# data[].attributes.body
Briefing of the Unit
Initial research planning

# data[].attributes.headline
Monday: Activism, Ethics & Egoless design         Authenticity - when brands get it right (or wrong)

# data[].attributes.subject
Monday: Activism, Ethics & Egoless design         Authenticity - when brands get it right (or wrong)

# data[].attributes.headline
Official StatisticsUnited Kingdom Food Security Report 2021: Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

# data[].attributes.subject
Official StatisticsUnited Kingdom Food Security Report 2021: Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This chapter of the UK Food Security Report looks at food security in terms of whether households can consistently afford and access sufficient healthy and nutritious food. It discusses the affordability of food and drink, in real terms and compared to other living costs, and trends in the cost of healthy foods. It looks at physical access to food shops, measures of household food security across the UK, and government schemes to support households to access food. It also looks at the landscape and use of food aid in the UK.

In terms of this theme, food security refers to people in the UK having physical and economic access to sufficient healthy food at all times.

Key messages

Data on household food security indicates that 92% of households regarded themselves as being food secure in the financial year 2019 to 2020.

In the last decade, food and non-alcoholic drinks have, on average, become cheaper compared to other goods and services. However, affordability needs to be understood in the wider context of overall household expenditure. Housing and transport make up the largest share of spend for the average UK household, and both categories have seen increases in their share in the last decade.

Access to food shops in England is for the most part adequate, with at least 84% of the population in every region able to reach a shop by public transport or walking within 15 minutes.

Understanding household food security

There are various complex factors that determine whether a household is food secure. At a high level, household food security can be broken down into affordability, access, utilisation, and stability. Affordability, access, and utilisation provide three key links in the chain, or tests, for households to get food on their plates. Simply, these are whether they can fill shopping bags, pay for them, and prepare nutritious meals. Stability is determined by the consistency with which the previous three tests are met.

Affordability

The relative affordability of food indicates whether a household has the financial means to meet their nutritional requirements. The ability to afford food is linked to overall pressures on the household budget. Across all households in the UK, food and non-alcoholic drink is the fourth most significant household expenditure after housing, transport, and recreation and culture. Between 2009 and the financial year ending ( FYE) March 2020, across all households in the UK, real terms expenditure on food increased by 3.9%, compared to 13.4% for housing and 4.7% for transport. Compared to the EU, UK consumers spend a lower proportion of their household budgets on food and non-alcoholic drink, around 10% against an EU average of 16%. It is important to remember that some of these household expenditures can be considered non-discretionary, meaning that it is difficult for a household to cut back on spending. Changes in these non-discretionary costs could squeeze household food budgets.

Food price pressures do not seem to be adversely impacting household food security. In the last ten years, food prices overall have fallen in real terms, but there are variations between food groups. Vegetables (including potatoes), milk, cheese and eggs have all become cheaper in real terms. Fruit prices have increased faster than inflation, meaning they cost more in real terms than ten years ago. Growth in average weekly household expenditure for housing, transport, and recreation and culture suggests that the pressure these categories are exerting on the household budget are, on average, more significant than food.

Not all households are equal in this regard. The poorest 20% of households, for whom income has decreased since 2017, spend a higher proportion of their income on food and are thus more impacted by changes in food prices. The proportion of household income spent on food by UK households in each income bracket has remained broadly consistent in the last decade.

Access

Physical access to buy healthy, nutritious food is necessary for food security. Households must have ease of physical access to food shops or affordable food delivery to meet their nutritional requirements.

Data on travel time is currently only available for England. In the regions of England with the lowest access to food shops, over 95% of the population can reach a food shop within 30 minutes without needing a car, and over 84% within 15 minutes. Access to food shops is not equal across regions, with fewer people able to access a food shop quickly without a car in more rural regions. It is also important to note that currently it is not possible to assess the cost and selection of food that is available to consumers in their nearest food shop. Advances in the availability of online grocery shopping across the UK have the potential to alleviate some of the difficulties regarding physical access to food shops. It is likely that the switch to more online grocery shopping might become permanent amongst certain consumers, with the potential for more businesses to offer these services. Trends over time and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are not currently available but will be tracked in future UK Food Security Reports.

Utilisation

Even if affordability and access needs are met, the ability and opportunity to prepare food within households is also important to food security. There are many factors that can prevent people from doing so, including disabilities, lack of infrastructure to store and prepare food, the energy costs of cooking, and lack of skills or time to cook. Measuring the prevalence of these factors is currently very challenging, and there is a lack of sufficient evidence to produce a representative picture across the UK.

According to the most recent data for all UK households in the Family Resources Survey for FYE 2020, 92% of households in the UK reported they were food secure. However, 8% reported being food insecure, and of this, 4% reported low food security and another 4% very low food security. Food insecurity is not evenly spread across society, with age, disability, ethnicity, and geographical location all factors affecting household food security. Trends in this data, including the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, will be monitored in future UK Food Security Reports. This report focuses mainly on measuring affordability and access as these factors have the most consistent indicators.

The wider context of household food security

Household food security is not evenly spread across society. For those households in the UK less able to afford food, support schemes exist which provide food aid or otherwise help with food security.

Two of the main government support schemes for households on low incomes are free school meals and the Healthy Start (in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and Best Start Foods (in Scotland) schemes. Eligibility for, and uptake of, these schemes provides useful indicators for the wider household food security picture.

Healthy Start vouchers are a scheme in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to support people on low incomes to access pre-natal vitamins, infant milk formula, and healthy food for young children. In Scotland an equivalent Best Start Foods scheme launched in August 2019. The take-up rate of the Healthy Start voucher scheme was relatively stable between 2019 and 2021. The number of people who can apply for the scheme, known as the eligibility rates, have increased in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland when data from early 2019 is compared with August 2021. These increases are likely linked to COVID-19 and its impacts on the financial situation of households.

Eligibility rates for free school meals have been stable across the UK in recent years, with Wales and England seeing an increase from 2018 due to the introduction of Universal Credit and its transitional protection. Data for England and Wales, however, shows that more pupils became eligible for free school meals between January 2020 and January 2021. This is likely due to COVID-19 impacting households' financial situation as well as the continuing Universal Credit transitional protection measures, which have extended eligibility to more pupils.

Eligibility rates are also expected to increase in Scotland in the coming years due to the staggered expansion of universal free school meals for Primary 4 pupils in August 2021, Primary 5 pupils in January 2022, and all primary school children in August 2022.

Where households struggle to afford food, direct food aid is provided by many different types of organisations, including registered charities, places of worship, community organisations, schools, hospitals, and commercial and social enterprises. These are commonly referred to collectively as 'food banks'. Due to the great diversity of food aid provision, there is no comprehensive record of the number of organisations providing food aid in the UK. Government data is limited regarding the number of individuals or households receiving food aid, how much they might have received and over what period.

Outside the home, public food procurement impacts almost 24% of the population in England and is an important lever to promote a healthy, sustainable food system. The government sets both buying and nutrition standards for food procurement by public bodies.

Indicator 4.1.1 Food expenditure growth compared to other household spending growth

Headline

Across all households in the UK, food and non-alcoholic drink is the fourth most significant household expenditure after housing, transport, and recreation and culture. Between 2009 and 2020, across all households in the UK, real terms expenditure on food increased by 3.9%, compared to 13.4% for housing and 4.7% for transport.

Context and Rationale

Households' ability to afford food is linked to overall pressures on the household budget. This indicator puts food expenditure in the wider context of other household spending to illustrate how growth in other household spending categories may impact the budget available to spend on food.

Other essential expenditures from the household budget include housing, fuel and power, household goods and services, and transport. Some of these expenditures such as electricity and gas bills are considered non-discretionary, meaning that it is difficult for a household to cut back on spending. Price increases in these categories, therefore, can reduce the available food budget. For food, consumers may be able to adjust the money they spend by buying less of a certain product, by switching to cheaper products within a food grouping, or by reducing the consumption of luxury food items or treats. For some households, it could also mean that people might rely on food aid or miss meals if they cannot afford to buy enough food.

The data used in this indicator represents the average household in the UK. It is important to note that within a household there may be differences at the individual level that are not captured in this data.

Data and Assessment

Data: Contributions to household expenditure growth by Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose ( COICOP) category over time

Source: ONS Family Spending in the UK
Figure 4.1.1a: Average share of spend in all households FYE 2020

In FYE 2020, the average weekly household expenditure in the UK was £588, down slightly, but not significantly, from FYE 2019 when it was £603 (adjusted for inflation).

In FYE 2020, housing, which does not include mortgage interest or council tax, was the largest expenditure in the average UK household at 14.1%, followed by transport at 13.9%, recreation and culture at 12.7%, and food and non-alcoholic drinks at 10.8%.
Figure 4.1.1b: Actual average weekly household expenditure in 2009 and FYE 2020 (real terms)

Between 2009 and FYE 2020, the increase in total weekly expenditure was 4.8%, from £561 to £588. In the 10-year period covered by the data, housing increased by 13.4% (from £73 per week per household to £83) and transport by 4.7% (from £78 to £82). Recreation and culture expenditure increased by 15.8% (from £65 to £75) and food expenditure increased by 3.9% (from £61 to £64). Apparent increases in communication expenditure were partly due to changes in the Office for National Statistics ( ONS) questionnaire. Households reported a decrease in weekly expenditure on education and alcoholic drinks between 2009 and FYE 2020, although education was only 0.8% and alcoholic drinks 2.2% of total expenditure in FYE 2020.

Trends

The growth in average weekly household expenditure for housing, transport, and recreation and culture suggests that the pressure these categories are exerting on the household budget is, on average, more significant than food. Housing and transport are largely non-discretionary expenditures, meaning that households have less control over reducing these expenses. With food being a non-discretionary expense, some households may choose to 'trade down' by switching to cheaper products of the same type or buying less of certain types of food to save money.

Based on data from FYE 2020, the ONS calculated that in those 12 months UK households spent an average of £187 per week on activities that were largely prevented during the lockdown of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. These activities included going on holiday, dining out, and travelling. These potential savings, however, were not equally accessible to all households. Younger households, those who are renting, and those living in London spend proportionally more on essentials and relatively little on goods and services that were unavailable under lockdown compared to average households. This could have limited their ability to cut back on spending if their income decreased. Some companies, including mortgage providers and gas, electricity, and water suppliers, offered payment holidays on regular bills. The ONS estimates that 40% of household spending on essentials could have been subject to a payment holiday, equivalent to £177 per week. Any payment holidays, however, were temporary and money saved would need to be paid back.

Food prices can be impacted by a range of factors, including international food commodity and oil prices, exchange rates, transportation, domestic agricultural prices, and labour costs. Significant increases in these areas create upward pressures on UK consumer food prices.

Food retailers generally compete on price and may absorb temporary cost rises. This means that very significant increases to consumer food prices in the UK are not expected unless sustained and significant upwards pressure is created by one or, more likely, multiple major price drivers. If that happens, households on lower incomes within the UK are more affected by food price increases as they tend to spend a larger proportion of their household expenditure on food products. This is discussed in more detail in Indicator 4.1.2.

Indicator 4.1.2 Low-income households' share of spending on food

Headline

The poorest 20% of households spend a higher proportion of their income on food and are thus more exposed to changes in food prices. Incomes for the bottom 20% of households have decreased since 2016 to 2017. The proportion of household income spent on food has remained broadly consistent in the last decade for all UK households, including the bottom 20%. Between 2014 and 2020, food prices in real terms were on a downward trend, meaning that food has become cheaper compared to previous years.

