Official Statistics

United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024: Theme 4: Food Security at Household Level

Published 11 December 2024

Part of the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 19 of the Agriculture Act 2020

© Crown copyright 2024

ISBN 978-1-5286-5232-2

Introduction

Theme definition

This theme looks at access to food and a healthy and sustainable diet at the household level. People’s access to the food they want and need to live a healthy active life is at the forefront of the 1996 World Food Summit food security definition. The stability of food security at the household level is enabled by the systems covered in the other themes. The theme measures household food security by tracking changes in experience-based measures of household food security, household expenditure and food prices, the uptake of interventions designed to support access to food, in-person and online retail, the nutritional intake of the population and emissions and environmental impacts associated with the UK food supply chain. The implications of UK consumption for UK food production are covered in more detail in Theme 2 UK Food Supply Sources. The theme opens by measuring trends in food affordability, including food expenditure and inflation, and use of food aid (Sub-theme 1). This is followed by an analysis of access to food shops across the country, both in terms of digital and physical access to food (Sub-theme 2). The chapter closes with an exploration of UK diets and consumption patterns (Sub-theme 3).

This edition of the UKFSR includes five new indicators to reflect other important dimensions of household food security and new available data. These cover the use of food aid (which includes the delivery of food parcels, food banks and social supermarkets) (4.1.5), digital access to food shops (4.2.2) and UK dietary patterns (4.3.1 to 4.3.3). There is also greater coverage of the experiences of different groups including vulnerable groups who are at much higher risk of food insecurity than the rest of the population.

Qualitative data is used to give some insight into the lived experience of food security in the UK, and to capture nuances not shown by national surveys. In particular, Indicator 4.3.2 on healthy diets includes a case study on the lived experience of food insecurity and its impact on health.

In terms of the dimensions of food security, accessibility is the focus in this theme with most indicators assessing changes to the affordability, allocation and preference of food at the household level. This includes considerations of agency, or the ability, of consumers to determine the food they eat. Stability and sustainability of household food security are also key areas measured. Two dietary indicators measure changes to the nutritional value of UK food consumption. The theme tracks variation in food security across social groups to surface where impacts of food insecurity are most acutely felt.

Overall Findings

• While a large majority of households in the UK continue to be food secure, there has been a notable decrease in food secure households (defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life) which has coincided with increased financial pressures to household budgets from both general high inflation and food inflation. Over the last three years, major factors affecting household-level food security have included the period of high inflation between 2021 and 2023, which saw rises in consumer price inflation outstrip wage growth, and, from 2020, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions affecting businesses and consumers.

  Key statistic: The proportion of food secure households declined from 92% in financial year ending (FYE) 2020 to 90% in FYE 2023 (see Indicator 4.1.1 Household food security status).

• Across the indicators rates of food insecurity vary greatly by demographics, with a notable difference in levels and experiences between income groups. Low-income and disabled groups continue to be at disproportionately high risk of household food insecurity and its potential negative impacts. General inflation including energy price increases have heightened the risk of these households needing to make difficult trade-offs with their food budgets, including choosing how much to spend on heating and food.

  Key statistic: 84% of households with disabled people are classified as food secure compared to 94% for households without disabled people in FYE 2023 (see Indicator 4.1.1 Household food security status).

• Over the period covered by this report there has been a rise in food aid usage, with those accessing services being the most food insecure. These tend to be working age adults in receipt of means tested benefits and or living alone, disabled people, households with children and those in rented housing.

  Key statistic: In FYE 2023, 3.3% of all households used a food bank in the last 12 months, while 1.4% used one in the last 30 days (see Indicator 4.1.5 Food aid). These figures are higher for households with ‘low’ and ‘very low’ household food security at 14% and 31% respectively for households which used a food bank in the past 12 months (see Indicator 4.1.5 Food aid).

• There has been a notable rise in inflation both overall and for the category of food and non-alcoholic beverages since the beginning of 2021. Food price inflation was higher than general inflation and spiked to 45-year high in 2023. UK food price inflation was among the highest of the G7 economies in 2023. Inflation rates began to fall in 2023, and are now returning to pre-pandemic levels.

  Key statistic: Over the last three years, inflation for food and non-alcoholic beverages peaked in March 2023 at 19.2% while overall inflation peaked in October 2022 at 9.6% (see Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups and Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.5 Energy).

• There has been a growth in online retail, with online food shopping peaking during the pandemic. Regional differences remain across in-person access to food shops.

