Written evidence submitted by Tim Lang, PhD, FFPH, Hon DSc, Professor Emeritus of Food Policy, Centre for Food Policy City, University of London and Dr Kelly Parsons, Postdoctoral Research Associate, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge (FS0095)

A Note on Food Security Metrics

Requested by the EFRA Committee, House of Commons following hearings (Dec 2021)

Tim Lang[1] and Kelly Parsons[2]

January 17, 2023

Contents

Introduction

Food security as cross-cutting themes

Determinants of food security

The UK: the politics of food security metrics

The need for clarity about consumption indicators

Recommendations to the EFRA Committee

References

Introduction

The literature on Food Security is vast, so it is unsurprising that the meaning and focus of the term has grown and altered over time. Like all social constructs it is subject to interpretation and debate. This note is written to help clarify the value and use of Food Security metrics for policy-making in the UK. We argue that the definition and meaning of Food Security has broadened and become more sophisticated over time, as knowledge of the complexity of food systems has developed. Therefore, any UK Food Security indicators and metrics should represent the known mix of determinants and impacts at different levels of existence, from the national to the household, taking international conditions and vulnerabilities into account.

Food security as cross-cutting themes

The term Food Security first emerged in the 1970s and has grown into being one of the key concepts in modern agri-food policy discourse. Its use grew from the realization that the goal of ending hunger - enshrined in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)1 - did not clarify what processes and conditions are required to prevent hunger.2 If hunger is the negative state of affairs, what is the positive state? Food security thus became useful for policy-makers because it opened the space to articulate clearer end-goals than simply hunger eradication, complex though that is. The discourse, however, was still shaped by an assumption that the lack of food was due to food supply failures, i.e. mostly but not entirely the lack or under-performance of primary production. Over time, the concept of Food Security has been broadened to include social, political and environmental conditions which would underpin a better, more just food system. The choice of metrics thus matters. This note suggests that the UK deserves better and more coherent metrics but this can only come when and if policy goals are also clarified.

In 1974, the first major global gathering to review food systems since World War ll defined the aspiration still in UNDHR terms thus: "every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop their physical and mental faculties".3 The implication was that provision of food is the key metric. By the 1980s, the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) was now using the term Food Security and seeing it as the connection of three issues: production of adequate food supplies, stability of those supplies, and access to them.4   By 1996, the UN World Food Summit, a follow-up to the 1974 Conference, broadened this to four themes (see Table 1): availability, access, utilization and stability. 5

 

Table 1. 1996 World Food Summit four elements for Food Security

Theme

What it means

Availability

Physical availability of food; ensuring enough food is produced

Access

Economic and physical access to food; ensuring people can get to the food and are able to afford it

Utilization

Food utilization; making the best use of food and minimising wastage

Stability

Stability of the above; building confidence that the above can be delivered over time.

Source: FAO 19965

 

Practical experience of famine management and international development added variations such as the differentiation between :

And by the 2000s, more specific indicators were being endorsed such as in the 2008 Integrated Phased Classification. This presented Food Security as a continuum or range of conditions, from the desirable status of being generally food secure to the undesirable one of famine and humanitarian catastrophe (see Table 2).6 Inexorably, understanding of Food Security had to broaden and deepen to include the conditions under which it either flourished or failed. In modern parlance, how could policy-makers move upstream to prevent food insecurity?

 

Table 2: the Integrated Phased Classification of Food Security, 2008

IPC Phase Classification*

Indicators

Generally food secure

 

-          Crude mortality rate

-          Malnutrition prevalence

-          Food access/availability

-          Dietary diversity

-          Water access/availability

-          Copying strategies

-          Livelihood assets

Chronically food insecure

 

Acute food and livelihood crisis

 

Humanitarian emergency

 

Famine/humanitarian catastrophe

 

Source: FAO 20086  / * the green to red colour coding is the FAO’s

 

This conceptual refinement continues today. In 2020, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) of the UN adopted a new six category approach, formulated by its High Level Panel of Experts.7 8 This added two new categories to the 1996 four: Agency and Sustainability (see Table 3).