Context and Rationale

The purpose of this indicator is to measure the burden that spend on food places on the household budget for low-income households. The data in this indicator looks at the share of the household budget spent on food purchased to consume at home.

Food tends to account for a greater percentage of household spend for low-income households compared to higher income households. Comparing against all households shows the greater effects food price rises may have on low-income households. Low income is one of many factors that can make someone vulnerable to food insecurity. In the context of this report, low-income households are identified as those within the lowest 20% of households by equivalised disposable income, a measure of household income that accounts for differences in household size and composition.

According to the Office for National Statistics ( ONS), between 1957 and 2017 the share of household expenditure spent on food halved. This partly reflects larger incomes, smaller households, and a greater choice of products at different price points. UK households devote a lower share of their spending to food and non-alcoholic drinks compared to households elsewhere in Europe, and particularly in developing countries. For instance, for the average UK household, 10.8% of spend went on food and non-alcoholic drinks in FYE 2020, whereas in EU households, 13.0% of consumption expenditure went towards food and non-alcoholic drinks on average in 2019.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: Spending on food purchased for home consumption as a percentage of total spending, by all households and low-income households

Source: ONS Family Spending, 2019 to 2020 and ONS Consumer Price Inflation
Figure 4.1.2a: Average spend on food and non-alcoholic drinks, percentage of total spending by low-income and all households, 2008 to FYE 2020

The data compares the percentage of the average weekly household expenditure that is being spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, for all households and for households in the lowest quintile (bottom 20%) by equivalised disposable income. This is expenditure, not income, so does not account for money that households have put away in savings.

In the period since 2008, households in the lowest quintile by income (bottom 20%) have spent between 14% and 17% of their household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks, while the average household has spent between 10% and 12%. Since 2008, there has been a gradual decrease in food expenditure, as a percentage, for both the lowest 20% by income and for all households.
Figure 4.1.2b: Changes in the food price index (real terms prices) 2010 to October 2021

Figure 4.1.2b is included in this indicator to support the overall assessment of the trends in household spend on food. Real terms prices are adjusted for the effects of overall inflation, which makes it possible to measure the actual change in food and non-alcoholic drinks prices and not just an increase because of overall inflation. From a peak in February 2014, food prices fell continually until October 2016. Prices fluctuated between 2016 and 2019, before falling steadily from May 2020 onwards.
Figure 4.1.2c: Year on year percentage change in income, before housing costs, by quintile median and overall population median (pounds per week equivalised in 2019/20 prices)

Figure 4.1.2c shows income before housing costs by quintile and overall population medians (equivalised in real terms). This is not the average, but the medians of the income quintiles. These figures have been deflated to FYE 2020 prices and take account of household composition. The sample size is about 20,000. Another data source on income is from ONS' Average Household Income publication, on the median equivalised disposable household income of individuals by income quintile, published as pounds per year. It has a sample of about 17,000 households, but 5,000 households before 2019. The data is from the Living Costs and Food Survey (and Survey on Living Costs from 2019), which is also the data source used in the expenditure data in Figure 4.1.2a.

In FYE 2020 the median income before housing costs in the UK was £547 per week. From FYE 2017 to FYE 2020 income in the bottom quintile fell by 1.1%, to £264 per week, while for the top quintile income grew by 3.9%, to £1,070 per week. In the 10 years from FYE 2010 to FYE 2020, the median income before housing costs for the overall population rose by 7.7%, while the bottom quintile has seen income rise by 2.4% and the top quintile has seen a 2.3% rise in income. Since 2000 median incomes for all households have risen by 25%.

Data from ONS 's Average Household Income analysis also show that in the last 3 years the income of households on low incomes has decreased while the income of households on high income has increased. This dataset shows the median equivalised disposable household income of individuals by income quintile.

Between FYE 2017 and FYE 2020, the median disposable income of households in the bottom quintile fell by 11.1% while for all individuals it grew by 0.3%. In the 10 years from FYE 2010 to FYE 2020 median disposable household income in the bottom quintile fell by 2.7%, and in the top quintile it grew by 2.9%. The average disposable income for all individuals in the UK over the same 10-year period has grown 6.9%.

The GSS income and earnings coherence work plan was published on 14 October 2021. It has been produced collaboratively by three government departments: ONS, Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP) and HM Revenue and Customs ( HMRC). This work plan recognises the recommendation from the Office for Statistics Regulation to improve the accessibility of language and guidance, and is working to ensure that government publications provide a coherent description of the income and earnings landscape with an action to explore the feasibility of producing a single set of cross-sectional household income estimates.

There is a published, and soon to be updated, guide to sources of data on income and earnings which outlines the different data sources and outputs that feed into the analysis of income and earnings within the UK. It explains important information for each data source, including what data are available and the sources' main uses, strengths and limitations. This guidance sets out that the Living Costs and Food Survey is the primary source of household expenditure data and can be used to carry out joint analysis of income and expenditure; and the Family Resources Survey and Households Below Average Income series is the foremost source of data and information about household income, income poverty and inequality and is used for the analysis of low income by researchers and the government.

For this report on Food Security, the Living Costs and Food Survey has been used for analysis looking at expenditure on food and the direct relationship between this expenditure and household incomes; with the Households Below Average Income series used when reporting on trends in household income and analysis of low incomes.

Trends

Household spend on food as part of their total budget has remained fairly constant since 2010 for average households and low-income households. Between 2010 and 2020, real terms food prices decreased, so that to buy the same food in 2020 cost less than in 2010. Since 2010 median income in real terms for low-income households (bottom quintile) has increased by 2.4% meaning that low-income households have more money to spend.

Low-income households saw their income fall by 1.1% between FYE 2017 and FYE 2020 in contrast to the average household whose income has increased by 4.9% since FYE 2017. With a decrease in income alongside the percentage spent on food having remained the same, the poorest households could have had a diminished budget available for food since FYE 2017.

Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups

Headline

Since 2011, food prices overall have fallen in real terms. This has varied by food groups. Vegetables (including potatoes), milk, cheese and eggs, and meat have all become cheaper in real terms. Fruit prices have increased faster than overall inflation, meaning they have become more expensive in real terms than ten years ago.

Context and Rationale

The aim of this indicator is to monitor trends in the affordability of a healthy diet to provide a measure of consumers' nutritional food security. The Consumer Prices Index including Owner Occupiers' Housing costs ( CPIH) food groups that are analysed in this indicator serve as a proxy for some of the main foods recommended by government for a healthy diet and look at vegetables including potatoes, fruit, milk, cheese, and eggs, fish, meat, and bread and cereals.

Food price increases can affect consumers' purchasing behaviour. Price rises may mean that consumers either 'trade down' by switching to cheaper products of the same type, buy less of a type of food, or spend more money for the same product. The evidence of the extent to which food price rises affect dietary habits is limited. Nevertheless, tracking the real term prices of key food groups for a healthy diet is still a useful tool to understand some of the factors affecting consumers' ability to follow a healthy diet.

Providing guidance on a healthy diet is complex and will often need to account for an individual's circumstances. The Eatwell Guide depicts a diet based on five food groups and shows the proportions of foods from each food group that are needed to obtain the wide range of nutrients required to stay healthy.[footnote 10] For this report, several foods from some of the larger segments of the Eatwell Guide have been selected to track their affordability. It should be noted that there are differences between the composition of the five food groups the Eatwell Guide uses, and the CPIH food groups used in this report due to different categorisation.

The Consumer Price Index ( CPI) is a measure of consumer price inflation produced to international standards and in line with European regulations. The CPI is the inflation measure used in the government's target for inflation. The CPIH is the most comprehensive measure of inflation. It extends the CPI to include a measure of the costs associated with owning, maintaining, and living in one's own home, known as Owner Occupiers' Housing Costs ( OOH), along with Council Tax. Both are significant expenses for many households and are not included in the CPI.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: Index of real terms food prices for vegetables, fruit, fish, meat, bread and cereals, and milk, cheese, and eggs.

Data: Office for National Statistics, CPIH
Figure 4.1.3a: Percentage change in prices between October 2011 and October 2021, overall CPIH and food and non-alcoholic beverages

The overall CPIH rose 20% between October 2011 and October 2021. Food and non-alcoholic beverages rose 9% in the same period.
Figure 4.1.3b: Percentage change in real terms prices between October 2011 and October 2021, food product classes

Food and non-alcoholic drink prices have decreased in real terms between October 2011 and October 2021. Within food categories, most prices have decreased in real terms in this period. Milk, cheese, and eggs have decreased the most at 16.5%, followed by meat at 12.6% and vegetables (including potatoes and tubers) at 12.3%. CPIH for fruit (fresh and preserved) is the only food category that has increased in the 10-year period, by 5.9%.

Trends

Prices for all main food categories except fruit have fallen in real terms in the last 10 years, as food prices have grown more slowly than the overall CPIH. The increase in fruit prices is above that for food and non-alcoholic drinks. There could be consequences for health, as government recommends that individuals consume at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, making up a third of what an individual should eat. While fruit juice can also be a substitute for raw fruit, usually at a lower price, consumption should be limited to no more than 150ml a day.

Food prices are determined by various factors. For fruit in particular, poor harvests, a fall in Sterling exchange rates, or transport disruptions leading to fresh fruit being spoilt, can have an impact on consumer prices. The UK imports most of its fruit from the EU, South America, and Africa. Any issues arising in these regions as well as further down the supply chain may affect fruit prices in future. It is not clear whether the increase in fruit prices since 2011 has been driven by increased consumer preferences for imported out-of-season fruit.

Indicator 4.1.4 Household food security

Headline

According to government data from FYE 2020, 92% of households in the UK regarded themselves as food secure. 8% regarded themselves as food insecure; of this, 4% reported low food security and another 4% had very low food security. Food insecurity is not evenly spread across society, with age, disability, ethnicity, and geographical location all factors affecting household food security.

Context and Rationale

In March 2021, food security data for all UK households was published in the 'Family Resources Survey: financial year 2019 to 2020' for the first time, covering the period of April 2019 to March 2020. This surveys whether heads of households have sufficient food to facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle.

The person with the most responsibility for buying and preparing food in the household (head of household) is asked to assess their overall household food security within the last 30 days by answering a series of questions. The limitations of this indicator mean that information about individual experiences of food insecurity within the household is not available, nor can it directly measure hunger. Instead, the indicator illustrates the financial situation of households and how that affects their access to food. The broad structure and sequence of the questions is the same as those used internationally, including by the United States Department of Agriculture, enabling international comparisons. Although the Food Standard Agency's ( FSA) Food and You 2 survey uses the same ten questions as the Family Resources Survey, it is worth noting that the results between the surveys may differ due to the FSA asking these questions about a longer period of 12 months.[footnote 11]

The 30-day reference period used in the Family Resources Survey may have some limitations in that it can provide only a snapshot of food insecurity at a given time.[footnote 12] Nevertheless, this indicator primarily uses data from the Family Resources Survey, as the sample size is bigger compared to the FSA 's Food and You 2 survey. Additionally, the Family Resources Survey covers the whole of the UK, whereas the Food and You 2 survey only covers England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

While the intention is to use the Family Resources Survey data as the only source for future iterations of the UKFSR, for this report, data from the FSA's Food and You 2 survey has been included. This is because the FSA 's data covers the latter half of 2020, providing some understanding of the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on household food security. The differences between the Family Resources Survey and Food and You 2 are outlined in more detail below.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: Household food security status of all households, FYE 2020, UK

Source: Department for Work and Pensions, Family Resources Survey

Note: A summary of the scoring of food security categories and definitions in the Family Resources Survey can be found in the Appendix of this report.
Figure 4.1.4a: Household food security by region , FYE 2020

There were regional differences for household food security levels. The North East and North West of England had the lowest levels of food security, at 89% and 90% respectively. The East of England had the highest food security with 95% of households being food secure, and the South East and South West at 94%. Levels of household food security in the four countries of the UK were all similar, with Wales and Northern Ireland at 93% and Scotland and England at 92%.
Figure 4.1.4b: Household food security by disability, FYE 2020

88% of households with one or more disabled people were food secure, compared to 95% of households without any disabled people living in them. In households with disabled people, 7% had very low food security, while only 2% did in households without any disabled people.
Figure 4.1.4c: Household food security by age of head of household, FYE 2020

Households where the head is younger were less likely to be food secure than households with older heads of household. 15% of households where the head of household was aged 16 to 24 were food insecure, while only 1% of households with an 85-year-old or over as head of household were food insecure. As the age of the head of household increased, so too did the likelihood that the household was food secure, apart from where the head of household was aged 35-44, where there was a slight decrease in food security.
Figure 4.1.4d: Household food security by ethnicity of head of household, FYE 2020

Heads of households who are White were most likely to be food secure, with 93% being food secure compared to 81% of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British heads of households. 8% of Black heads of households had very low food security, compared to 4% of those whose ethnicity is White. 92% of households headed by an Asian/British Asian person were food secure. Within that category, those headed by an Indian person had the highest food security of all groups, with 95% food secure.

While not displayed in the graphs above, there are further factors that influence a household's food security. Households with gross incomes of less than £200 per week (7% of households) were the least likely to be food secure (74% high food security, 7% marginal). In comparison, those with gross incomes of £1,000 or more per week (26% of households) were the most likely to be food secure (96% high, 3% marginal).

The composition of the household also played an important role. Households with children (81% high food security; 8% marginal) were less likely to be food secure than households with no children (89% high; 5% marginal). In addition, single-adult households with children were more likely to be food insecure than households with two or more adults and children. Households receiving state support have differing levels of food security, depending on the type of support they receive. In general, households receiving income-related benefits had 64% high and 11% marginal food security.

Food and You 2

The data on household food security contained in the Family Resources Survey report spans FYE 2020, and thus has only limited overlap with the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed earlier, the FSA 's Food and You 2 surveys used the same 10 questions as the Family Resources Survey but asked about a 12-month period in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland only. Data was collected between July and October 2020 for Wave 1, and between November 2020 and January 2021 for Wave 2, allowing more insight into the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For Wave 1, 84% of respondents were classified as food secure (72% high, 12% marginal) and 16% were classified as food insecure (9% low, 7% very low). 32% of households with an income below £19,000 experienced food insecurity compared to households earning more than £32,000, where food insecurity levels ranged between 4% and 10%. Age was also an important factor; younger adults, particularly 16 to 24-year-olds, had higher food insecurity levels (16% low, 9% very low) compared to older adults, for instance 55 to 64-year-olds (6% low, 5% very low). Households with a child were also more likely to report food insecurity. 77% of households with children reported that they were food secure compared to 88% of households without children. In addition, food insecurity was more likely to be reported by respondents who were long term unemployed or had never worked (44%) compared to those in most occupational groups (range 11-26%).[footnote 13]

Overall household food security levels in Wave 2 were similar to Wave 1, where 84% of respondents were classified as food secure (73% high, 11% marginal), and 16% of respondents were classified as food insecure (8% low, 7% very low). Similarly, income levels, age, the presence of children in the household, and the employment status influenced food security levels.[footnote 14]

Trends

Due to the limited data around household food insecurity and not being able to directly compare the Family Resources Survey results with the Food and You 2 results, it is difficult to give a long-term analysis of any trends. The data indicates, however, that age, disability, ethnicity, regions, income, family composition, and benefits status play a role in the level of household food security.

Indicator 4.1.5 Access to food shops in England

Headline

Household food security depends on physical access to food shops. In the regions of England with the lowest access to food shops, over 95% of the population can reach a food shop within 30 minutes without needing a car, and over 84% within 15 minutes. Data on the issue is currently only available for England. Access to food shops is not equal across regions, with percentages being lower in more rural areas. Trends towards increased use of online shopping and deliveries, and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, are not currently available but will be tracked in future Food Security Reports.

Context and Rationale

Household food security does not only depend on food affordability, but also on the ability of consumers to physically access food shops. Potentially vulnerable are those households without access to a car or means of private transport as well as less mobile individuals such as disabled people or the elderly. Travel distances are higher in rural areas, which typically have a more dispersed population.

What this data does not show is the cost and selection of food available to consumers in their nearest food shop. Groceries at convenience shops can be more expensive than in larger supermarkets, resulting in higher food costs for a household. Some food shops may also have a smaller selection of food, which could limit consumers' choice and ability to meet all their nutritional requirements.

The growing number and scope of online grocery shopping services across the UK have the potential to alleviate some of the difficulties of physical accessibility of food shops. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significant demand for online delivery services across the major supermarket chains. Retailers reacted quickly to increase capacity of both delivery services and click and collect services to meet this demand. To support particularly vulnerable groups, government worked closely with retailers to enable priority access to online groceries. There are, however, some barriers to accessing these services, particularly amongst low-income households, disabled people, and the elderly. Some households cannot afford digital devices, meet the minimum spend or the delivery charges required by some retailers, or might not have the necessary skills to access these digital services. In addition, some areas have lower digital connectivity levels.

It is likely that the switch to more online grocery shopping might become permanent amongst certain consumers, and that there is the potential for further businesses to offer these services.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: The number and percentage of households within 15 or 30 minutes of a food shop by public transport/walking

Source: Department for Transport ( DfT), 2019, England only

Note: This indicator contains data on England only. The Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive do not regularly collect data on this information. Food shops are defined here as grocery shops, supermarkets, or convenience shops.

The transportation mode 'public transport and walking' used in this data set means that travellers will likely need to walk between their origin and destination and the transport network. For some short journeys, it may be quicker for travellers to walk directly to their destination, rather than using public transport at all. Therefore, public transport and walking results are combined.

The data shows the percentage of people who can reach a food shop in 30 minutes or 15 minutes by public transport or by walking. The focus lies on this type of transport in favour of cycling or driving as not every household has access to a car or a bicycle, the other modes of transport covered by the DfT data set.
Figure 4.1.5a: Percentage of population in England within 30 minutes of a food shop by public transport or walking, 2019

In all regions taken as a whole, over 95% of the population could reach a food shop in 30 minutes. London has the highest rate at 100% reaching a food shop in 30 minutes, while the South West has the lowest rate at 95.8%. Across England, and at Local Authority level within the regions, there are only a few areas where access within 30 minutes was available to less than 90%: local authorities covering parts of North Yorkshire and Cumbria, parts of the East Midlands, the Welsh border area in the West Midlands, and the rural areas in Devon covering Exmoor and Dartmoor.
Figure 4.1.5b: Percentage of population in England within 15 minutes of a food shop by public transport or walking, 2019

In all regions 84% of the population could reach a food shop in 15 minutes. London has the highest rate at 99.0% in 15 minutes, with the South West having the lowest rate at 84.2% for 15 minutes. It should be noted that the South West also has the highest proportion of their population living in rural areas at 31.6%, while London has the lowest at 0.2%.

At this level, urban centres and population-dense areas are more clearly discernible. There are more parts of England where 70% or less of the population are within 15 minutes of a food store, containing around 1 million households. The remote rural area covering North Yorkshire and Cumbria is more clearly defined.

Trends

This indicator illustrates that accessibility of food shops is not a major issue for most of the population even if they do not have access to a car.

Due to changes in DfT 's data collection, the earliest comparable data set for this indicator is from 2015. Between 2015 and 2019, there were not any marked changes in the accessibility of food shops.

Urban areas already have a high saturation of food shops. Opening new shops in rural areas might not be financially viable due to lower customer numbers. Expansion in, and changes to, online grocery offers, such as changes to minimum spend and delivery charges, could improve accessibility rates further. To measure the effect that online grocery shopping has on household food security, a new indicator may be considered for the next iteration of the UK Food Security Report.

While this report does not contain data on food shop accessibility in the devolved administrations (DAs), some research for Northern Ireland suggests low-income households in rural areas may experience food insecurity differently compared to low-income households in urban areas. With rural areas having reduced access to services such as public transport and retail options compared to urban areas, the effects of food poverty can be exacerbated.[footnote 15]

Poverty Premium

There are various approaches to defining what the poverty premium is, but generally it is understood as the extra costs low-income households incur when buying the same goods and services as high-income households. Some of the main drivers behind the poverty premium are based on low-income households' constrained finances, which prevent them from accessing favourable deals. Other factors include the geography and corresponding infrastructure in the area a household resides in, a household's digital access, as well as market failures where the needs of low-income households are not met. People can pay a poverty premium in many areas, including fuel, financial and banking services, transport, housing, insurance, and groceries. Low-income households paying extra costs for services compared to high-income households exacerbates pre-existing inequalities in these households.[footnote 16]

With low-income households already spending a higher percentage of their household budget on food than the average household, it is important to understand whether they also face additional costs. A study undertaken by the Institute for Fiscal Studies ( IFS) in 2012, as well as other studies conducted in 2009 and 2010, noted that there was no evidence to suggest that low-income households pay more for food, or that they faced a premium by not being able to buy food in bulk. In fact, they stated that many households purposefully buy in bulk to pay lower prices.[footnote 17] However, the food budget is not the only factor enabling bulk buying. Buying in bulk is contingent on having the facilities to refrigerate or freeze food, and space to store it at ambient temperatures. Access to food shops is more of a challenge for people who do not have such facilities as they must shop more often. Furthermore, those who have limited cooking facilities or who cannot afford to run them may be paying a premium for items such as ready meals.

Geography is an important factor in determining whether low-income households face a poverty premium for groceries. The same IFS report suggests that households living in rural areas without access to a car are more likely to use local shops, where food prices can be higher. More research needs to be done to understand how low-income households without digital access to online food shopping might be impacted financially.

Indicator 4.2.1 Eligibility for Free School Meals

Headline

Eligibility rates for free school meals have been fairly stable across the UK in recent years, with Wales and England seeing an increase from 2018 due to the introduction of Universal Credit and its transitional protection. There was also a further increase between January 2020 and January 2021. This is likely due to COVID-19 impacting households' financial situations as well as the continuing Universal Credit transitional protection measures, which have extended eligibility to more pupils.

Eligibility rates are also expected to increase in Scotland in the coming years due to the staggered expansion of universal free school meals for Primary 4 pupils in August 2021, Primary 5 pupils in January 2022, and all primary school children in August 2022.

Context and Rationale

All four nations in the UK offer the option of free school meals to eligible pupils. Free school meals are intended to support learning and development to ensure that pupils do not miss out on lunch due to financial constraints. To claim free school meals (outside of the infant free school meals available to all households in England and Scotland), either family or pupil must be claiming particular state benefits. Data from the Family Resources Survey shows that households on these benefits all have below average food security status, except for households claiming pension credits.[footnote 18] 57% of households on Universal Credit are food secure compared to 92% of all households. Free school meals data provides important context on households with children which have a low food security status.

Other programmes exist to support pupils' food requirements. These include the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme in England, the School Holiday Enrichment programme in Wales, as well as the School Milk Scheme and Breakfast Club Programmes available across the UK. This report focuses on free school meals, however, as they provide the most substantial daily meal and reach the largest number of pupils.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: Eligibility rates of Free School Meals

Source: Department for Education, Welsh Government, Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Department of Education

Note: The different countries have different eligibility thresholds for Free School Meals. This may impact the levels of eligibility between countries and make direct comparisons between countries more complex.
Figure 4.2.1a: Percentage of pupils eligible for Free School Meals, UK, 2020/21

In FYE 2021 the region or country with the highest proportion of school children eligible for free school meals is Scotland with 37.5%, although the data for Scotland includes all children in primary 1 to 3. Northern Ireland is the next highest with 28.4%, followed by the North East with 27.5%. The region with the lowest eligibility is the South East at 16.0%, followed by the East of England with 16.7%.
Figure 4.2.1b: Percentage of pupils eligible for Free School Meals, UK, 2015/16 - 2020/21

When looking only at the countries, not regions, Scotland had the highest rate in 2020/21 at 37.5% while England had the lowest rate at 20.8%, very slightly lower than Wales with 20.9%.

In the years for which data is available, Northern Ireland and Scotland have both very slightly decreased in their free school meal eligibility rate. Northern Ireland from 29.9% in 2017/18 to 28.4% in 2020/21 and Scotland from 38.2% in 2015/16 to 37.5% in 2020/21. Wales and England have both increased between 2015/16 and 2020/21, Wales from 16.8% to 20.9% and England from 14.3% to 20.8%.

Trends

The increase in eligibility rates observed for England and Wales from 2018 can be attributed to the introduction of Universal Credit and its transitional protection measures, which have enabled more pupils to stay eligible for free school meals. In April 2018, the criteria used to determine which pupils are eligible for free school meals were updated to reflect the introduction of Universal Credit and the phasing out of other income-based benefits. In England, under the updated criteria, the government estimated in 2018 that by 2022 around 50,000 more pupils would benefit from a free school meal compared to the previous benefits system. From 1 April 2018 in England and 1 April 2019 in Wales, transitional protection was also implemented for those pupils who might otherwise have lost free school meals following the update to the eligibility criteria. This means that any existing pupil who no longer met the eligibility criteria at the point at which Universal Credit was fully rolled out continued to receive free school meals until the end of their current phase of education.

Although trends in eligibility rates have been stable across the UK for the last few years, there have been recent increases that are likely linked to COVID-19 impacts on households' income and the ongoing Universal Credit transitional protection for England and Wales. Between January 2020, before COVID-19, and January 2021, the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals has increased in Wales and England, but not in Northern Ireland. In England, it has increased from 17.3% to 20.8% and in Wales from 18.3% to 20.9%.

The Scottish Government's annual Schools Healthy Living Survey Report in 2021 did not provide data on the uptake of free school meals. The annual school meals survey which provides data for this report normally takes place every February, but the schools were closed at this point due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Scottish Government provided local authorities with funding to provide support in lieu of free school meals to eligible families during all periods of school closures. Monitoring returns from local authorities showed this support was reaching up to 175,000 children and young people.

The uptake rates are expected to increase in Scotland in future years. In addition to children in Primary 1 to 3, all children in Primary 4 became entitled to receive free school lunches in August 2021. Universal provision will be extended to all children in Primary 5 in January 2022 and then to all primary school children in August 2022.

Indicator 4.2.2 Take-up of Healthy Start voucher scheme

Headline

Healthy Start vouchers are a scheme in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to support people on low incomes to access pre-natal vitamins, infant milk formula, and healthy food for young children. In Scotland an equivalent Best Start Foods scheme launched in August 2019. The take-up rate of the Healthy Start voucher scheme was relatively stable between 2019 and 2021. Eligibility rates have increased in England and Wales, nd decreased in Northern Ireland between early 2019 and summer 2021. These increases are likely linked to COVID-19 and its impacts on the financial situation of households.

Context and Rationale

The Healthy Start voucher scheme is available in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In August 2019, Scotland introduced its own scheme called the Best Start Foods scheme. Both schemes are aimed at enabling low-income families with young children, and women during pregnancy, to access healthy food and vitamins. Beneficiaries need to meet certain criteria determined by their income level, stage of pregnancy, and age of their children to be eligible for the schemes. Once qualified, families receive vouchers, or in the case of the Best Start Foods scheme, a prepaid card, which helps them pay towards products such as infant milk formula, milk, fresh, frozen, or tinned fruits and vegetables, fresh or dried pulses, and vitamins. The Healthy Start scheme is in the process of moving towards a card system as well.

Including data on the take-up rate of these schemes amongst eligible households contributes to the wider picture of household food security. Both schemes provide assistance to households that might otherwise struggle to purchase healthy food during the important development stages of young children.

Due to the Best Start Food scheme in Scotland launching in August 2019, February 2019 data for Scotland is not available to include in this indicator.

Data and Assessment

Indicator: Take-up rate in the UK

Source: Department of Health and Social Care

Note: The take-up rate shows the percentage of people who have successfully applied for vouchers or payment cards, out of the people who are eligible. This does not mean that the vouchers were spent.
Figure 4.2.2a: Take-up rate for Healthy Start vouchers by region and country, February 2019 and August 2021

In August 2021, the take-up of Healthy Start vouchers (and Best Start payments in Scotland) in the UK was 61.9%, with 376,000 people receiving vouchers or payments. This has increased slightly since February 2019 when the take-up was 57.2%, although this rate did not include Scotland as its scheme did not start until August 2019.

In August 2021 the region with the highest take-up was Scotland, with 77.0% (36,720 people) while in February 2019 it was the North East with 63.2% (16,411 people). Northern Ireland had the lowest take-up rate in 2021 with 56.0% (10,589 people) and East of England did in 2019 with 51.5% (18,670 people).

There has been an increase in the take-up rate in all regions participating in the Healthy Start voucher scheme between 2019 and 2021, except in Northern Ireland which saw a drop from 59.1% to 56.0%. The South West saw the highest increase, rising from a take-up of 52.0% to 59.7%, followed by the East of England which rose from 51.5% to 56.7%.

There has been an increase in the number of people eligible for Healthy Start vouchers and Best Start Food payments in all regions and countries in the UK between February 2019 and August 2021. The highest increase was seen in London at 34.2% while the lowest increase was in Northern Ireland at 12.2%.

Trends

Although the Healthy Start voucher (and Best Start payment) schemes have been available for more than ten years, this report focuses on data from 2019 to 2021 as full data on the total number of people eligible for the scheme was not available prior to 2019. Since 2019, this data has been available, making it possible to draw more meaningful comparisons between different time periods.

While trends have been relatively stable, between February 2019 and August 2021, eligibility in England has increased by 28.8%, in Wales by 18.7%, and in NI by 12.2%. This is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on households' financial situation.

Case study 4.1 Food Aid

Overview

There is no comprehensive record of the number of organisations providing food aid in the UK. This is because many different types of organisations provide food aid, including registered charities, places of worship, community organisations, schools, hospitals, and commercial and social enterprises. Government data is limited regarding the number of individuals or households receiving food parcels, how many parcels they might have received and over what period. However, DWP has measures in train to improve the official statistics on this subject in the future.

Background

This report defines food banks as organisations that distribute food to those in need. Food banks are seen as emergency crisis provision and are often the last resort for individuals before going hungry. According to the Trussell Trust, 'destitution - and the resulting inability to afford essentials - is the main reason for people needing to use a food bank.'[footnote 19]

Food aid is provided by a very broad range of organisations, including registered charities, churches, schools, hospitals, and community centres. Businesses may support these or distribute food directly. Organisations providing food aid proliferated in wealthy countries, including the UK, after the financial crash of 2007 to 2008. Over the COVID-19 pandemic food banks saw an upward shift in demand as social restrictions in 2020 impacted on peoples' lives and livelihoods, and the government implemented a range of measures to mitigate them. Third sector aid is not widely available for other non-discretionary living expenses such as housing or transport, making food aid an immediate source of support for people in financial hardship.

The two main charitable food bank organisations in the UK are the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN). In February 2021, there were over 1,300 Trussell Trust food banks in the UK, in addition to over 1,000 independent food banks. Both have reported increases in the number of food parcels distributed.[footnote 20]

Due to the complexity of the food aid landscape, the UK government does not hold data on the precise number of organisations which distribute food aid. Questions related to food aid access have been added to DWP 's Family Resources Survey and the results for financial year 2021 to 2022 will be published in 2023. These new questions will assess the number of households accessing food banks within the previous 30 days and will improve government understanding of food aid use and its links to food poverty. This data will be included in future UK Food Security Reports.

Food aid is provided through various means, and to have a thorough understanding of the true scale of the problem requires additional data to fully understand the landscape of food aid and food poverty. Data that DWP are collecting will produce robust official statistics on food bank usage for the first time, and will be an important step forward for the evidence base in this area.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and government response

The COVID-19 pandemic tested the UK's food supply system more than any other time in over 70 years. Businesses across the food supply chain had to adjust rapidly to greatly increased consumer demand. People spent more time at home and ate out less. The overnight closure of many businesses due to lockdown meant that many individuals lost their source of income and had to find alternative ways to feed themselves and their families.

During the period when lives and livelihoods were significantly impacted due to public health restrictions, the government provided significant financial support. As part of its pandemic response, the UK government supported incomes through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme ('furlough') with a total of £69.3bn in claims to date, and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme has paid out over £27bn across all five grants.

In England, £429.1m were given to Local Authorities to provide further support to households struggling with the cost of food and other essentials due to the pandemic. In summer 2020, there was also a £3.5m package of support made available for small food charities through a grant scheme and a further £10m grant assistance made available to FareShare, a national network of charitable food redistributors, to deliver food to the most vulnerable.[footnote 21] There was also a package of further support for vulnerable individuals and families during the winter period 2020 to 2021. This package included a further £16m of funding to FareShare to work with local charities and organisations to provide food for those struggling due to the immediate impacts of the pandemic.

In Scotland, amongst wider measures there was £56 million worth of assistance provided in lieu of free school meals to low-income households during school holidays and periods of remote learning. Over £100 million was provided across the Wellbeing, Supporting Communities, and Third Sector Recovery Funds which include supporting a range of food-based activity alongside wider wellbeing action. In 2021 to 2022, the Scottish Government continued to provide assistance in lieu of free school meals to low-income families during the school holidays. In early 2021 the Scottish Government issued a position statement on a human rights approach to tackling food insecurity, and in October 2021 launched a consultation on a national plan to end the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity.[footnote 22]

In Wales, amongst wider measures an additional £50.7m was allocated to ensure children eligible for free school meals did not go hungry during school holidays. £2m was awarded under the EU Transition Fund to local authorities in Wales to help build resilience in the food aid network. More than 3,000 food boxes were delivered to independent food banks to help meet an increase in demand. The Voluntary Services Emergencies Fund approved £1m for voluntary projects related to food distribution, and £198,000 was allocated to FareShare to support operations which divert good food from going to waste.

Within Northern Ireland, amongst wider measures, £415,000 was allocated to FareShare to increase the supply of food to charities who support those in food poverty.

The Food and You Survey, discussed in Indicator 4.1.4, provides a snapshot of the use of food aid in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between November 2020 and January 2021, at the height of the second wave of the pandemic. Although this currently only offers one data point, the survey results are recognised as an Official Statistics output. Respondents were asked if their household had received a free parcel of food from a food bank or other emergency food provider in the last 12 months. 90% reported that they had not used a food bank or other emergency food provider in the last 12 months, while 7% reported that they had. The 7% of respondents who had received a food parcel from a food bank or other emergency provider were asked how often they had received one in the last 12 months. 26% had received a food parcel on only one occasion in the last 12 months, 41% had received a food parcel on more than one occasion but less often than every month, and 6% had received a food parcel every month or more often.