  Key statistic: During the pandemic, there was a rapid increase in online food shopping from 5.4% of all food shopping being carried out online in February 2020 to 12.4% in January 2021, while 37.5% of all retailing was online at its peak in February 2021. Online food shopping declined to 9.2%, while all retailing declined to 27.7% by September 2024, reflecting a return to in-store shopping but also a lasting increase in online food shopping compared to pre-pandemic figures (see Indicator 4.2.2 Online access to food shops).

• Most people do not meet government dietary recommendations, with those from lower-income groups less likely to meet recommendations than those from the highest-income groups.

  Key statistic: Mean intakes of saturated fat, free sugars and salt exceeded the recommended maximum, and mean intakes of fibre, fruits and vegetables, and oily fish fell below the recommended minimum across adults in 2019 . While no income group meets dietary recommendations, those on higher incomes are typically closer to meeting some of the dietary recommendations with the poorest 10% eating on average 42% less fruits and vegetables than recommended, compared to the richest who eat 13% less (see Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet).

• The UK diet is becoming more environmentally sustainable in terms of lower food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, UK consumption of food commodities is also associated with a recent uptick in impacts on deforestation, water scarcity and biodiversity loss.

  Key statistic: From 2019 to 2021 UK GHG food-related emissions have broadly remained stable or shown some notable decreases depending on the supply chain stage, with a notable decrease in emissions from imports which fell from 58 MtCO2e in 2019 to 54 MtCO2e in 2021 . Similarly, the supply chain and consumer sector saw a downward trend over the same period, decreasing from 36 MtCO2e in 2019 to 33 MtCO2e in 2020, with a small rise to 34 MtCO2e in 2021 (see Indicator 4.3.3 Sustainable diet).

Cross-theme links

By measuring the accessibility and utilisation of food in the UK, Theme 4 analyses the outcome of the sourcing and supply of food (enabling the availability of food) covered across Themes 1 to 3. Cumulative costs passed on from these parts of the supply chain have driven food inflation and therefore reduced accessibility.

Food prices increasing coincided with more prominent self-reporting of food prices as a consumer concern (when prompted). This is explored further in Theme 5 Food Safety and Consumer Confidence.

In the other direction, sourcing and supply of food covered in Themes 1 to 3 are influenced by consumer choice. What consumers prefer to purchase in part drives what is profitable for retailers to stock or farmers to farm, whether that is fruit grown abroad, home-produced chicken meat or highly processed foods requiring complex inputs.

Sub-theme 1: Affordability

4.1.1 Household food security status

Rationale

Emerging trends of household food insecurity reported by households play an important role in understanding levels of household food security across the country and how this is affected by the affordability of food.

Government statistics on household food insecurity come from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) which defines ‘household food security’ as ‘a measure of whether households have sufficient food to facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle.’ The survey asks questions related to the household’s experience in the 30 days immediately before the interview to explore the financial situation of households and how that affects their access to food and to provide a household ‘score’ for food security.

Here, ‘food secure’ combines households classified as having high and marginal levels of household food security, and they are considered to have sufficient, varied food to facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle. ‘Food insecure’ households are classified as having low and very low levels of household food security where there is risk of, or lack of access to, sufficient, varied food. Further information on the FRS methodology is covered below under ‘supporting evidence.’

Headline evidence

Figure 4.1.1a: Household food security status of all households in the UK, FYE 2020 to FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: Individual figures have been rounded independently, so the sum of component items will not necessarily equal the totals shown.

In the UK, in FYE 2023, 90% of households were classed as being food secure (‘high’ or ‘marginal’ food security) and 10% as being food insecure (‘low’ or ‘very low’ food security). The proportion of food secure households declined from 92% in FYE 2020 to 90% in FYE 2023. FYE 2023 marks the lowest proportion of households experiencing food security since the introduction of household food security to the FRS in FYE 2020. Supporting evidence tracks how levels of food security vary across the population to show where risks are more acute.

Supporting evidence

It is worth noting that interventions started during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, such as the furlough scheme and £20 uplift to universal credit which were in place until Autumn 2021, may have contributed to lower food insecurity in FYE 2021 and FYE 2022. Cost of Living payments were also introduced from 2022 to help with the cost of living from 2022 to 2024.

Differences in methodologies

This indicator uses data from 3 different surveys on food security: DWP’s FRS, the FSA’s Food and You 2 Survey and the Food Foundation’s Food Insecurity Tracker. All 3 surveys use questions from the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Security Survey module, enabling international comparisons. However, the surveys differ in some ways such as the survey method, sample size, frequency, time periods and recall period, therefore results cannot be compared. All 3 datasets are included because there are many ways to conduct surveys, and all have pros and cons.