 

Table 3: The Committee on World Food Security’s 6 Dimensions of Food Security, 2020

Dimension

Explanation

Availability

Having a quantity and quality of food sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of
individuals, free from adverse substances and acceptable within a given culture,
supplied through domestic production or imports.

Access (economic, social and physical)

Having personal or household financial means to acquire food for an adequate
diet at a level to ensure that satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised; and that adequate food is accessible to everyone, including vulnerable individuals and groups.

Utilization

Having an adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met.

Stability

Having the ability to ensure food security in the event of sudden shocks (e.g. an
economic, health, conflict or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food
insecurity).

Agency

Individuals or groups having the capacity to act independently to make choices
about what they eat, the foods they produce, how that food is produced, processed, and distributed, and to engage in policy processes that shape food systems. The protection of agency requires socio-political systems that uphold governance structures that enable the achievement of food security and nutrition for all.

Sustainability

Food system practices that contribute to long-term regeneration of natural, social and economic systems, ensuring the food needs of the present generations are met without compromising the food needs of future generations.

source: HPLE / CFS 20207

 

Determinants of food security

While this amplification and clarification of the determinants of Food Security gathered pace over the last 30 years, environmental and other considerations were being forcefully championed by scientists within and beyond the UN and national governments.9 10 They asked how Food Security can be clarified unless there are also measures of determinants which underpin it such as energy, income, ecosystems and socio-cultural drivers (see Table 4).

 

Table 4: Wider determinants of Food Security

Determinant

Why relevant

Illustrative indicators

Energy use

Availability enables production, processing, transporting and cooking

Embedded carbon; lifecycle analyses

Income

 

Sufficient income and socio-economic factors shape whether decent diets are affordable, both at the household and national levels

Cost of a decent diet; proportion of expenditure on food;

Ecosystems and environment

soil, water, climate and biodiversity are the infrastructure on which food systems (and life) depend

Water, carbon and biodiversity footprints; planetary boundaries; contribution of agri-food to impacts

Society and culture

social filters such as age, gender, religion and culture affect the distribution of food and determine levels of waste

Wage rates; gini-coefficients; intra-household distribution; waste rates

Source: authors

 

In 2023, the European Commission (EC) published a Working Document identifying 25 drivers of Food Security.11 These collectively provide a much more diverse set of indicators than the FAO’s original 1996 four themes (see Table 5). They reflect the broadening of European policy away from the farm-focused Common Agricultural Policy to the now more appropriate food systems framework illustrated by policies such as the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Green Deal,12 a modernization the UK encouraged when a member of the EU. The 25 driver metrics proposed by the EC could be borrowed and modified by the UK, not least since they will be applied to where the UK still derives the majority of its food imports.

They symbolize the recognition that in a time of climate change, biodiversity loss and socio-economic uncertainty, farming and food systems need to be reoriented around more accurate and relevant indicators than have been used in the past. Quality not just quantity of production; infrastructure and inputs not just short-term gains; protection and enhancement not just minimum standards. It is no longer adequate for affluent societies to be content for supermarket shelves to be full. We now have to ask: how? and with what hidden impacts and resource use? and at what cost to future generations? Countries need to plan for how food systems can adapt and become more resilient faced by known threats and trends, and by the possibility of the unexpected disruptions as shown by the Ukraine war. This is why the term resilience loosely meaning the capacity to bounce back after shock, possibly to a different level of normality - is now much used and is seen as a desirable feature of Food Security. One could ask, for instance, whether the capacity for resilience is guaranteed by sound intelligence on the EC’s 25.

 

Table 5: The European Commission’s list of 25 drivers of food security, 2023

Climate change

Trade

Farm income

Conflict

Environmental pollution

Speculation in agricultural commodity markets

Access to finance

Generational renewal

Soil health

Energy prices

Household income

Food choices

Pests & diseases

Fertilisers

Competing land and crop uses

Demographic trends

Biodiversity

Pesticide use

Supply chain performance

 

Research, innovation & technology

Availability of workers

Food loss and waste

Intensity of production

Agricultural and consumer food prices

Governance & legislative framework

Source: European Commission 202311

 

The European Commission’s approach recognizes the systemic, complex and connected nature of food security drivers. It recognises that activities in food systems are connected and involve feed-back loops.11 For example, climate change leads to biodiversity losses as species are unable to cope with unprecedented local environmental conditions, while biodiversity loss affects climate change through loss of carbon from degraded soil and from reduced forest coverage. Reduced species diversity and novel climatic conditions favour spread of invasive species and outbreaks of pests and diseases, leading to further negative impacts on biodiversity, and potentially increased pesticide use, negatively impacting soil health, and so on.  