Case Study 4.2 Public Sector Food Procurement in England

Overview

Public food procurement impacts almost 24% of the population in England and is an important lever to promote a healthy, sustainable food system, to support economic growth, and deliver a broad range of social, environmental, and health benefits. Defra is responsible for updating the public sector food procurement standards and ensuring any risk of food supply disruption is mitigated. The Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC) is responsible for the nutrition standards in the government buying standards for food and catering services ( GBSF).

Background

The GBSF set mandatory and best practice requirements for procurement of healthier, more sustainable food in the public sector in England. The standards were originally introduced in 2011 as a means of demonstrating leadership and providing clarity around what constitutes sustainable, healthy food and catering procurement. The standards will be consulted upon and updated in early 2022 to maximise the intended social, economic, and environmental impact. This may include reporting on key metrics associated with the objectives of the GBSF, enabling government to benchmark and set targets.

It is currently mandatory for central government departments, their executive agencies, and non-departmental public bodies to comply with the GBSF, along with the NHS, armed forces, and HM Prison and Probation Service. The wider public sector is encouraged to, but not mandated, to comply with the standards. For example, the GBSF is referenced by the School Food Standards.

The public procurement landscape is highly fragmented, and there are a wide range of delivery models. Procurement decisions are devolved to individual organisations, such as government departments and agencies, hospital trusts, and schools. In schools, around 40% of catering is outsourced to private caterers, 40% is under local authority control, with the remaining 20% managed in-house where food is procured directly from wholesalers. Large public sector organisations like NHS trusts, the armed forces, and government departments frequently procure food and catering as part of facilities management contracts. These are commonly delivered by a small number of 'big players' in the market. HM Prison and Probation Service has one national contract with a single wholesaler to deliver prison food, alongside two other contracts for additional provisions.

Discussion

Almost 2 billion meals are served in public sector settings each year.[footnote 23] Government spend on food is an estimated £2.4bn, which is 5.5% of the UK food service sector turnover. Of the total spend, 29% is in schools, 29% in further and higher education settings, 25% in hospitals and care homes, 11% in the armed forces, 5% in prisons, and 1% in government offices.[footnote 24] Food eaten in schools could make up as much as 50% of a child's diet in termtime, and for some a free school lunch is their only main meal of the day.[footnote 25] Improving public sector food buying standards benefits all and has the potential to help close the health gap between those from the lowest and highest income households.

Maintaining a secure food supply

Through engagement and monitoring, Defra gathers relevant industry intelligence related to potential food supply concerns and potential risks. The Department for Education, Ministry of Justice, DHSC, and the Ministry of Defence are responsible for public sector food provision within their respective sectors (for schools, prisons, hospitals, social care providers and the armed forces) and a cross government approach to understanding the risks and issues to public sector food supply is taken. Lead government departments regularly meet with suppliers to understand potential issues. Defra closely monitors and proactively engages with public sector food service providers in the wholesale sector to understand emerging risks.

The economic viability of the food service wholesale sector, notably larger companies, is not considered at risk. Monitoring, however, and close collaboration between government and industry continues following the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the event of food supply disruption, or when risks emerge that may result in disruption, Defra will convene and chair with Cabinet Office a Public Sector Food Working Group. This group provides a forum for government departments to jointly discuss broader strategic concerns that impact the public sector food supply chain, share intelligence and mitigations. Lead government departments can enact enhanced engagement directly with their suppliers to understand the risk landscape and agree to mitigations such as substitution, menu modifications, and potential relaxation of standards if required.

About the UK Food Security Report

The UK Food Security Report sets out an analysis of statistical data relating to food security, examining past, current, and predicted trends relevant to food security to present the best available understanding of food security. It fulfils a duty under Part 2, Chapter 1 (Section 19) of the Agriculture Act 2020] to prepare and lay before Parliament "a report containing an analysis on statistical data relating to food security in the United Kingdom". The first report must be published before Christmas Recess 2021, and subsequent reports must be published at least once every three years thereafter.

It contains statistics for different time periods, but always using latest available data at the time of release. Data comes from surveys run by Defra and from a wide range of other sources including government departments, agencies and commercial organisations, in the UK and internationally.

Associated datasets from this publication are also available. Data are a mixture of National Statistics, Official Statistics and unofficial statistics. Unofficial statistics are used where there are gaps in the evidence base. Further information on National Statistics can be found on the Office for Statistics Regulation website.

Enquiries to: foodsecurityreport@defra.gov.uk

You can also contact us via Twitter: @DefraStats

We want to understand the uses that readers make of this new report. To help us ensure that future versions of this report are better for you, please answer our short questionnaire to send us feedback.

Production team: Michael Archer, Matt Bardrick, Jasmin Eng, Ros Finney, Luke Hamilton, Jenny Kemp, David Lee, Jeremy Levett, Will Norman, Maria Prokopiou, Andrew Scaife, Chris Silwood, Jonathan Smith, Beth White, Isabella Worth.

We are extremely grateful to the following for their expert contributions and guidance throughout the synthesis of this Report, helping to ensure it delivers a thorough analysis of a robust evidence base:

Professor Tim Benton, Chatham House

Dr Tom Breeze, University of Reading

Professor Bob Doherty, University of York and FixOurFood

Selvarani Elahi MBE, UK Deputy Government Chemist, LGC

Dr Pete Falloon, Met Office, Climate Service Lead - Food Farming & Natural Environment

Alan Hayes, Food Systems and Sustainability Advisor

Dr John Ingram, University of Oxford

Professor Peter Jackson, Institute for Sustainable Food, University of Sheffield

Dr Ian Noble, Mondelez International

Dr Bill Parker, Head of Technical Programmes, AHDB

Dr Maddy Power, Wellcome Trust

Continue to Theme 5: Food Safety and Consumer Confidence Return to Theme 3: Food Supply Chain Resilience Return to Contents Page Return to the United Kingdom Food Security 2021 home page to download the data for charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United Kingdom Food Security Report 2021: Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This chapter of the UK Food Security Report looks at food security in terms of whether households can consistently afford and access sufficient healthy and nutritious food. It discusses the affordability of food and drink, in real terms and compared to other living costs, and trends in the cost of healthy foods.

# data[].attributes.body
Nearly one in three people in the world (2.37 billion) did not have access to adequate food in 2020 – that's an increase of almost 320 million people in just one year.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 780 million people, 11 percent of the world's population, live in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 per day.

2. At least 14 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition around the world. Severe acute malnutrition is the direct cause of death for 2 million children every year.

3. Every day, 1,000 children under 5 die from illnesses like diarrhea, dysentery, and cholera caused by contaminated water and inadequate sanitation.

# data[].attributes.body
Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the largest number of people living in extreme poverty. See below for a breakdown of where people living with less than $1.90 per day are located.

413.3 million in Sub-Saharan Africa

216.4 million in South Asia

47.2 million in East Asia and Pacific

25.9 million in Latin America and the Caribbean

18.6 million in the Middle East and North Africa

7.1 million in Europe and Central Asia

CHILDREN LIVING IN EXTREME POVERTY

It is estimated that 104 million children under 5 are living in extreme poverty, while that number extends to 328 million for children under 18 (World Bank, 2016).

Children suffer the most when living in poverty. Their young, developing bodies are less resilient to the effects of living without clean water, food or health care. As a result, many children living in poverty suffer from malnutrition and disease. If left untreated—which is common due to limited access to health care—they cannot survive. It is estimated that less than a third of children suffering from severe acute malnutrition receive treatment.

Watch the story of 13-year-old Keynyang, a brave young boy trying to support his family after conflict forced them to flee their home in S

# data[].attributes.body
Who does food poverty affect and how ?

# data[].attributes.body
One in three children in low- and middle-income countries suffers from chronic undernutrition. Without a sustainable source of income at a sufficient level, young children and their families do not have access to nutritious food, clean water or health care. And the deadly effects of undernutrition cannot be underestimated:

45% of all child deaths worldwide are from causes related to undernutrition (World Health Organization, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where is extreme poverty?

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the largest number of people living in extreme poverty. See below for a breakdown of where people living with less than $1.90 per day are located.

413.3 million in Sub-Saharan Africa

216.4 million in South Asia

47.2 million in East Asia and Pacific

25.9 million in Latin America and the Caribbean

18.6 million in the Middle East and North Africa

7.1 million in Europe and Central Asia

Children living in extreme poverty

It is estimated that 104 million children under 5 are living in extreme poverty, while that number extends to 328 million for children under 18 (World Bank, 2016).

Children suffer the most when living in poverty. Their young, developing bodies are less resilient to the effects of living without clean water, food or health care. As a result, many children living in poverty suffer from malnutrition and disease. If left untreated-which is common due to limited access to health care-they cannot survive. It is estimated that less than a third of children suffering from severe acute malnutrition receive treatment.

Watch the story of 13-year-old Keynyang, a brave young boy trying to support his family after conflict forced them to flee their home in South Sudan. With no money or food, his family is trying to survive by eating leaves.

Keynyang's story demonstrates that extreme poverty is often the result of external factors that are far beyond the family's control. However, with the right support, there is hope. We have 40 years of experience of saving lives and supporting self-sufficiency for some of the world's most vulnerable populations. We are able to help communities become more resilient to external factors that cause extreme poverty, and help families recover from natural disasters or forced displacement.
► Sign up to learn how you can save children's lives.
Solutions to Poverty and Hunger

Hunger and undernutrition are often linked to extreme poverty and lack of access to available, sufficient, nutritious food.

Action Against Hunger's food security and livelihoods programs aim to empower vulnerable communities to improve their access to food, income, and markets. We train and build the capacity of small-scale farmers to increase production, and safely store and market their crops.

In humanitarian emergencies, we provide cash transfers or cash-for-work programs to help families in crisis buy food and support local markets while also enabling them to make their own choices about their most urgent needs.

Our nutrition and health programs provide lifesaving treatment to children suffering from the deadliest form of hunger: acute malnutrition. We partner with parents and communities to educate and change behaviors - helping to prevent malnutrition and to spot signs of the illness early.

We reach more than 17 million people with lifesaving programs in 45+ countries.

We are there for children and families before and after disaster strikes. We enable people to provide for themselves, see their children grow up strong, and for whole communities to prosper. We constantly search for more effective solutions, while sharing our knowledge and expertise with the world. We push for long-term change. We will never give up. Until the world is free from hunger.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the largest number of people living in extreme poverty. See below for a breakdown of where people living with less than $1.90 per day are located.

# data[].attributes.body
Dystopia: Bad Place
a communoty or society that is underiable or frightening

Probable futures:
- Likely to happen
- linear extension of the present
- the future most of us think of as the future

Plausible futures
- could happen accordign to current knowledge
- valid or credile

Possible futures:
- could theoretically happen
-wild cards
-blac swan events

Prefeerable Future:
.-What you would like to see
- based on our hopes & aspirations

# data[].attributes.body
Speculative Design is a powerful tool to help you think through and test the future implications of a certain idea/issue/technology - both utopian or dystopian.

+  Its a playful tool to expand your thinking about an idea/issue and to find & developing new and provoking narratives, approaches and responses.

+  It’s aim is to interrogate and initiate discourse rather than predicting the future

# data[].attributes.body
model making
3d scanning / rendering props / dress-up / masks collage
sketches
graphics / diagrams / maps typography

# data[].attributes.body
a daily routine

+ interesting/useful references (passport, souvenirs, news alert, advert, platforms like gumtree...)