The FRS is an annual survey which has a sample size of about 20,000 households in the UK. It classifies respondents based on their survey responses to questions on their access to food and how this has been affected by the financial situation of the household. Data on food security has been part of the FRS since FYE 2020. ‘Food insecure’ in this survey means access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources.

In contrast to many Household questions on the FRS, for Food Security questions the interviewer asks the person with the most responsibility for buying and preparing food in the household to assess their overall household food security within the last 30 days by answering a series of questions. It is important to note that in many cases this is not the same person as the Head of Household. The questions asked include experiences of worrying about food running out, being unable to afford a balanced meal, experiencing hunger, and missing meals in the past 30 days. In a household with more than one person, the Head of Household is defined as “the householder with the highest personal income, taking all sources of income into account. If there are two or more householders who have the same income, the Head of Household is the elder.”

The Food and You 2 survey has been carried out twice a year since 2020. The survey is conducted with adults (aged 16 years or over) living in households in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Households are selected at random and up to 2 adults in each household can take part. Approximately 5,800 adults from around 4,000 households take part in each survey. Respondents can take part online or by post. Food security is measured using the USDA’s adult food security module using a 12-month recall period. More detail on the survey methodology can be found in the technical report.

The Food Foundation Food Insecurity Tracker is run twice a year across the UK with normally a sample size of about 5,000 to 6,000 adults, while every few surveys there are about 10,000 adults sampled. The survey was first conducted in March 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the 30-day reference period used in the FRS may have some limitations in that it can provide only a snapshot of food insecurity at a given time, it has a comparatively large sample size, covers the whole of the UK and is a useful measurement to have alongside data on income, benefit recipients and sociodemographic characteristics. Findings from the FRS are complemented by findings from the FSA’s Food and You 2 Survey, which has a shorter lag time before publication and is published twice a year. The Food Foundation’s Food Insecurity Tracker has more recent data than both the other surveys, with the latest period covered being June to July 2024.

Income

Food security increases as incomes increase. In the Family Resource Survey, in FYE 2023, 81% of households with gross weekly incomes of less than £200 per week were food secure (72% high; 9% marginal). This is almost unchanged from FYE 2020 when 81% of households were food secure, but 74% were high while 7% were marginal. 97% of households with a gross weekly income of £1000 or more were food secure in FYE 2023, similar to in FYE 2020 when 98% were food secure.

The Family Resource Survey shows that in FYE 2023 households on any income-related benefit were less likely to be food secure with only 70% of households being food secure (57% high; 13% marginal) compared with all households with 90% food secure (83% high; 7% marginal). This has gone down from FYE 2020 when 75% of households on income-related benefits were food secure (64% high, 11% marginal).

Households receiving Income Support were the least likely to be food secure in FYE 2023, at 58%, down from 64% in FYE 2020 when households on Jobseeker’s Allowance were the least likely to be food secure (63%). Households receiving Universal Credit had the lowest proportion with high household food security in FYE 2023, with 42%. In FYE 2020 it was 45%, however the position was unchanged.

Data from the Households Below Average Income dataset shows that in FYE 2023 78% of individuals living in households with less than 60% of contemporary median household income (before housing costs) were living in a household which was food secure. This shows a decrease since FYE 2020 when 81% were food secure. Children living in households with less than 60% of contemporary median household income (before housing costs) were slightly less likely to be food secure, with only 70% living in a household which is food secure in FYE 2023, compared to 74% in FYE 2020.

Region

Figure 4.1.1b: Household food security status by region/country in the UK, FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Geographical differences remain across the UK in FYE 2023 with the lowest rate of food security in the North West (87%) followed by the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the West Midlands, each with 88% of households being food secure (Figure 4.1.1b). Food security was highest in the East, South East and South West of England, where 92% of households were food secure in all three regions. Within the individual countries of the UK, Scotland had the lowest percentage of households which were food secure at 89% while Northern Ireland had the highest at 91%.

Geographical differences were similar in FYE 2020, when the North East had the lowest percentage of households which were food secure at 89%, followed by the North West at 90%. The East of England had the highest percentage of households which were food secure at 95%, followed by the South East and South West with 94%. Food security was similar throughout the UK with the percentage of households that were food secure in all countries being either 92% or 93%.

