Author Archives: geofoodie

Unknown's avatar

About geofoodie

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

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

Posted on by

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.

Posted on by

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.

Ultra Processed Food, Stomach Share, and the Problem of Food Contexts

Posted on by

Ultra processed foods are in the news more and more. A recent meta-study found there are a myriad of health issues linked to diets comprised primarily of such foods. When thinking about the level of processing, foods are typically categorised into 4 groups: unprocessed or minimally processed, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods and ultra-processed foods.

Processing is not a bad thing in and of itself. Pickling, fermenting, canning, even chopping and cooking are processes. We process things to turn them into food at home, in restaurants and in factories. Ultra-processed foods are distinctive in that they change the nature of the original ingredients, such that very little of the original whole food is left, and they include chemicals that you would not find in an ordinary kitchen. These include emulsifiers, artificial colours and flavours, stabilisers, sweeteners, and other additives to make them taste better and last longer. They also are fatty, salty or sugary and lack dietary fibre. What we might think of as empty calories.

Ultra-processed foods are also less expensive and, because they last longer than fresh foods, are less risky for a tight household budget. But we pay for this low cost in other ways. Individually, we pay for this food with our health. We also pay collectively, if somewhat unevenly, for it with the environment. Ultra-processed foods drive mono-crop production that undermines ecosystems and harms biodiversity. The processing is also energy-intensive and dependent upon petrochemical inputs, thereby contributing to climate change.

We can tell people to stop eating these foods, but educational campaigns won’t work on their own. People need to have the capability to eat differently. If those foods that are better for you are not available in the place where you live or they are too expensive then all that the education will do is create further feelings of guilt.

Ultra-processed foods are a key part of a system that rewards producers for creating these foods in the form of profits now, whilst undermining our global food security now and into the future. Because this is a systemic problem we need systems solutions that intersect at all points of the supply chain and operate at different scales. Introducing disincentives for the production and sale of ultra-processed foods, shifting to agroecologiecal farming practices, and re-introducing these better foods into neighbourhoods all need to be considered.

I recently participated in a webinar by Healthy Diets Healthy Life (HDHL) as part of the European Commission’s Bioeconomy Changemakers festival. In addition to learning about HDHL and hearing two other speakers talk about ultra-processed foods from a bio-economy and a nutrition perspective, I talk about the contexts within which people access and purchase food. My section starts at about 38 minutes in.

webinar on ultra-processed food

So what can we do right now? We can pressure government to put constraints on the way those in the food sector operate and provide incentives to act in a way that is better for both health and the environment. Individually, we can also try where we can to introduce more foods into our diets that replace the ultra-processed foods we currently eat. As a society, including commercial organisations, we can also support initiatives that help people by expanding their access to and knowledge of those foods that are better for them, which do so in non-stigmatising ways. I talk about two such initiatives in the video.

Let’s talk about Food Deserts.

Video

I am frequently asked to explain what a food desert is. I thought I would make this short video to provide an understanding of how I approach the issue of food deserts. I have written more about them in this post about a report I was involved in, and this post is an extract from an Encyclopedia chapter that I wrote concerning food justice and foodscapes.

A short video about food deserts and how they come about from a consumption perspective.

People make rational choices within the constraints of their choice sets. Choice sets are constrained by the resources they have at their disposal, such as skill, time, mental and physical health, and money. These choice sets are also constrained by the physical and social conditions of the place in which they live, broader institutional contexts and their own social positionalities.

When there is a concentration of people making similar decisions based on similar circumstances, demand for an item, such as healthy food, decreases.

At the same time, food retail operates within a system where profit-making is the main priority. When an item ceases to have sufficient demand to maintain its profitable status, it is usually dropped from the range of products offered. Shops close when the ability to profit at the store level is insufficient compared to other store locations.

Slide demonstrating the effects of living in a food desert

What happens is that places become hollowed out, and foodscapes are degraded. For those who live in these places, the struggle to manage increases. When people are facing a struggle, their physical health suffers, but so does their mental health.

There is much a supermarket can do to support people to access the food they need. For example, be willing to take a loss on some food items because they are important, keep a location open and provide low-cost but healthy food items because that is what people need and consider not the profitability of a single store or product line. This might involve asking what level of growth or profit is enough? Importantly, supermarkets have recently made decisions to limit their profits due to the cost of living crisis, so there is room for manoeuvre in this space.

Source: This is money. 7 May 2023

But this is not something we should just leave to the supermarkets. For a transformed food system, we also need to generate diverse foodscapes. This means providing multiple avenues for accessing food that extends beyond and reduces our dependence upon supermarkets.