+ a character

+ a new product / service / technology / political party

# data[].attributes.body
- made of knifes and forks
- made of food symbols i.e. burgers

advertise the app

# data[].attributes.body
Going from wealthy examples of people to people suffering from food insecurity

- lets take a 360

# data[].attributes.headline
Virutal Reality Campaign - how it could be 

# data[].attributes.subject
Virutal Reality Campaign - how it could be 

# data[].attributes.body
Examples of children in need set in juxtapositioning situations

i.e. children in 3rd world starving countries running to a filled up fridge with nutritious food

i.e. children playing on the playground instead of working in factories

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology Ideas for Design - Brainstorm

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology Ideas for Design - Brainstorm

# data[].attributes.body
Donations lead to prize

I.e. Zapp is a cooperating Brand -
Money off your next order

I.e. Kelloggs is a cooperating partner
Coupons / Money off their website or

# data[].attributes.body
4 Deliverables:
- 1. Final Design Outcome
-2. Process Document
- 3. Sketchbook
-4. Portfolio Pages

# data[].attributes.body
Your process document should be more coherant and show your analysis of the key stages of your process and evaluation of your final outcome.
- Aim for clarity and readability in your design and typography
- Use a grid! If in doubt more columns allow for more flexibility (e.g. 4–6)
- Use a consistent and logical type hierarchy for headings, subheadings and paragraphs
- Demonstrate a careful choice of (maximum 3) fonts that work together
- Use plenty of visuals to accompany your text
- Make sure all photography is not pixellated (check your links before you export!) and if you are showing anyone else’s work, reference it somewhere in your document

What should your process document contain?

01 Introduction
02 Research + Analysis
03 Experimentation
04 Design Development + Production 05 Evaluation

01 Introduction

Start with an introduction – an overview of your topic that will provide context for your project. (Your sketchbook is for you, try to imagine the reader experience for your process document.)

This should contain your challenge, question or design problem as set out in your original brief, including your initial perception of your given social issue and first reaction on the brief.

02 Research + Analysis

One of the most important parts of your design process is the research stage, so ensure that we can clearly see the research you’ve undertaken and how it shaped your thinking.

Document and include all material that was connected and relevant to the final outcome and document which research was influential and provided the most useful insights. Include both written and visual research.

But remember that your analysis of this material is what’s important, not just providing us with page after page of found information. What were your reactions to your findings and how did it affect your design approach and ideas?

03 Experimentation

How did your research turn into actionable ideas? Show how you used your findings to inspire unique and inspiring creative ideas that are relevant to the brief and your audience. Connecting your research to your concepts is really important, we want to see where they came from.

How many ideas did you come up with, and how did you decide which were working and answered the brief best?

04 Design Development + Production This section should cover the development of your idea from rough

concept to a fully developed design proposition and into production.

Include plenty of visuals here of your design development: storyboards, moodboards, campaign naming, ToV, manifesto, identity and touchpoints. Show how you have crafted and refined your idea and chosen the most suitable touchpoints and look and feel.

You can include insights and design reference into your art direction and production process. Research can help at this stage too, not just at the beginning of the project – we don’t design in a vacuum.

End this section with your final outcome.

05 Evaluation
End with an appraisal of your work. It provides conclusion/summary

at the end of your process document.

Make sure that your evaluation is honest and accurate, and provides evidence of why your solution works or what you would have done differently. What did you learn through this process and what skills or ways of working will you take with you into future projects?

Tips...

– Share your work in your own voice and be as clear as possible, it makes your project interesting and relatable to the reader. We should finish reading with a sense of your personality and design process.

– Keep your writing to the point, if it’s not relevant, don’t mention it.

– Don’t write a novel(!) and don’t just copy and paste from online sources!

– Remember - it’s a rationale and not simply a description.

– Explain why you did things: refer back to the brief, tutorials, crits, interviews with your audience, your research etc.

– Don’t admit to arbitrary decision making!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food poverty in London has risen in recent years and with the hardships and economic uncertainties of Covid-19, this is only set to worsen. Before the Coronavirus hit, 9.2 million meals were missed monthly because of food poverty in London while 13.4 million meals were wasted monthly by businesses. We look at the incredible charities and businesses connecting the dots, and redirecting food surplus to those who need it the most. See what you can do to volunteer.

THE FELIX PROJECT, LONDON

We're proud to work closely with The Felix Project, donating our surplus produce to feed those in need. The Felix Project works with producers, shops and supermarkets and other food suppliers, collecting fresh, nutritious food that can't be sold. They're not a food bank, rather they deliver this surplus food to charities and schools so they can provide healthy meals and help the most vulnerable in our society. They're in need of donations at the moment, but you can also volunteer your time. Find out more here.

OLIO, NATIONWIDE

Olio is a free neighbourhood food-sharing app, connecting neighbours who have surplus food with those who want it. Over 6.5 million portions of food have been shared on the app, helping households cut their waste while getting food into hungry bellies. The app can be used by everyone, whether you're giving away or picking up. To access food, simply browse the listings available near you and arrange a pick-up via private messaging.

CITY HARVEST, LONDON

Similar to The Felix Project, City Harvest are doing an incredible job making it easier for businesses to donate their surplus food. Ramping up their services during Covid-19, City Harvest has been working hard collecting fresh, nutritious food and delivering it to organisations, from homeless shelters to soup kitchens to children's programmes, who cook meals for those who need it. They've delivered more than 12 million meals to date. They need volunteers in their warehouse, checking and sorting food donations before they're sent out. Find out more here.

NURTURE THROUGH NATURE, BRIGHTON

An award-winning charity growing vegetables for local food banks in Brighton, Nurture through Nature works with volunteers to grow food on their local allotments. In particular, they encourage volunteers who are unemployed or isolated to join them. Find out more here.

TOO GOOD TO GO, NATIONWIDE

The food-waste-fighting app Too Good To Go lets you find and rescue food from cafés, restaurants, hotels, shops and supermarkets so it gets eaten instead of thrown away. Not a free app, Too Good To Go makes it possible to find good food at discount prices.

FARESHARE, NATIONWIDE

FareShare is the UK's longest running food redistribution charity. Over 900,000 people access FareShare's food every week that has been redistributed from businesses that would otherwise chuck it away. They have plenty of volunteer opportunities across the UK.

FOODCYCLE, NATIONWIDE

FoodCycle cooks up hot meals and serves it up to local communities. Now that many vulnerable people are unable to meet together around a table, FoodCycle now delivers nutritious, cooked meals to people's homes. There are plenty of volunteer roles, from food delivery drivers to people who can check in and chat to people isolating on their own at home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How these brands are fighting food waste & food poverty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food poverty in London has risen in recent years and with the hardships and economic uncertainties of Covid-19, this is only set to worsen. Before the Coronavirus hit, 9.2 million meals were missed monthly because of food poverty in London while 13.4 million meals were wasted monthly by businesses.

# data[].attributes.body
- Too Good to Go
- Zapp
- Olio, Nationwide
- Kellogg
- Walmart
- Yum! Brands!
-Pepsico
- Nestle
-Deliveroo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of nine people in the world goes to bed hungry, according to UN's Food and Agriculture Organization.

According to the USDA, over 49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table.

Approximately nine million people die of world hunger each year, according to humanitarian aid organization Mercy Corps: That is more than the death toll for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

Every 10 seconds, a child dies from hunger.

Reports do not paint a very pretty picture, however, the call is being answered, and some of the world's biggest food conglomerates have rallied into action to fight world hunger and malnutrition.

"If you want to eliminate hunger, everybody has to be involved." ​ - Bono, lead vocalist of U2

Here are a few examples:

Kellogg's

Kellogg's launched Breakfast for Better Days to fight food insecurity in 2013. Through the initiative's commitments, the company is helping to create three billion Better Days for people and communities by the end of 2025.

The breakfast cereal giant donates to food banks around the world and supports school breakfast programs, while its staff volunteer in community kitchens and gardens.

Kellogg's has also collaborated with Feeding America and The Global FoodBanking Network to make it easier for people to fight hunger by donating the foods hungry families request most from food banks across the globe.

More recently, it launched its sixth annual 'Fight Hunger. Spark Change.' campaign, in association with Walmart, Sam's Club and Feeding America to encourage Americans to act in the fight against hunger.

General Mills

General Mills serves as a founding partner of Feeding America, the Global FoodBanking Network and Partners in Food Solutions, enabling more than 201 million meals through food donations globally since 2010.

The Cheerios maker has also partnered with MealConnect to recover and distribute more than 575 million pounds of surplus food in partnership with 90 food banks, facilitate more than 1.2 million food pickups and support more than 4,200 non-profit hunger relief organizations since 2014.

The company hosts the annual Feeding Better Futures Scholars Program, calling on young innovators across North America for solutions on hunger relief, food waste and sustainable agriculture.

PepsiCo

PepsiCo is a partner of the UN's World Food Program (WFP), dedicated to reducing global hunger by offering food aid to developing countries in need. WFP has provided food for more than 90 million people.

World hunger statistics

More than 840 million people suffer from hunger worldwide - almost 12% of the world's population of 7.1 billion people

98% of those live in developing countries - more than 550 million in Asia Pacific; over 220 million in Sub-Saharan Africa; and more than 40 million in Latin America/Caribbean.

The regions that have made the greatest progress towards ending world hunger have been Latin America and South-East Asia. Conversely, the number of hungry people in Sub-Saharan Africa rose from 176 million to over 220 million between 1992 and 2014.

India has the highest population of hungry people.

Approximately nine million people die of hunger each year, including 3.1 million children.

Malnutrition is a primary symptom of hunger.

Globally, 40% of preschool-age children are estimated to suffer from an iron deficiency, while every year, 200-500 thousand go blind from a vitamin A deficiency.

Malnutrition causes stunting (low height for a child's age). In 2013, it was estimated that more than 160 million children under the age of five were stunted worldwide.

It also causes wasting (low weight for a child's age). In 2013, it was estimated that more than 50 million children under the age of five were wasted.

Poverty is the number one cause of world hunger. The World Bank estimated that 10.7% of the world's population, or 767 million people, lived on less than $1.90 per day in 2013.

The snack giant's philanthropic arm, the PepsiCo Foundation, invested $3.5m in a public-private partnership with the WFP and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to produce a food product made of chickpeas to help treat malnutrition in Ethiopia.

Panera Bread

Panera Bread helps fight poverty by giving back to its communities through programs like the Day-End Dough-Nation, which donates $100m worth of retail goods annually to feed those in need.

At the end of each day, the company's network of over 2,000 bakery-café fast casual restaurants across the US provide unsold bakery items to hunger relief agencies.

In 2010, the company's non-profit foundation created Panera Cares, a pay-what-you-can line of restaurants - each site serving approximately 3,500 people every week. The last Panera Cares restaurant was closed at the beginning of this year, after the sandwich chain said the experiment aimed to combat hunger was 'no longer viable.'

Campbell Soup

In 2011, Campbell unveiled its plan to reduce childhood obesity and hunger in Camden, New Jersey, Campbell's home since 1869. The company has committed a $10m investment over 10 years to halve childhood obesity and hunger in the town's population of 23,000 children.

The company is also committed to fighting hunger around the world. For example, in 2016, it launched a pop-up Soup Exchange in Sydney to serve up 43,000 serving of soup. For every serving, Campbell donated soup to hunger relief charity Foodbank to fight Aussie hunger.

Nestlé

Nestlé's annual 'day of service' initiative, Nestlé Cares, unites its eight operating companies in 47 US states to make a difference through more than 150 events.

Last year, the company expanded its 25-year partnership with Feeding America, the largest domestic hunger-relief organization in the US. In the past five years, Nestlé has donated more than 100 million pounds of food and water to support more than 185 Feeding America food banks, including those in communities affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017.