Disability status

Figure 4.1.1c: Household food security status by disability in the UK, FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Households with disabled adults tend to experience lower food security compared to those without disabled members. In FYE 2023, households without disabled adults had a higher proportion of food security, with 94% classified as food secure (88% high, 6% marginal) (Figure 4.1.1c). In contrast, households with one or more disabled adults exhibited lower levels of food security, with 84% classified as food secure (76% high, 8% marginal).

This is lower than in FYE 2020 when 88% of households with one or more disabled adults were food secure. Similar to FYE 2023, in FYE 2020 95% of households with no disabled adults were food secure.

The number and type of disabilities are associated with higher risk of food insecurity. A combination of physical and cognitive disabilities, as well as having multiple disabilities, are each independently associated with higher risk of food insecurity (Hadfield-Spoor, Avendaro and Loopstra, 2022).

Age

Figure 4.1.1d: Household food security by age of head of household in the UK, FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Food security tends to improve as the age of the head of the household increases.

In FYE 2023 the youngest age group, 16 to 24, shows the lowest level of food security, with only 79% classified as food secure (compared with 85% in FYE 2020) (Figure 4.1.1d). This trend is similarly reflected in households headed by individuals aged 25 to 34 and 35 to 44, where 87% are food secure (compared to 90% and 88% respectively in FYE 2020).

Conversely, households where the head is aged 85 and over had the highest level of food security in FYE 2023, with 98% classified as food secure (in line with 99% food secure in FYE 2020). Similarly, households headed by individuals aged 75 to 84 also showed high levels of food security, with 98% classified as food secure (compared to 99% in FYE 2020).

Ethnicity

Figure 4.1.1e: Household food security by ethnicity of head of household, FYE 2021, 2022 and 2023 as a 3-year average

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Levels of household food security vary by ethnicity. The latest household food security data by ethnicity is published as the average of the last 3 years, covering FYE 2021, 2022 and 2023 while FYE 2020 was published as a single year of data.

In the 3 years preceding FYE 2023, White households had the highest level of food security, with approximately 93% classified as food secure (88% high, 5% marginal) (Figure 4.1.1e). This is unchanged since FYE 2020.

In contrast, Black, African, Caribbean or Black British households had the lowest level of food security in the 3 years to FYE 2023, with about 79% classified as food secure (66% high, 13% marginal); similar to FYE 2020 when 81% were food secure (74% high, 7% marginal).

Composition of household

In FYE 2023, 92% of households without children were food secure, compared to 85% of households with children. This shows a decrease in the percentage of food secure households from FYE 2020, when 94% of households without children were food secure, and 89% of households with children. The households with the highest percentage which are food secure in FYE 2023 were those with 2 adults, both over the age of state pension (99%) while those households with only one adult, but 3 or more children had the lowest percentage (57%).

Findings from the FSA’s Food and You 2 Survey

The Food Standards Agency has been conducting the Food and You 2 survey twice a year since 2020. This official statistic survey measures consumers’ self-reported knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in relation to food safety and other food issues, including food insecurity. The survey is conducted with adults (16 years and over) living in households in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The Food and You 2 survey reported that following a period of stability between Wave 1 (July to October 2020) and Wave 3 (April to June 2021) there was an increase in the percentage of respondents classified as food insecure (low or very low food security) from 15% in Wave 3 (April to June 2021) to 25% in Wave 6 (October 2022 to January 2023). The percentage of households classified as food insecure remained unchanged at 25% in Wave 7 (April to July 2023).

The Food and You 2 survey reports higher levels of food insecurity among some groups of respondents. This includes younger adults, those with a lower household income, those who are long-term unemployed, households with children, those living in urban areas, and those with a long-term health condition.

Findings from the Food Foundation’s Food Insecurity Tracker

In an online survey of 6,177 adults across June and July 2024, the Food Foundation found that 13.6% of households experienced moderate or severe food insecurity (for definition see slide 2 of the Food Insecurity Tracker), up from 8.8% in January 2022, peaking at 18.4% in September 2022. 12.2% of households were having smaller meals or skipping meals in June 2024 up from 7.8% in January 2022, having peaked in September 2022 at 17.6%.

In June 2024, 18% of households with children experienced household food insecurity, compared to 12.1% in January 2022, peaking at 25.8% in September 2022. This compares to 11.7% of households without children experiencing household food security in June 2024, rising from 7.8% in January 2022, having also peaked in September 2022, at 16%.

In June 2024, 17% of households with one child were food insecure, compared to 26% of households with 4 or more children. In households which were headed by a single adult with children, 31.4% were food insecure, compared to 15.9% of multi-adult households with children. 41.9% of households in receipt of Universal Credit were household food insecure, while only 10.6% of household not receiving Universal Credit were food insecure in June 2024.

4.1.2 Household spending on food

Rationale

This indicator illustrates how growth in other household spending categories may impact the budget available to spend on food. These other expenses include housing, fuel and transport. Increases in costs for these lead to trade-offs with food. As the lowest income groups spend higher proportions of their income on food, the ‘all households’ metric is skewed by the top of the distribution, who spend proportionally less. The middle and final quintiles provide additional data to highlight how spending patterns change across income distributions.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.1.2a: Average share of spend on food and non-alcoholic drinks, by equivalised disposable income quintile group, in the UK, FYE 2005 to 2023

Source: Family Spending in the UK, Office for National Statistics (ONS)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: Data is from both financial year and annual year reporting due to switches in the survey methodology. In 2006, the ONS switched from financial year reporting to annual years, then went back to financial years in FYE 2016 and this has since remained as the chosen method.

In FYE 2023 food and non-alcoholic beverages represented 11.2% of household expenditure in the UK and was the fifth largest category of household expenditure after housing (net) and energy costs (18.6%), transport (14.0%), other expenditure items (13.3%) (which includes mortgage interest payments and council tax as well as spending on licences, holiday spending and cash gifts) and recreation and culture (11.5%). The ONS provides an interactive chart to explore further breakdowns.

There was an increase in the share of spend on food and non-alcoholic beverages drink from FYE 2020 for all households, the highest quintile and the middle quintile (0.4%, 0.3% and 0.2% respectively); however, the lowest quintile (poorest 20% of households) saw a fall (0.3%). This was due to a reduction in spending in other areas such as eating out, holidays and leisure when lockdown restrictions were imposed.

Figure 4.1.2a highlights that lower-income households spend a larger portion of their income on food than higher-income households. In FYE 2023 food and non-alcoholic beverages expenditure was higher than previous years as a proportion of overall expenditure for households in the third quintile (middle 20%) and lowest quintile (bottom 20%) by equivalised disposable income, at 11.8% and 14.4% respectively. In contrast, the share of spend on food was 8.5% for households in the highest quintile (richest 20% of households).

The last three years has seen an increase in pressure on household food budgets. Following disruption to the trend due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this reduction in food spend is a return towards proportions spent on food over the last 10 years. However, other household pressures have increased with more volatile price changes across inputs such as gas and electricity, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (see Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.5 Energy Dependency for more information on changes to energy prices). Electricity, gas and other fuels made up 6.5% of average household expenditure in FYE 2023 (£37.10 per week), an increase from 4.8% in FYE 2021 (£23.20 per week), and contributed towards housing costs which make up the largest expenditure category (Family Spending in the UK, ONS).

Supporting evidence shows that food affordability has been under pressure over the last few years. Actual spending on food in real terms dropped during the period of high inflation. There are indications of trade-offs with food purchasing being made due to rising costs in areas such as fuel and transportation.

Supporting evidence

Inflation

Since 2021 there have been pressures on household food budgets due to general inflation, as well as food and drink inflation itself. While inflation remained low during the height of the pandemic, it surpassed growth rates in real regular pay in August 2021 when the annual rate for Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH) rose to 3% and wage growth fell to 1.8%. This gap increased steadily for the remainder of 2021, driven by prices rising from a slow reopening of global supply chains. This coincided with a lessening of COVID-19 restrictions, and spending on food to eat at home falling by 11.3% from £69.20 in FYE 2021 to £62.20 in FYE 2022. Subsequent supply-side shocks caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to further price rises, with household energy inflation peaking at 88.9% in October 2022. At this time, the gap between CPIH and wage growth was at its largest, with annual CPIH inflation rate at 9.6%, exceeding regular pay growth at -2.7%. A reduction in business confidence early in 2022 likely affected prospects of higher wages, compounded by higher input costs reflecting both energy volatility and commodity markets. Following the inflationary peak, the wage-inflation gap decreased with wage growth beginning to increase and inflation falling back for the remainder of 2023 and into 2024.

Weekly spend on food increased to £63.50 in FYE 2023, however, ONS cite that, after adjusting for inflation, average weekly spending decreased across most expenditure categories during FYE 2023. This included food, which saw a rise in the nominal weekly average expenditure (1.3%) while having the largest reduction in real terms expenditure (-7.5%). The impact of inflation on households is covered in further detail in Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups.

Food expenditure

The percentage of spend on food has remained relatively constant over the last two decades; although there has been more volatility in the last three years, the share of spend on food is now at similar levels to those seen in 2019 (Figure 4.1.2a). This is based on food bought for the home.

Figure 4.1.2b: Average weekly household expenditure in the UK, in current prices, FYE 2018 to 2023

Source: Family Spending, ONS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Family Spending in the UK estimates that total household expenditure declined sharply during the pandemic, dropping by £106.40 per week from £587.90 per household per week in FYE 2020 to £481.50 in FYE 2021 (Figure 4.1.2b). Note that these figures are in current prices, therefore not taking inflation into account. As of FYE 2023, household expenditure has remained higher than in FYE 2021 but is slightly below (by £20.20) expenditure in FYE 2020 which was £567.70.

While spending in restaurants, cafes and takeaways (catering services) fell in FYE 2021 due to restrictions, from £41.30 per household per week in FYE 2020 to £13.60 in FYE 2021, household food and non-alcoholic beverages expenditure rose to take its place, from £63.70 in FYE 2020 to £69.20 in FYE 2021. In FYE 2022 and 2023 this spending pattern began to return to that previously seen in the UK prior to the pandemic, although spending on catering services is still substantially below that of FYE 2020.

The “Catering services” category is made up of spend on restaurant and café meals, alcoholic drinks, take-away meals eaten at home, other take-away and snack food, and contract catering (food) and canteens.

While the proportion of household expenditure going on food and non-alcoholic drinks has returned to pre-pandemic levels, actual expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks in real terms is below pre-pandemic levels. Family Spending in the UK shows that, after taking inflation into account (real terms), household spending on food and non-alcoholic beverages dropped in FYE 2022 compared with FYE 2021 and FYE 2020.

ONS’s analysis of their Consumer Trends publication shows that a significant divergence between the current price and real terms measures of household expenditure on food occurred from the start of the cost-of-living period from Quarter 4 (October to December) 2021 onwards. Total food expenditure in the UK (in current prices) increased sharply by £5.1 billion (17.4%) over the cost-of-living period, Quarter 4 (October to December) 2021 to Quarter 2 (April to June) 2023. By contrast, the real terms expenditure on food fell by 5.8% over the same period. This suggests that households increasingly changed their behaviour, consuming less food or switching to food of lower quality, while spending more in cash terms.

The fall in real terms expenditure on food is a further example of the cost-of-living pressures faced by households. A decrease in the volume of food spending is a relatively unusual change in consumer behaviour, again last seen to a lesser degree after the financial crisis of 2008 to 2009.

Consumer behaviour change was also noted in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) publication Our Food 2023 which reported that the actual amount spent, and types of products purchased changed in response to changes in prices. Food prices remained top of the list of consumer concerns across all four UK nations (72% of respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in July 2023 - Food and You 2, Wave 7, 93% of respondents in Scotland in December 2023 - Food in Scotland Consumer Tracker, Wave 17). Many consumers reported reducing their overall food consumption or opting for cheaper alternatives for financial reasons. This is covered in further detail in Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups.

Competition with other costs

The recent increase in the costs of housing, fuel, transport and other essential household items may have resulted in people being forced to choose whether to allocate limited income to heating homes or to buying food. Data released by The Food Foundation reported that 59% of households were worried that higher energy prices will mean they have less money to buy food for themselves or their family.

A report from the University of York, with real-time evidence from families living in poverty, found that the compounding effect of high costs for energy and food can be detrimental to mental health, with both children and adults affected by heightened stress and anxiety due to financial pressures. The health impact of food insecurity is further explored in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet.

According to a House of Lords Library report there is also a disproportionate effect on people living with a disability as households with disabled people spend a greater proportion of their income on food and energy. ONS data suggests that spending on food and non-alcoholic beverages averages 14% of costs for disabled households, compared to 11% for households with no disabled people.

Income

Figure 4.1.2c: Household income in the UK (before housing costs) of estimated quintile medians, in pounds per week equivalised, FYE 1995 to FYE 2023, in FYE 2023 prices

Source: Households Below Average Income, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: Median income is used as the average, instead of the mean, as the median is less affected by the very small number of high earners and the skewed distribution of earnings.

Data from the Household Below Average Income dataset shows that since FYE 2020, median household income in the UK has decreased by 1.6%, from £632 per week to £621 in FYE 2023 (Figure 4.1.2c). Quintile 1 (the lowest 20% by median income) saw a rise in household income of 1.4% from £305 in FYE 2020 to £309 in FYE 2023, while Quintile 5 (the highest 20% by median income) saw a fall in income (lower than the fall of the median household income) of 0.8%, decreasing from £1,236 in FYE 2020 to £1,227 in FYE 2023.

The ONS’s average household income publication also publishes median equivalised disposable household income data. This shows that in FYE 2020 the median income decreased by 1.8%, and for the lowest quintile of the population it decreased by 2.4%. In FYE 2023 the median income decreased by 2.5% to £34,500 and, for the lowest quintile, it increased by 2.3% to £16,400, partly because of government cost of living support measures.

International comparison

Figure 4.1.2d: Proportion of household final consumption expenditure spent on food and non-alcoholic beverages in the G7 countries, 2005 to 2022

Source: OECD Data Explorer

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: The proportion of final consumption expenditure in Figure 4.1.2c is not from the same data as the share of spend on food and non-alcoholic beverages data in Figure 4.1.2a so cannot be compared.

Data from the OECD on household final consumption expenditure shows that the UK has a comparable level to most countries in the G7. In 2022, 8.2% of household expenditure in the UK was spent on food and non-alcoholic beverages, which is the second lowest proportion of the G7 countries (Figure 4.1.2d). The highest proportion spent was by Japanese households at 15.2%, in contrast to the US which had the lowest proportion of 6.7%. Comparisons in Figure 4.1.2d do not consider the subjectivity of valuing items as some may have cultural significance increasing their value in some countries.

All G7 countries saw an uptick in 2020 which was largely impacted by shifting spending patterns seen during the onset of the Pandemic. The 2022 figure for the UK is down 0.2% compared with 2021 and is 1.6% lower than in 2020.

Figures 4.1.2a and 4.1.2d are not comparable. Figure 4.1.2a shows the proportion of an average household’s expenditure that is estimated to be spent on food and non-alcoholic beverages. It is sourced from the ONS’s Living Costs and Food Survey and can be found in their Family Spending publication.

Figure 4.1.2d shows the proportion spent on food and non-alcoholic beverages of household final consumption expenditure in the domestic economy, whether by residents or non-residents. The data for this chart originates from Gross Domestic Product data, and for the UK can be found in ONS’s Consumer Trends publication.

4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups

Rationale

This indicator monitors trends in the overall CPIH, which covers both the ‘overall’ rate of inflation and ‘food and non-alcoholic beverages’ inflation. The CPIH provides the most comprehensive measure of inflation as it includes a measure of the costs associated with owning, maintaining, and living in one’s own home and Council Tax. It therefore enables an assessment of how food prices are changing in line with the purchasing power of households and is an important measure of the affordability of food. The price of food needs to be considered alongside cost pressures from other costs on the household food budget (see Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food for further detail).

Headline evidence

Figure 4.1.3a: Year on year percentage change in Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH), for ‘overall’ and ‘food and non-alcoholic beverages’, in the UK, August 2004 to August 2024

Source: Consumer price inflation, ONS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Since the beginning of 2021 there has been a substantial rise in both food and non-alcoholic beverages and overall (that is “all items”) inflation, before they both began to fall in the second half of 2023. Food and non-alcoholic beverages CPIH inflation peaked in March 2023 at 19.2% while overall CPIH inflation peaked in October 2022 at 9.6%. This was the highest annual rate in food inflation seen in 45 years and represented a larger gap between food inflation and overall inflation than 45 years ago. Supporting evidence shows that the biggest percentage increase was seen in the milk, cheese and eggs, and vegetables food groups and that some groups are disproportionately affected by higher food costs and price volatility, including people with a food hypersensitivity and lower-income households.

Supporting evidence

Between January 2021 and August 2024 UK food and non-alcoholic beverages prices increased by 31.6%, which was over three times more than in the preceding decade (January 2011 to January 2021, 9.5%) (Figure 4.1.3a). Food price inflation rose for 20 consecutive months, peaking at 19.2% in March 2023. During this period, it surpassed overall inflation in May 2022. The spike in food price inflation was driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that led to rising energy prices, in turn affecting fertiliser and farming input costs. This became the main driver of food price inflation as it increased the costs for both food producers and manufacturers. The impact of input prices on food prices is covered in further detail in Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.5 Energy. After March 2023, year on year food and non-alcoholic beverages price inflation (hereafter referred to as ‘food price inflation’) fell consistently to stabilise at 1.3% in August 2024 (Figure 4.1.3a).

A range of factors in addition to energy and inputs to food production had a cumulative impact on food price inflation over this period, including labour costs, extreme weather events and trade barriers (see Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.5 Energy for further detail).