Analysts are currently working to identify if some connections are more important than others: is climate change the most important driver or are biodiversity and energy use as important, for example? Pending such studies, any new set of realistic and policy-relevant Food Security metrics must capture the complexity of modern food systems.  Multi-criteria metrics are required for today’s realities of multi-level governance (global, intergovernmental, regional, national, local), multi-sector supply chains (from farm inputs, land, processing, retail, food service, to consumption and waste, etc.), multi-sector political impacts (on jobs, health, environment, culture, social cohesion, etc), and multi-actor engagements (by state, commerce, civil society, science, etc). Mapping food systems is a prerequisite for rational food policy-making even at a national level.13

 

The UK: the politics of food security metrics

The UK has form here. With the 1815 Corn Laws, Parliament made a post Napoleonic Wars decision to restrict imports. Tariffs (taxes) at borders were imposed, designed to keep cheaper imports out and to maintain high food prices and bolster home production. This unleashed thirty years of intra- political tension over the price of food in relation to wages, culminating in the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws. The repeal had long been sought by traders, industrialists and the burgeoning urban population hostile to higher food prices.14 Over the late 19th century, home production gradually declined while cheaper imported food grew, only for levels of self-sufficiency again to become politically critical indicators in time of war. The high level of imports exposed military and morale vulnerabilities.15 16 Today, self-sufficiency is not generally given a high profile in UK politics, despite the heavy and continuing reliance on external sources particularly from the EU. This confidence may not last. In 2021, the Defra UK Food Security Report gave an overview of what used to be termed the ‘food trade gap’, using ONS and HMRC data.17

Published in December 2021, this report was the first of what is intended to be a triennial report, required by the 2020 Agriculture Act.18 The report drew on the literature of determinants of Food Security and provided a list of indicators, grouped under five themes (see Table 6). While many of the indicators are of interest and important, there is insufficient congruence between the themes and terms of this report and the wider Food Security discourse. The EC document, by contrast, is perhaps clearer about key determinants but they would benefit from better classification and linkage.

 

Table 6: themes and example indicators in the UK Food Security Report 2021

Themes

Illustration of indicators (among many)

  1. Global Food availability

Global output per capita; cereal yield growth rates by region;

  1. UK Food Supply Sources

UK production capability; current land area in production

  1. Food supply chain resilience

Business resilience and response; energy dependence in food sectors

  1. Food Security at household level

Food expenditure growth compared to other household spending growth; low income households’ share of spending on food

  1. Food safety and consumer confidence

Consumer confidence in the food system and its regulation; consumer concerns

Source: Defra 202117

 

Another weakness is that the list of indicators in the UK Food Security Report are detached from any policy implications. There are no clear targets or associated actions or even policy implications, let alone responsible bodies. The document makes clear that it is not intended to be a policy document and it sidesteps political choices when what is needed are precisely those indicators that can benefit those political choices. Key among these today are questions such as whether the UK could or should produce more of its own food as long as it is sustainably produced, or rely on others’ land and labour. These political judgements underpin the viability of metrics. What level of production is possible or desirable? And could they be met? These are political choices.

If the intention was that the 2021 Government Food Strategy report should be that policy framework, its connection to the indicators the Defra report provides is unclear.19 The Defra UK Food Security Report stated, for example, using a production-to-supply ratio, that 54% of what was on UK plates was UK produced (p85), down from the early 1980s. Elsewhere, it used the same 54% figure as based on unprocessed value at farmgate (p95). And, again 54% was the figure for home production of vegetables (p103). This took little note of whether UK consumption of vegetables (and other foods) was either sustainable or adequate in health terms, or of whether the UK could produce more even if it wanted to.

This is surely what should be required. We recommend the government create new calculations of production-to-consumption ratios for a healthy and sustainable diets, not just of what is currently consumed. Consumption of fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy are all at odds with scientific recommendations. Consumption is shaped by many drivers, particularly household income. The UK consumes an unhealthy diet that externalizes its costs onto the NHS. Fruit and vegetables, notably, are seriously under-consumed in the UK.20

The UK, post-Brexit, has little excuse for not producing an overview of determinants of Food Security. Many arguments have been presented by its own advisors and others.21-25 A first step could be to build on the EC’s 25 drivers and to create a coherent set of both national and household metrics. Food Security metrics are needed which capture both the systemic and household / individual aspects of Food Security.

 

The need for clarity about consumption indicators

Food insecurity is rising among UK consumers. The cost of living crisis is both about energy and food prices. Food bank use is sometimes presented as a proxy for food insecurity but a significant proportion of the country was already reliant on food banks before the 2022-23 cost of living hike.26 Household expenditure on food tends to be what is left after other fixed costs have been paid for. Costs of energy, mortgage/rent, transport such as personal contract purchase (PCP) payments, children’s clothes, and more, all draw upon household finances before food. Hence the growth of reliance on food banks. In 2020 14% of UK families with children had experienced food insecurity in the previous six months.27 Moreover, the cost of optimum diets for health and sustainability ought to be the basis of calculations of income adequacy.28 Calculating official income standards is known to be an effective avenue for intervention.29 The sustainability of affordable diet should also be included in official calculations of income adequacy. The embedded carbon and embedded water in food products should also feature in new UK Food Security metrics. They should provide a comprehensive picture of both systemic and consumer food (in)security.

The post war generation of public health nutritionists did not envisage forms of malnutrition manifest in 21st century Britain. Yet from the 1970s, studies in affluent economies (including the UK) evidenced nutritional need amidst the unprecedented plenty.30 31 The UK had no official estimates of household food insecurity, despite a long post war tradition of food poverty research. From 2016, the Food Foundation, a civil society organisation, worked with others – Oxfam, the University of Oxford and the Food Research Collaboration at City, University of London – to persuade government to produce indicators.32  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) now conducts surveys to estimate food security. This is welcome but, as we have argued above, should also be linked to production and distribution assessments – the systemic metrics.

In the FSA survey, people are assessed on six questions such as to whether they go without food in the week, use food banks, have Healthy Start vouchers.33 In 2021 it estimated that 82% of people in England, Wales and N Ireland were food secure (70% to a high level, 12% on the margins) and 18% of respondents were classified as food insecure (10% low, 7% very low). These are sobering and politically sensitive metrics. The Food Foundation also produces more immediate calculations of household food (in)security, using the US Department of Agriculture’s standardised questions.34 Its survey asks three questions about experiences over the last month and last six months, whereas the USDA asks six questions with a 12 month reference point (see Table 7).

Table 7: USDA and Food Foundation questions for household food security

Food Foundation 3 questions

USDA 6 questions

Have you/anyone else in your household (in the last month or six months):

Are these statements often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 12 months?

Q1: had smaller meals than usual or skip meals because you couldn't afford or get access to food?

Q1: The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.

Q2: ever been hungry but not eaten because you couldn't afford or get access to food?

Q2: (I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.

Q3: not eaten for a whole day because you couldn't afford or get access to food?

Q3: Did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?

 

Q4: How often did this happen?

Q5: Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food?

Q6: Were you ever hungry but didn't eat because there wasn't enough money for food?

Source: USDA ERS 202235, Food Foundation 202232

 

Back in 2007-08, triggered mostly by the banking and commodity crisis, the UK had begun a policy process to revise and improve national food policy. By 2010, this had generated six food security indicators, the result of a two year comprehensive consultation process (see Table 7).36 Those metrics and the entire policy framework, endorsed by the then Prime Minister, were unfortunately dropped by the incoming Coalition government. Expectations again rose with the commission by Defra of a National Food Strategy review to be led by Henry Dimbleby from 2018. This produced two detailed reports in 2020 and 2021,25 37 only for hopes that they would lead to greater clarity in central Government to be dashed by the Government’s response in 2022, widely judged to lack specificity and commitment to set Food Security goals into law.19 Meanwhile the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales had begun to develop their own strategies and legal processes.38 39 In this fragmenting context, it surely still makes sense to recommend and aspire for there to be a UK-wide system of Food Security metrics. These would also be applicable and useful at the sub-national level where policy considerations and concerns are being voiced by local authorities and civil society movements. Local Resilience Forums (set up under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004) would find these useful for emergency planning.40

 

Table 7: The 2010 UK Food 2030 Six Food Security Indicators

1

Enabling and encouraging people to eat a healthy, sustainable diet

2

Ensuring a resilient, profitable and competitive food system

3

Increasing food production sustainably

4

Reducing the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions

5

Reducing, reusing and reprocessing waste

6

Increasing the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology

Source: Defra 201036

 

Recommendations to the EFRA Committee

The production of the UK Food Security Report and accompanying indicators is welcome and necessary. But revision and extension is required. To that end, we make the following recommendations to improve the current approach and make it more multi-criteria, consultative, coherent and multi-level. Specifically:

1: Government should be requested to review its list of indicators in the UK Food Security Report 2021 and to produce a revised, multi-criteria set of Food Security metrics. These should draw on existing international systemic indicators and include broader determinants, as well as producing household and individual relevant metrics from UK experience. This should be a joint endeavor of Defra, ONS, HMRC, FSA, UKRI and chief advisors, in consultation with learned bodies from natural and social sciences. Coherence and connectedness between the indicators and between the indicators and the policy framework should be key considerations in this revision process.

2: Any process of developing indicators, as recommended above, would be greatly strengthened by holding a wide consultation with a broad range of food system actors who have expertise in particular parts of the UK food system. In particular, Government should be requested to consult with consumer and public interest organisations over the format of food security indicators associated with the cost of living crisis.

3: Given the urgent challenge of food system transformation, any new systems of UK Food Security metrics should be designed to be coherent with consumption of healthy and sustainable diets. For example, Government should be requested to create new production-to-consumption ratios for a healthy and sustainable diet, not just ratios with what is currently consumed. Sustainable diets ought to be a lens through Food Security is viewed.

4: Indicators should provide bridges across multiple levels of decision-making from the global to the local, from the national to the individual. This should be more explicitly recognized. Government should create a multi-level framework on Food Security metrics which provides coherence to the production of data which otherwise can appear ad hoc. The new metrics must be relevant for decision-making at UK, devolved, regional / city-region and local levels.

 

 

 

References

1. UN. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Geneva: United Nations, 1948.

2. Shaw DJ. World Food Security: A History since 1945. London: Palgrave Macmillan 2007.

3. FAO. Report of the World Food Conference, Rome, 5-16 November 1974 Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation / United Nations Publication Sales No. E.75.II.A.3, 1974.

4. FAO. World food security: a reappraisal of the concepts and approaches. Director general’s report. https://www.fao.org/3/bn142e/bn142e.pdf. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, 1983.

5. FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. 13-17 November 1996: https://www.fao.org/3/w3548e/w3548e00.htm. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 1996.

6. FAO. Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security: https://www.fao.org/3/al936e/al936e00.pdf. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2008.

7. HLPE, CFGS. Food Security and Nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030: https://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf. Rome: High Level Panel of Experts of the Committee on World Food Security, 2020.

8. Clapp J, Moseley WG, Burlingame B, et al. The case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy 2022;106 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102164

9. UNCED. Rio Declaration, made at the UNCED meeting at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992.

10. Convention on Biological Diversity. Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, 1992.

11. European Commission. Drivers of Food Security. Brussels, 4.1.2023; SWD(2023) 4 final - https://commission.europa.eu/publications/analysis-main-drivers-food-security_en. Brussels: European Commission, 2023.

12. European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy - for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Brussels, 20.5.2020 COM(2020) 381 final  - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic & Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commision, 2020.