The snacking giant also collaborates with SAVE FOOD, a group that works with the UN's FAO, to create awareness and help prevent food loss. Its efforts include responsible sourcing and consumer education, as well as working with the World Resources Institute to develop a global standard to measure and evaluate food loss and waste in the food supply chain.

Grupo Bimbo

Together with Mexican bakery giant Grupo Bimbo, Nestlé signed up with the #SinDesperdicio (Without Waste) platform - led by the Inter-American Development Bank - to fight food waste in the Latam region. Annually, more than 127m tons of food are wasted, while almost 42 million people in the region are acutely undernourished.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The food companies committed to fighting world hunger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of nine people in the world goes to bed hungry, according to UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. According to the USDA, over 49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table. Approximately nine million people die of world hunger each year, according to humanitarian aid organization Mercy Corps: That is more than the death toll for AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We believe Breakfast leads to Better Days - we provide breakfast to 25 000 school children in South Africa.

We Nourish Greatness

We believe that starting the day with a full tummy is essential for helping kids get the most out of their school day, and we are proud to be doing our part in fighting hunger here in South Africa, and around the world.

In 2014, we launched the Breakfast for Better Days initiative in South Africa, this began as a global promise to donate 1 billion serves of cereal and snacks to those most in need in our communities.

All schools on this program were selected by the Department of Education and were identified as non-fee-paying schools serving communities affected by unemployment and poverty. Food Forward South Africa facilitates the distribution of Kellogg's® cereals and long-life milk, to 44 different schools across the country. There is a strong focus towards the low socioeconomic communities across PE, Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg.

We now have 25 000 learners receiving a nutritious breakfast every school day. Over 95% of our learners are classified as previously disadvantaged, and they are a combination of male and female learners between the ages of 5 and 13.

This access to food gives learners the nutrition they need to develop in line with other children and provide the energy needed to stay focused in class. Since many of the children do not have enough nutritious food at home - this breakfast is often the only meal they get for the day.

The positive results of the successful delivery of 125 000 breakfasts per week is*:

Increased and timeous learner & teacher attendance.

Increased learners' attention spans, positively impacting on learning in class.

Improved learner self-esteem and increased participation in class.

Parents are showing more interest in the education of their children and are assisting with serving breakfast to the learners.

At Kellogg's®, we believe that breakfast is important to help kids have a better day and unlock their full potential.
*National School Nutrition Programme report on Kellogg's® South Africa Breakfast Initiative July 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Nourish Greatness | Kellogg's South Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We believe Breakfast leads to Better Days - we provide breakfast to 25 000 school children in South Africa. We Nourish Greatness We believe that starting the day with a full tummy is essential for helping kids get the most out of their school day, and we are proud to be doing our part in fighting hunger here in South Africa, and around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We still provide South African families with breakfasts that lead to better days, and still flake our corn the same way W.K. Kellogg did back in 1898.

Discover Our Best Days

1898 - In a fortunately failed attempt at making a cereal of wheats, oats and cornmeal clusters, our company's founder, W.K. Kellogg, and his brother, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, changed breakfast forever when they accidentally flaked wheat berries. W.K. kept experimenting until he flaked corn, and created the delicious recipe for Kellogg's® Corn Flakes.

1906 -W.K. Kellogg opened the "Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company" and carefully hired his first 44 employees. Together they created the initial batch of Kellogg's® Corn Flakes and brought to life W.K.'s vision for great-tasting, better-for-you breakfast.

1914 - Kellogg's® Corn Flakes were introduced to a new country: Canada (Later the Kellogg Company would spread the goodness of grains around the world by opening factories in South Africa, Australia, England, Mexico, Japan, India and more). Today Kellogg's® brightens breakfast in over 180 countries around the world.

1923 - The Kellogg Company made a bold move and became the first in the food industry to hire a dietitian. Mary Barber started the Kellogg's® Home Economics Department and began defining the roles different foods played in proper diets.

1928 - Rice Krispies® are invented.

1930 - The W.K. Kellogg Foundation was founded, with the mission to help children realise their full potential.

1948 - A manufacturing plant is opened in Springs, South Africa.

1969 - The Kellogg Company was honored to provide breakfast for the legendary Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins during their ground-breaking Apollo 11 trip to the moon.

1997 - We opened the W.K. Kellogg Institute for Food and Nutrition Research - where food scientists, nutritionists and engineers transform wholesome grains and other ingredients into great-tasting and good-for-your-family foods.

2006 - The Kellogg Company celebrated our 100-year commitment to nutrition, health and quality.

2014 - We took a big step towards helping our community by launching Breakfast for Better Days - a breakfast feeding scheme that allows us to serve breakfast cereals to schools across South Africa. Breakfast is the most important meal of a child's life because of the impact it has in unlocking their potential. We are currently giving a nutritious breakfast to over 25 000 learners every school day.

Today - We're proudly upholding the values W.K. Kellogg instilled more than 100 years ago - but now we're doing it in 180 countries across the world. We still provide you and your family with breakfasts that lead to better days, and we flake corn the same way W.K. Kellogg did back in 1898.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discover Our Best Days | Kellogg's South Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We still provide South African families with breakfasts that lead to better days, and still flake our corn the same way W.K. Kellogg did back in 1898. Discover Our Best Days 1898 - In a fortunately failed attempt at making a cereal of wheats, oats and cornmeal clusters, our company's founder, W.K.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PURCHASE, N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP) announced a new goal to help 50 million people gain ready access to nutritious foods by 2030 (2020 baseline) through its Food for Good food security program and the expansion of PepsiCo's affordable nutrition offerings as part of its PepsiCo Positive (pep+) journey.

This new goal is in addition to PepsiCo's recently announced support for the Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge, pledging $100 million in positive agriculture and food security initiatives by 2030, including training farmers and helping strengthen agricultural production with plans to increase crop yields and help ensure a more resilient food supply.

To achieve these goals, PepsiCo is expanding globally Food for Good, a childhood nutrition program founded in the United States, by partnering with local leaders on their needs to develop community-centric solutions together. The company aims to evolve and expand Food for Good and this community-centric approach to advance long-term food security for people of all ages through collaboration with local partners around the world, by investing in solutions that increase equitable access to nutritious food and increase productivity and incomes of small-scale farmers. New investments include:

A $1 million grant to World Food Programme (WFP) to co-create a multi-country partnership in the Middle East and North Africa, focusing on improving long-term food security needs of communities affected by climate change, conflict, natural disasters and humanitarian crises. This grant builds upon a decade-long partnership with WFP.

The expansion of She Feeds the World, a partnership with CARE to ensure gender equality and economic empowerment for women agriculture workers across the globe, into Colombia, Nigeria, Turkey, Thailand and Vietnam in 2022. The program is currently active in Uganda, Egypt and Peru.

Quaker is partnering with regional NGOs CARE and Un Kilo de Ayuda to scale interventions to combat childhood malnourishment, with programs like Quaker Qrece, a holistic intervention that provides a specialized food product and education in at-risk communities in Guatemala and Mexico. The brand is also expanding the range of nutritious and affordable products including the 3 Minutos brand it offers in Mexico. In early 2022, Quaker plans to launch a new, affordable nutritious product in Nigeria. In Africa, Pioneer Foods will also continue to grow their portfolio of affordable, nutritious options.

"The world is facing a dire global hunger crisis, which has only been exacerbated by the pandemic," said Jon Banner, Executive Vice President, PepsiCo Global Communications and President, The PepsiCo Foundation. "As a leading global food and beverage company, we have a critical role to play in realizing a more equitable global food system to ensure the communities we serve are free from hunger and malnutrition. We are proud to leverage our global capabilities in collaboration with local community partners in new ways, but it is just one step in a long journey toward realizing zero hunger and ensuring a sustainable future for all."

These global commitments come at a critical time. Currently, roughly 800 million people around the world are suffering from hunger and recent estimates show that more than 40% of the world's population cannot afford a healthy diet. This increased number of people suffering from malnourishment are at a greater risk of COVID-19 infection and death.

"We are grateful to PepsiCo for their decade-long partnership and steadfast support as we work to defeat global hunger," said World Food Program USA President and CEO Barron Segar. "PepsiCo's critical investments in sustainable agriculture and building the resilience of small-scale farmers are helping us make great progress in addressing the root causes of hunger."

During the pandemic, PepsiCo supported more than 1,000 communities across the world, providing more than $71 million in funding and donations and more than 145 million meals to those in need. For more than a decade, PepsiCo has advanced food security by solving unique challenges faced by local communities. By bringing all its regional nutrition-related programs under Food for Good, PepsiCo will be able to better leverage their global capabilities and strive to reach their goal of making nutritious food readily accessible to more than 50 million people by 2030.

Additional Food for Good programs includes a meal delivery initiative spanning across Latin America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Asia Pacific, a nutrition education program for students in rural China, a nutritious school breakfast service for students in South Africa, positive agriculture programs in southern Mexico, as well as investment in increased capabilities of food banks around the world.

In Europe, programs include partnerships with food banks to nourish communities by donating meals and building critical distribution infrastructure, as well as development projects to provide long-term food security for regional agricultural workers. Programs have already launched in Poland, Germany, Spain, Turkey and Russia with more to follow over the coming months.

Over the past year, PepsiCo has accelerated its efforts to help make the food system more sustainable, regenerative and inclusive. PepsiCo recently launched its most ambitious effort yet by embracing a bold new approach called pep+ (pep Positive) - a strategic end-to-end transformation, with sustainability at the center of how the company will create growth and value by operating within planetary boundaries and inspiring positive change for the planet and people.

To learn more about the pep+ agenda, please visit www.pepsico.com/pepsicopositive. For more information about PepsiCo's food security work and how other organizations can join forces with Food for Good, please go to pepsicofoodforgood.com.

About PepsiCo

PepsiCo products are enjoyed by consumers more than one billion times a day in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. PepsiCo generated more than $70 billion in net revenue in 2020, driven by a complementary food and beverage portfolio that includes Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Pepsi-Cola, Quaker, Tropicana, and SodaStream. PepsiCo's product portfolio includes a wide range of enjoyable foods and beverages, including 23 brands that generate more than $1 billion each in estimated annual retail sales. Guiding PepsiCo is our vision to Be the Global Leader in Convenient Foods and Beverages by Winning with Purpose. "Winning with Purpose" reflects our ambition to win sustainably in the marketplace and embed purpose into all aspects of our business strategy and brands. For more information, visit www.pepsico.com.

About The PepsiCo Foundation

Established in 1962, The PepsiCo Foundation, the philanthropic arm of PepsiCo, invests in the essential elements of a sustainable food system with a mission to support thriving communities. Working with non-profits and experts around the globe, we're focused on helping communities obtain access to food security, safe water and economic opportunity. We strive for tangible impact in the places where we live and work-collaborating with industry peers, local and international organizations, and our employees to affect large-scale change on the issues that matter to us and are of global importance. Learn more at www.pepsico.com/sustainability/philanthropy.

SOURCE PepsiCo Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PepsiCo Announces A New Goal To Advance Food Security For 50 Million People By 2030

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PURCHASE, N.Y., Nov. 16, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP) announced a new goal to help 50 million people gain ready access to nutritious foods by 2030 (2020 baseline) through its Food for Good food security program and the expansion of PepsiCo's affordable nutrition offerings as part of its PepsiCo Positive (pep+) journey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We can all agree, it's been a year. But we hope there is light at the end of the tunnel. As we head towards 2021, with the potential for an effective COVID-19 vaccine on the horizon, many of us are daring to breathe (just a little) sigh of relief. But it's important to note, it's not over yet. And while we're all in the same coronavirus storm, not everyone is in the same boat.

Every day, millions of Americans experience food insecurity. Even before the pandemic, 13.7 million households were food insecure at some point in 2019. While vital for reducing the virus spread, lockdowns and stay-at-home orders have hit many hard financially. Making it more difficult to put food on the table. In 2020, Feeding America estimates one in six people could experience hunger.

But, in times of uncertainty, it's good to remember that the world is filled with helpers. Many vegan businesses have stepped up to support others through the ups and downs of 2020. Here are just a few examples of those who have gone above and beyond to feed vulnerable people this year.

5 Vegan Brands Fighting Food Insecurity

1. Kate Farms

Kate Farms specializes in nutritious plant-based shakes and tube-feeding formulas. Back in April, it donated $500,000 worth of products to California's Meals on Wheels West. A global program that delivers food to vulnerable individuals.

The donation helped the Californian branch of the organization to provide meals to vulnerable seniors, the chronically ill, veterans, and many other at-risk individuals.

John Hommeyer, Kate Farms' Chief Experience Officer, said in a statement: "Now is the time to come together to support Americans who are most at risk. "The plant-based brand also partnered with Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and The Campaign Against Hunger earlier this year. Together, they delivered 20,000 vegan nutrition shakes to vulnerable seniors and people experiencing food insecurity in Brooklyn.

And earlier this month, as New York City prepares for a second wave of the virus, the brand again teamed up with Adams to donate vegan shakes to residents and staff at the Signature Senior Center in Midwood.

Find out more about Kate Farms here.

2. Support + Feed

The new vegan initiative Support + Feed was founded by Maggie Baird in March, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baird, mom to Grammy-award winning musician Billie Eilish and producer Finneas O'Connell, created the organization to help struggling families, vulnerable individuals, and plant-based businesses.

The idea is simple: people place an order with their favorite vegan restaurant, but the food is then delivered to those who need it. Since April, the initiative has donated nearly 50,000 meals.

Its mission statement reads: "Support + Feed provides plant-based meals prepared by local vegan restaurants to people experiencing food insecurity, particularly in BIPOC communities, with several end goals: nourishing and providing educational materials to those in need, supporting the small business community, and positively impacting the climate crisis. "

In July, LIVEKINDLY sponsored a donation of 500 Support + Feed meals to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro LA. The non-profit organization works to support vulnerable children in some of Los Angeles's most underserved neighborhoods. It aims to help young people achieve "their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens."

Baird told LIVEKINDLY: "We were so inspired by and excited to choose the Boys and Girls Club of Metro LA for this partnership. They do incredible work in their communities and are helping so many children and families. We just want to support their mission, be an ally to their work, and provide them with healthy plant-based meals. It's really an honor to work with them." Find out more about Support + Feed and how to get involved here.

3. Chilis on Wheels

Michelle Carrera founded Chilis on Wheels six years ago, after she was unable to find a vegan soup kitchen to volunteer at in New York City. She made a pot of vegan chili and took it out onto the street to distribute to vulnerable people. And Chilis on Wheels was born. Now, it has grown into a vegan charity that provides hunger-relief across the U.S.

The organization strives to dismantle systemic barriers to healthy, plant-based eating. Carrera told LIVEKINDLY last year that these barriers include: "food deserts, lack of time for cooking when having to work more than one job, and lack of access to a kitchen due to inequalities in housing." Throughout this year, Chilis on Wheels has worked tirelessly to provide vegan food to those who need it in New York. It has distributed meals to students no longer receiving their school meals as well as families struggling to put food on the table. It has also hosted "micro food pantry neighborhood tables" in various locations, including Crown Heights and Bushwick. Essentially, these are tables stocked up with essentials for neighbors-in-need to take from.

It has also continued with its hot meal shares; every Saturday in Tompkins Square Park and Sunnyside Queens, and every Friday in Harlem, the organization provides hot meals to those going through houselessness and food insecurity.

Carrera said last year: "Our meal shares are places where we all come to eat, to gather, to connect, to grow."Find out more about Chilis on Wheels and how to get involved here.

4. Incogmeato by Morningstar Farms

According to Feeding America, food banks across the U.S. are struggling to keep up with demand. Visitors have increased by around 60 percent. In particular, they are grappling to close the "protein gap," due to shortages of fresh protein.

In response to this news, Incogmeato by Morningstar Farms, a vegan and veggie meat company owned by Kelloggs, is donating $1 million worth of plant-based protein to Feeding America. The donation will be made in the name of Prissy Pig, one of the brand's "spokesanimals," who was voted for in a social media competition.

Blake Thompson, Feeding America's chief supply chain officer, said the organization is "grateful" for the "much-needed protein." He added: "Their generosity helps food banks provide more nourishing food to our neighbors during this challenging time. We are thankful for their commitment to fighting hunger and for helping to address the increased need in our communities."

Find out more about Incogmeato here.

5. Beyond Meat

Plant-based meat company Beyond Meat announced its Feed a Million+ initiative back in April. It revealed it would be working with its dedicated partners to donate and distribute more than one million Beyond Burgers to food banks, hospitals, community centers, and other "frontline organizations" across the country.

A number of celebrities got involved to help the brand with its pledge, including Kevin Hart, Lindsey Vonn, P.K. Subban, Karlie Kloss, Snoop Dogg, Todd Gurley, Joaquin Phoenix, and Rooney Mara.

In a video announcing their support for the initiative earlier this year, Phoenix and Mara revealed they had chosen three organizations in Los Angeles working to support young people going through food insecurity and homelessness: The Midnight Mission, The Urban School Food Alliance, and My Friend's Place.

Food insecurity isn't going away, but these vegan businesses and initiatives show that vulnerable people are not alone. To make your own donation to Feeding America and support food banks across the country, see here.

About the author

Senior Editor, UK | Southsea, United Kingdom Charlotte writes about sustainable beauty, fashion, food, and culture. She has a bachelor's degree in history and a postgraduate certificate in cultural heritage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can all agree, it's been a year. But we hope there is light at the end of the tunnel. As we head towards 2021, with the potential for an effective COVID-19 vaccine on the horizon, many of us are daring to breathe (just a little) sigh of relief.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Actionagainsthunger.org.uk

2. eurofoodbank.org

3. Food For Life Global

4. The Hunger Project

5. Share the Meal

6. Uunited Nations world Food Programme

# data[].attributes.body
Pepsi Co
Give Meals, Give Hope
45 million $
PepsiCo Foundation
$7.7 million in Europe
Established in 1962, The PepsiCo Foundation, the philanthropic arm of PepsiCo, invests in the essential elements of a sustainable food system with a mission to support thriving communities. Working with non-profits and experts around the globe, we're focused on helping alleviate hunger, managing water and waste responsibly and supporting women as champions of nutrition from farm to family. We strive for tangible impact in the places where we live and work—collaborating with industry peers, local and international organizations, and our employees to affect large-scale change on the issues that matter to us and are of global importance. Learn more at www.pepsico.com/sustainability/philanthropy.

# data[].attributes.body
“We want to inspire people to think outside the box...”
“Our aim is to better people's lifes.”
“Our purpose is to connect what people have too much to the people who need it...”
Raise awareness for how 'easy' it is to donate, if informed right

Why..

Why are we doing this? What do we want to achieve in the long run? This is our VISION.

- massive gap in education about food security
- food poverty affects too many people

This is the ideal outcome of your campaign. What does the future you want to see look like? Who is benefitting?

“To create a better future for those who need it”
“To raise awareness of food insecurity”
"To create a staple future"

“We want to [mission] to [vision]”
We want to stable the staple
We want to distribute what can be shared

# data[].attributes.body
a set of values, beliefs, aims and (possibly) objectives.
It can quickly share the purpose of a brand or campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
Brand Values:

Adventure
Educate
Donate
Integrate
Empathy
Passion
Sustainability
Quality
Change
Courage
Sharing
Innovation
Cooperation
Vision

# data[].attributes.body
We are...

Straight forward: The message is clear

# data[].attributes.body
Belief: You get what you give
Mission: Get Educated, Be inspired make a change
Vision: A Global Movement to bring attention to a basic human right
Idea: Build a Network of innovative and interested Peers
Values:  Innovation, Cooperation, Vision, Empathy, Change
Promises: Positive Impact, Mutually Rewarding System, Encouraged / Motivated to make a change, Education about food insecurity
Spirit: You get what you give

# data[].attributes.body
One might think that in this day and age, everyone has access to the most simplest human necessity to survive.

Food.
Unfortunately this is far from the truth.

One might think that one person won’t make a difference and hence doesn’t read beyond the headline.

Unfortunately this accounts to the current global state of food insecurity.

One might think, I don’t know anyone who is in this position, so it doesn’t affect me.

Sadly, 1 in 10 people can’t afford to eat in the UK.

Do you know 10 people?

Accepting Facts is important, but what is more important is to act upon emergency.

And this, is an emergency!

Here at … we want to educate, inspire and teach you how easy it can be to make a change.

Besides the obvious good deed, Rewards for good actions await you too!

Come join this enthusiastic and concious community of open-minded thinkers to change our world, one Donation at a time!

Find out more!

(Image of QR code)

# data[].attributes.body
INTENTION:

a thing intended; an aim or plan.

Take some time to answer the following questions

1. What am I trying to do / find out?

I want to build a community of engaged and excited people, spread awareness about food insecurity and how "easy" it actually is to help others

2. How am I using the outputs / findings ?

By filling out questionaires, liking content the algorithm will find the best company for your donation / reward.

# data[].attributes.body
TONE:

the general character or attitude of a place, piece of writing, situation, etc.

1. What will my workshop feel like?

- Welcoming
- Not judgemental about not being informed
- Accessible

What parameters / tools are available to me?

# data[].attributes.body
PARTICIPANTS

a person who takes part in something.

• How do participants find out about the workshop?

- Street Advertisement
- Newspaper
- Social Media

• Are they invited or is it open to all? Is it offered to specific people?
- Open to all

•Do participants know each other or are they meeting for the first time?
- May vary, but probaly meeting for first time

•If they do not know each other, how are they introduced to each other?

- Each Person is free to to introduce themselves, no one is pressured to

# data[].attributes.body
FIRST IMPRESSIONS

The initial things that might happen in a space / event that might affect the rest of its course.

• Where are the participants? [Location / space]

• How do participants enter the space?

• What music is playing in the background?

• How is the furniture laid out?

• If online, what are the platform settings?

• what is the first sentence of the facilitator?

# data[].attributes.body
MAINS

Take some time to answer the following questions

• How long is the workshop?

• What kind of things might people say?

• How do you want participants to feel?

• What is the seating like?

• What is the lighting like in there?

• What materials are needed?

# data[].attributes.body
AFTER CARE

the care, treatment, help, or supervision given to persons discharged from an institution

Take some time to answer the following questions

• How does it end?

• How is it documented?

• How are you using the workshop outputs?

• Do people hand around after?

• Do you keep in touch? If so, how?

# data[].attributes.body
Awareness-> Consideration -> Decision -> Delight

# data[].attributes.body
Awareness:
print adverts, online adverts, social media, direct mail, influencers

considerstion: website, events, trade shows, newsletter, promotions, reviews

Decision: E-cmmerce, App, Shopping experience, Staff interaction, Packaging, Delivery

Delight: Reviews/ Shares, Engages on social, loyalty card etc

# data[].attributes.body
Food waste - Food poverty
alein erziehende Frauen -
daycare provided with food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 44:49•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK's Child Poverty: When Families Can't Afford Food | Through A Child's Eyes | Only Human

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 10:41•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
0:00 / 0:30•Watch full video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside a London Food Bank | Kathy Burke: Money Talks | Channel 4