that say how your work has helped them to make change. It is often hard to attribute what your research findings have contributed. Sometimes you don’t even know about change that has happened. It is also difficult to understand impact in REF terms, as many academics engage with research partners, explaining what they know, which may or many not be directly derived from the research they have conducted. We tell non-academics about work that others have done, or we interpret other people’s research and offer opinions about this work as it may relate to our own expertise. Filtering out what we do from what our research has done is difficult. It took me several years of working on a research case study to understand what was needed for the narrative. It is hard to take yourself–what you do–out of the picture. This doing that we do can make real change and is important, but it is not REF impact in and of itself.

The key with REF impact case studies is that they are based on what the researcher’s research findings have enabled. It always comes back to the research itself. Research findings can be methods and tools, theories, frameworks, constructs, etc. I use the following metaphor to describe what REF impact is. Keeping this in mind helps when trying to write a case study narrative.

Imagine REF impact activity as a picnic. With each interaction with impact partners–the people you want to use your research to make change–you bring along your picnic basket. Going to the picnic is not the impact. What is the impact is the difference that derrives from what you bring in your picnic basket. The basket represents your research findings in the form of publications, presentations, reports, frameworks, methodological tools that you have developed, etc. Ask yourself, what difference did my bringing along my picnic basket make to others who attended that picnic. Did you expose them to something they had never eaten before? Did you filll a hunger that they had? Were they able to eat something they brought with them because of the tools your brought with you or did you enhance the food they brought with the sauces and seasonings that you brought with you. If you had not brought your basket, what would have happened? Would people not talk to each other or share their food or would they have gone home hungry or maybe not come at all? Then ask yourself. Why does that difference matter? Was it a one-off nice event or because of that picnic and your basket new and other ways of being and belonging are enabled. More picnics are happening. New people/groups are able to join in that may have been left out. Its this extra and exteded change that matters. Not the one-offs. Showing up is not enough, you have to bring your basket with you and that basked needs to provide something that would not have been provided if you had not brought it.

Tracking that change can be really difficult. It helps if you have a specific item in that basket that people refer to in relation to you–going back to the picnic basket–perhaps you have a really great recepie for cheesecake that you always bring along. People show up at the picnics because they know that you will bring this cheesecake. They ask you for the recipe and then make it for their friends at their own picnics. The cheesecake, although being used by others, comes to be named as your cheesecake. Parties happen. People are happy and your cheesecake has enabled that. If people tweet about thier parties with your cheesecake on show, this can be evidence of the influence that your basket has made. If you can get quotes from people saying that your cheesecake is the best that they have ever had and they serve it at family events then this is also evidence.

While picnics and cheesecake may seem trite and insignificant, I find thinking about narrating impact in this way helps me to understand what evidence I need to demonstrate the change that my research is having. It shifts the lens from what I did–made a cheesecake, packed it in my basket and showed up, to the difference that the basket and its contents has made. This is what REF impact is about. You have to show up. You have to bring your basket and your basket needs to have things that you made in it. And it has to have some longer term effect on those who were also there.

Presentation for Gather Movement on Food Security and Asset-Based Approaches

Posted on January 23, 2023 by geofoodie

Presentation to Gether Movement

In early January, I gave a talk to Gather Movement about food security in the UK and how to embed asset-based approaches into food support for communities. Asset-based approaches (or Asset Based Community Development–ABCD) focus on and develop the resources (or assets) that are already within a community before going out to secure additional resources that might be needed to achieve outcomes desired by the community.

Gather Movement is a collection of charities and churches aiming to achieve transformation in thier communities.

After the presentation, there were reflections from food security experts, including Dr Dianna Smith from Southampton University and Danni Malone from the Trussell Trust.

The Right to Food

Posted on December 1, 2022 by geofoodie

I co-teach an MA module here at the University of Sheffield called Theories and debates in food security and food justice. One of the lectures is on the right to food. I asked twitter folk for some reading recommendations. These were very helpful. Thank You. I am sharing the slides that I prepared in this blog post.

We filled two hours just getting through slides 1-7. Many of the students had some previous knowledge about the Right to Food. I wanted to get into the different dimensions of the right, so we examined the language and objections to food as a right. We had a robust and wide-ranging discussion. It is a good topic to consider with students.

Many countries, including the UK, signed up to the UN Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes reference to the Right to Food (with definitions agreed in General Comment 12). Although the right to food is recognised and implemented in many parts of the world*, the UK and several other economically wealthy countries did not codify it into national legal frameworks.

Interestingly, one of the arguments against positioning food as a right concerns how we understand food (in)security in wealthy economic nations. Here, and quite explicitly, food (in)security is reduced to the ability to afford food. I have frequently argued that food security is tied up with income because we live in a capitalist society, but this is not a necessary relationship. Instead, it is contingent. Food security is not reduceable to economy because food and how we access and utilise it is also not reduceable to economics. Food is more than nutrients and calories that are commodified. Food is also about how we use it, how we know it, how we understand it, how we share it, how we eat it and other aspects that reflect our values and personhood. When we are food insecure, these other non-economic aspects and the wider resources we need to achieve these aspects are also in deficit.

Food as a right has been dealt a further blow in that the right to food does not appear as such in the Sustainable Development Goals. Not only do the SDG’s move away from a rights-based approach (although some are recognised in the SDG’s, such as the right to water), goals are also targets. You can miss a target, but you cannot violate a right. As illustrated in the slides below, the UK is failing to improve against many of the SDG’s. In some cases progress is replaced by a move backward, notably SDG2, which concerns moving toward zero hunger.

In Winter 2021, 3 out of every 10 adults in the UK was not food secure, but just 1 out of every 3 adults is food secure in some parts of the UK. It is likely that these figures are worse now with the cost of living crisis–a crisis underpinned by a lack of aspiration among ministers to ensure that we meet our goals combined with Brexit benefits that include a weaker pound and lower buying power. The London School of Economics has estimated that Brexit alone – before the effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are accounted for – is responsible for a 6% rise in food prices. Post-Brexit, UK exports to the EU fell by 14% in 2021. The Centre for European Reform estimated that Brexit had, by the end of 2021, reduced trade in goods between the UK and the EU by 13.6% and left UK GDP 5.2% lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU single market.

This is the structure of the module:

Week 1: Introduction, what is justice and what is food? (MKB)

Week 2: Food has never been secure. (RVJ)

Week 3: What is food security? (MKB)

Week 4: Embodying food security. (RVJ)

Week 5: How we have succeeded and failed in our attempts to achieve food security (MKB)

Week 6: No lecture, reading week

Week 7: Citizen responses for food security. (RVJ)

Week 8: Food as a right? (MKB)

Week 9: Climate Change and scales of responsibility. (RVJ)

Week 10: Food Ladders as a structure for community responses. (MKB)

Week 11: Wrap up (MKB/RVJ). Guest Lecture from Pamela Richardson Nwengya

*Countries that have incorporated the Right to Food into their constitutions include: Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Guatamala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Suriname, Ukraine, Zimbabwe. Others have given it explicit recognition as a goal or directive principle: Bangladesh, Burundi, South Korea, Gambia, India, Iran, Ireland, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Uganda, and Venezuela (see: See: https://www.fao.org/3/i3892e/i3892e.pdf).

SafeFood Presentation: Food ladders: a framework for moving beyond emergency food support

Posted on November 29, 2022 by geofoodie

In September, I presented my research to SafeFood at a workshop event they organised. The workshop was organised because they recognise that the cost of living crisis is a critical public health issue across Ireland. As the cost of living continues to rise, it is expected that the numbers experiencing food poverty will increase. Food is often the ‘flexible’ element in the household budget. This workshop explored the impact of the cost of living crisis on food poverty and what initiatives are taking place to support those experiencing food poverty. For more information about the workshop, visit https://www.safefood.net/events/hungr…

SafeFood presentation on food insecurity

There is a more extended report with further analysis of Food and You 2 data, that also discusses research evidence around interventions. The report also extends the food ladders to include a ladder for health.