13. Parsons K, Sharpe R, Hawkes C. Who makes food policy in England? A map of government actors and activities. Rethinking Food Governance Report 1. London: Food Research Collaboration / Centre for Food Policy, 2019.

14. Schonhardt-Bailey C. From the corn laws to free trade: interests, ideas, and institutions in historical perspective. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press 2006.

15. Beveridge SW. Food Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1928.

16. Hammond RJ. Food: the Growth of Policy. London: H M S O / Longmans, Green and Co. 1951.

17. Defra. Origin of Food Consumed in the UK 2019. Table 3.1 in Food statistics pocketbook. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/food-statistics-pocketbook/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-global-and-uk-supply. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2020.

18. Defra. UK Food Security Report 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041623/United_Kingdom_Food_Security_Report_2021_16dec2021b.pdf  London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2021.

19. Defra. Government food strategy. CP 698. London Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2022:33.

20. Pinho-Gomes A-C, Alec Knight, Julia Critchley, et al. Addressing the low consumption of fruit and vegetables in England: a cost-effectiveness analysis of public policies. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2020;75(3) doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-214081

21. Committee on Climate Change. Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK. London: Committee on Climate Change, 2020.

22. Committee on Climate Change. 2021 Progress Report to Parliament: https://www.theccc.org.uk/2021/06/24/time-is-running-out-for-realistic-climate-commitments/. London: Committee on Climate Change, 2021.

23. Hayhow DB, Eaton MA, Stanbury AJ, et al. State of Nature  2019. Sandy: The State of Nature partnership, 2019.

24. Beddington J. Food, Energy, Water and the Climate: a Perfect Storm of Global Events? Paper to 'Sustainable Development UK 09' conference, QEII Conference Centre, London, 19 March 2009  London: Office of the Chief Scientific Adviser, 2009.

25. Dimbleby H. National Food Strategy: Independent Review - The Plan. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2021.

26. FSA. Food and You 2 - Wave 4.  https://doi.org/10.46756/sci.fsa.zdt530 10 August ed. London: Food Standards Agency, 2022.

27. Food Foundation. New Food Foundation data: 14% of UK families with children have experienced food insecurity in the past 6 months. London: Food Foundation for Marcus Rashford's Child Food Poverty Task Force, 2020.

28. Lang T. Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them. London: Pelican 2020.

29. Dube A. Impacts of minimum wages: review of the international evidence. London HM Treasury, 2019.

30. Riches G. First World Hunger: Food Security and Welfare Politics. London: Macmillan, 1997.

31. Walker C, Church M. Poverty by administration: a review of supplementary benefits, nutrition and scale rates. Journal of Human Nutrition 1978;32:5-18.

32. Food Foundation. Food Insecurity Tracking - Securing a National Measurement of Food Insecurity  https://www.foodfoundation.org.uk/initiatives/food-insecurity-tracking. London: Food Foundation, 2022.

33. Food Standards Agency. Food and You 2 - Wave 4 - https://www.food.gov.uk/research/chapter-3-food-security. London: Food Standards Agency, 2022.

34. Food Foundation. The Broken Plate 2022. London: Food Foundation, 2022.

35. USDA ERS. Survey Tools: U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form - September 2012 https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/survey-tools/. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Services, 2022.

36. Defra. Indicators for a Sustainable Food System: Food 2030 [https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130125171715/http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodsystemindicators.pdf]. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2010.

37. Dimbleby H. National Food Strategy Part One. London: Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2020.

38. Scottish Government. Good Food Nation Bill Passed. 15 June. https://www.gov.scot/news/good-food-nation-bill-passed/. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2022.

39. Welsh Parliament, Senedd Cymru. Development of the Food (Wales) Bill: https://senedd.wales/senedd-business/legislation/proposed-member-bills/development-of-the-food-wales-bill/. Cardiff: Senedd Cymru, 2021.

40. Mann B, Settle K, Towler A. Independent Review of the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act. https://nationalpreparednesscommission.uk/2022/03/independent-review-of-the-2004-civil-contingencies-act/. London: National Preparedness Commission, 2022.

10

 


[1] Professor Emeritus, Centre for Food Policy, City, University of London

[2] Postdoctoral Research Associate, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge