United Kingdom Food Security Report 2021: Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

Question 1

Indicator 4.1.1 Food expenditure growth compared to other household spending growth

Accepted Answer

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)

Actual average weekly household expenditure 2009 and FYE 2020

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.^{[footnote 1]}

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.

Question 2

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

Accepted Answer

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.^{[footnote 2]} 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,^{[footnote 3]} whereas in EU households, 13.0% of consumption expenditure went towards food and non-alcoholic drinks on average in 2019.^{[footnote 4]}

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

Average spend on food and non-alcoholic drinks, 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

Changes in the food price index 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.^{[footnote 5]}

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)

Year on year percentage change in income by quintile median and overall population median

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.^{[footnote 6]} 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.^{[footnote 7]}

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.^{[footnote 8]} 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.^{[footnote 9]}

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.

Question 3

Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 4

Indicator 4.1.4 Household food security

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 5

Indicator 4.1.5 Access to food shops in England

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 6

Indicator 4.2.1 Eligibility for Free School Meals

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 7

Indicator 4.2.2 Take-up of Healthy Start voucher scheme

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 8

Case study 4.1 Food Aid

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 9

Case Study 4.2 Public Sector Food Procurement in England

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 10

About the UK Food Security Report

Accepted Answer

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.

Contact and feedback

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

Appendix

Return to Contents Page

Return to the United Kingdom Food Security 2021 home page to download the data for charts

ONS, ‘More than one-fifth of usual household spending has been largely prevented during lockdown’ (2020), https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/articles/morethanonefifthofusualhouseholdspendinghasbeenlargelypreventedduringlockdown/2020-06-11. ↩
AHDB, ‘Why UK consumers spend 8% of their money on food’ (2020), https://ahdb.org.uk/news/consumer-insight-why-uk-consumers-spend-8-of-their-money-on-food. ↩
ONS, ‘Family Spending in the UK 2019 to 2020’, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/bulletins/familyspendingintheuk/april2019tomarch2020. ↩
Eurostat, ‘Household expenditure in 2019’, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20201130-1. ↩
ONS, ‘Consumer price inflation, UK: October 2021’, https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/october2021. ↩
Government Statistical Service, ‘Income and earnings statistics’, https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/user-facing-pages/income-and-earnings-statistics/. ↩
Office for Statistics Regulation, ‘Review of Income-based poverty statistics’, https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/review-of-income-based-poverty-statistics/. ↩
ONS, ‘A guide to sources of data on income and earnings’, https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/methodologies/aguidetosourcesofdataonearningsandincome. ↩
DWP, ‘Family Resources Survey’, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020; Households Below Average Income: financial year 2020’, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2020. ↩
PHE, ‘Eatwell Guide’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide. ↩
FSA, ‘Food and You 2’, https://www.food.gov.uk/research/food-and-you-2. ↩
ENUF, ‘Food insecurity measurement on the Family Resources Survey’ (2019), https://enuf.org.uk/research-blogs/food-insecurity-measurement-family-resources-survey. ↩
FSA, ‘Food and You 2: Wave 1 Key Findings’ (2021), https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fy2-wave-1-report-_key-findings_1.pdf. ↩
FSA, ‘Food and You 2: Wave 2 Key Findings’ (2021), https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fy2-w2-key-findings_review_final_0.pdf. ↩
McClelland, N., ‘Putting food poverty in NI on the map’ (2019), https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/clippings/putting-food-poverty-in-ni-on-the-map. ↩
Davies, S. and others, ‘Paying to be poor: Uncovering the scale and nature of the poverty premium’ (2016), http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/geography/pfrc/pfrc1615-poverty-premium-report.pdf. ↩
NatCen, ‘Advice on the Measurement of the Poverty Premium across UK markets’ (2019), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782513/natcen_report.pdf. ↩
DWP, ‘Family Resources Survey’, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020. ↩
Trussell Trust, ‘End of year stats’, https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/. ↩
House of Commons Library, ‘Food Banks in the UK’ (2021), https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8585/. ↩
Fareshare, https://fareshare.org.uk/. ↩
Scottish Government, ‘Food insecurity and poverty - United Nations: Scottish Government response’, https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-un-food-insecurity-poverty/; ‘Ending the need for food banks: a draft national plan’, https://consult.gov.scot/housing-and-social-justice/ending-the-need-for-food-banks/. ↩
Defra, ‘National Food Strategy: Independent Review’, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-food-strategy-for-england, page 253. ↩
Defra, ‘A plan for public procurement: food and catering’ (2014), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-plan-for-public-procurement-food-and-catering. ↩
Royston, S. and others, ‘Fair and square: a policy report on the future of free school meals’, The Children’s Society (2012),https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ecf1e68cdc/content/pages/documents/1429471607.pdf, page 12. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Key messages

Understanding household food security

Affordability

Access

Utilisation

The wider context of household food security

Indicator 4.1.1 Food expenditure growth compared to other household spending growth

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

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

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

Indicator 4.1.4 Household food security

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Food and You 2

Trends

Indicator 4.1.5 Access to food shops in England

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

Poverty Premium

Indicator 4.2.1 Eligibility for Free School Meals

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

Indicator 4.2.2 Take-up of Healthy Start voucher scheme

Headline

Context and Rationale

Data and Assessment

Trends

Case study 4.1 Food Aid

Overview

Background

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and government response

Case Study 4.2 Public Sector Food Procurement in England

Overview

Background

Discussion

Maintaining a secure food supply

About the UK Food Security Report

Contact and feedback

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK