Pledges, Missions and Food Security

The government has 5 missions:  Kickstart economic growth, Take back our streets, Break down barriers to opportunity, build an NHS for the future, and Make Britain a green energy superpower.  Food security is imbricated with all these pledges. 

Economic growth means good jobs and good jobs need people who can do them. This means having healthy people and being healthy rests on being food secure.

If you are food insecure, you are also isolated.  In communities where people are isolated, there is also greater fear of crime, disaffection and anti-social behaviour.  If we are going to take back the streets, we need to make spaces for communities to grow within them.

We know that children learn better when they are nourished.  Yet too many children live in families struggling to just eat, let alone provide the nourishment needed to build healthy bodies and minds.  It isn’t right that in a country as wealthy as this, so many of our children do not have the best chance that this wealth offers. 

Too much of NHS resources are taken up with treating diet-related illness and the issues linked to social isolation.  People with healthy diets and strong social networks live better and independently for longer, even with underlying health conditions.

If we allocate farmland to producing green energy, we are not producing the food that sustains us all.  We must ensure that we take a systems view so that our energy needs do not undermine our food security in the long term. 

Food insecurity in the UK is at an astonishing rate.  According to the FSA government statistics, in autumn 2022, 1 out of every 4 adults experienced low or very low food security at some point in the previous 12 months—meaning they were frequently cutting back on portions, skipping meals, or in some severe instances, skipping meals for whole days. Nearly half, 46%, of people with household earnings of less than £32K are food insecure. More than 1 in 3 adults, 36%, who have at least 1 child are food insecure- This vulnerability increases for those with 3 or more children. In areas in the most deprived quintile, two out of every five, 40% of adults are food insecure. 

My research focuses on improving people’s ability to have the food they need to live their best lives and how places—the communities where people live—can foster health and well-being or create barriers that isolate and disable. 

With this in mind, and building on the UN’s 4 pillars of food security and resilience theory, I have created a framework called food ladders to help structure how people and organisations (public, private, and third sector) can collaborate in local places to increase the resources that are needed to be food secure.  (hand out materials).

The UN sees food security as more than just a financial issue.  Food access is financial, but it is also linked to legal and structural barriers.  Food security is also about availability—the food people need for a healthy and fulfilled life, which is available where they live without undue stigma, stress, and struggle.  It is also concerned with utilisation—do people have resources, including money, knowledge, know-how, tools, and mental and physical states, to utilise the available food they can access?  And fourth, is this all consistent and sustainable for the future?

When you are wealthy, you can have healthy meals delivered, but this is not an option for most of us all the time. We need other resources like having a shop we can walk to, an able body that lets us carry our food home, a home with a kitchen and tools that work, knowledge about what different foods are and how to cook them, and the head space to be able to do all that. 

Health is negatively impacted when people are food insecure, leading to a downward spiral of deeper food insecurity.  Repairing is much easier when people are not in crisis or have never been. 

How we organise food support makes a big difference to who and how people use it and what they can get from itFood gets people in the door.  When they come back, more support will be provided.  So many of the organisations I have worked with talk about how this.   Yet, we know that one of the most significant barriers is getting people the support they need, and there is a lot we still don’t know.  But what I do know is that there is a big difference between a food club and a food bank or a social eating space and a soup kitchen, and this has to do with how values are expressed through the ways that food is made available.

The Food Ladders offer a three-rung approach to capitalise on these differences. 

  1. Catching for those who need immediate support, but we don’t want people to keep coming back to this rung. What we want is for people to move to rungs 2 and 3. 
  2. Capacity building enhances the assets and resources people and communities already have and contributes to those that they don’t
  3. And finally, self-organising activity that increases sustainability and removes or redistributes vulnerability to make a fairer society. 

One organisation (of many) I work with, TBBT, facilitates food clubs across 124 community locations, mainly in the north of England.  We did a survey with members that resulted in more than 9k responses.   We found that as a result of using the club, people reported

  1. Increased fruit and veg uptake
  2. Cooking more healthy food at home
  3. They also get involved in food talk with club members and build friendships.  The majority say they feel less alone and feel more involved in their communities. These friendships turn into mutual aid. During lockdown, people shared advice and checked in with each other through WhatsApp groups. 
  4. The majority had not used any food support before using the food club, but of those who had said they used a food bank, most said they used them less frequently or stopped using them altogether. 
  5. We know that when we have thriving communities, the fear of crime decreases.  Food activities such as food clubs and social eating spaces support thriving communities.  To take back our streets, we need to make space for people on those streets to intermingle and eat together.  

Despite this and the increases in these activities, our communities are dominated by interventions that do not increase food security capability.

To facilitate food ladders, we need:

  1. More resources and industry collaboration for community food programmes that don’t reinforce the status quo but instead build capabilities at rungs 2 and 3. 
  2. A national mandate and funding for local food strategies.
  3. Investment in social development programmes to ensure that people have the capabilities to live a healthy life.
  4. Adequate incomes that offer living wages and advancement opportunities, with a safety net for those who cannot access work.
  5. Free school meals for all children in state schools would be great, but at a minimum, lifting the earnings threshold should be a priority.
  6. A review of business rates such that those businesses that predominantly offer healthy foods are not disadvantaged because they have more risk compared to those who offer few healthy foods. 

And finally, I offer a plea for better data with larger sample sizes.  Without understanding, we cannot produce insights that lead to change.

5–8 minutes

*New* Food Ladders Toolkit Launched

On the 10th of September 2024 we launched the Food Ladders Toolkit. The event was held in Lambeth at the Community Shop. Food, based on the food stories of people who use Community Shop, was cooked for us by community members. It was absolutely fantastic. We want to thank all those who helped with the day and those who came and joined us.

If you were unable to join us for the launch and would like to know more, there will be a webinar on 1 October 2024, this time hosted by Sustainable Food Places. I will be talking about the food ladders and will be joined by Mark from The Bread and Butter Thing, another organisation that uses the Food Ladders to structure their support. The link to the event is here.

So why do we need a toolkit?

People in wealthy and poor countries struggle to have the food they need to live their best lives. The reasons for this are complicated. There is a mix of individual, group, community, and national factors. The food ladders is a framework to help communities, service providers, local government, and others develop an understanding and a pathway toward a food system that meets community members’ needs and desires, both now and in the long term.

We can’t expect communities that are already struggling to be able to do this on their own, but we also cannot do it without them. Building something new is hard work. It takes commitment and motivation. This toolkit aims to support those who can help to be able to do so. This toolkit is primarily aimed at those in local government and local food networks. There will be elements that community organisations may also find helpful. It is not a toolkit for those who are struggling.

The toolkit is based on interviews we conducted with about 30 people working in local governments across England. We wanted to understand how people were using the framework. In particular, we wanted to understand its utility and also where the difficulties might be. We found that organisations and local authorities across the UK use the framework to structure their planning and approach to community development, community resilience, health, and poverty. Local authorities using the framework have shifted to partnership working, with public consultation happening at the start of the process rather than toward the end. We learned about joined-up support networks in these places that cut across a variety of projects and organisations who come at the issues from a multitude of different directions. We saw an understanding of how places are designed, how we engage with people, and how we communicate with each other creates positive change.

But we also found several areas where this process can be complicated. Food work touches on multiple departments within a local authority, and coordinating that is needed. Motivation and momentum can flag. Sometimes, community members meet the effort with scepticism. Sometimes, we lose sight of the vision or forget to clearly define what we are building toward. Sometimes, messages are misunderstood. To help with this, we have created workshops, case studies, videos and diagrams and currated links to the work of others that we feel can help overcome these difficulties.

I hope that these tools will be helpful. If you think a tool is missing, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. Likewise, I would love to hear stories about how the Food Ladders is being used in your area. You can use the form below to do so.

Go back

Your message has been sent

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning.

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.