Food price changes

Data in real terms shows how food prices have evolved once the impact of underlying, overall inflation is taken into account. This is another way of looking at the data in the headline evidence. Where food prices increase by more than prices generally across the economy, then real terms food and non-alcoholic beverage prices would rise and visa-versa. This hence gives an indication of when food prices are growing quicker or slower than all other prices.

Figure 4.1.3b: Changes in the food price index (real terms prices), January 2000 to August 2024

Source: Consumer price inflation, ONS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Over the last two decades, food price levels in real terms (relative to prices across the economy) have had two notable ‘spikes’, in 2008 and 2022. These values are derived from ONS CPIH index values for overall and food and non-alcoholic beverage inflation (Figure 4.1.3b). Index values were at their lowest in 2006 and rose soon after due to the 2008 financial crisis, peaking in 2014. Over those 8 years real terms food price levels rose by 19%. Real terms food price levels then fell between 2014 and 2016 and remained quite stable until a sharp rise from 2022 onwards. Food price levels in real terms then decreased by 1.7% in the 12 months from August 2023 to August 2024.

While food prices are generally increasing at a relatively low level most of the time, food price inflation has been subject to a few “spikes” over the last 20 years. Food price inflation normally varies within the range of 0% to 5%, with over 60% of the year-on-year food price inflation rates reported on a monthly basis since the start of 1989 falling into that range. However, food price inflation over the last 20 years has seen rates significantly over the 5% level. The most recent spike witnessed in 2022 and 2023, driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was the largest of those, with food prices rising by over 30% in the three years preceding March 2024. Although this was the largest inflation spike, the highest real terms peak was in 2014, after the 2008 financial crisis.

As a large spike in real prices, the spike between 2022 and 2023 will have affected all household budgets, with food and non-alcoholic beverages accounting for over 11% of household expenditure (see Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food). The challenge will have been particularly acute for low-income households, where that proportion rises to 14% for households in the lowest two income deciles. As discussed in Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food, there is evidence that households have responded to higher prices of food items by reducing expenditure. This has included moving to lower price versions of products. Products bought in supermarkets can be grouped into branded (meaning named brands owned by suppliers to the retailers) and own label (products badged with the name of the retailer they are sold in), sometimes called private label. Own label products are often cheaper than their branded equivalents and so to save money shoppers may swap from branded to own label. One recent report published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on food purchases and price inflation showed that the average price per unit of branded items in the food, drink and alcohol market was £2.08 in the 12 weeks to March 2023, as compared with £1.61 for own label items. From the 1(sup>st</sup> quarter of 2022 to the 1st quarter of 2023 the market share of branded products dropped by 2%, with value own label growing the most in this time period. This means shoppers moved some of their spend to own label goods possibly as a means of saving money.

Food price changes by food group

Figure 4.1.3c: Percentage change in real terms prices in the UK between August 2021 and August 2024, food product classes

Source: ONS Consumer price inflation

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Relative to the overall value for food and non-alcoholic beverages, the milk, cheese and eggs, and vegetables food groups showed the biggest percentage increase in real terms prices (generated through the use of ONS CPIH index values for food and non-alcoholic beverages deflated with equivalent overall index values) over the last 3 years from August 2021 to August 2024 (Figure 4.1.3c). In addition to the food groups shown in Figure 4.1.3c, percentage change in real terms prices values for oils and fats (33.2%) and food products (not elsewhere classified, for example, soups, ready cooked meals and sauces, 21.8%) were the food categories that saw the largest increases in price during this time period. The affordability of a healthy diet is covered in further detail in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet.

Food price impacts on different population groups

Food costs are likely to be higher for some population groups. Some recent evidence suggests that the lowest-priced items saw some of the highest inflation rates in the last recorded year of data, with worse impacts expected for lower-income households. ONS analysis of web scraped price data of the lowest-cost products for 30 everyday items and how they changed in the 12 months to September 2022 shows that the cost of the lowest-priced items increased by approximately 17% over the reported period. Nine items saw an increase of over 20%, with the most notable price rises being for vegetable oil (65%), pasta (60%) and tea (46%).

Since the 30 items were selected based on the highest expenditure and largest quantity bought by households in the lowest-equivalised income decile, these price rises are very likely to have affected the poorest households. It is worth noting that this data is highly experimental and has some limitations, though measures were taken to ensure the substitutability, comparability and range of items was considered to encapsulate a whole typical food basket purchased by shop goers.

Price volatility also has a disproportionate impact on lower-income households. A recent report by Defra found that those in social classes D and E (which covers semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations, unemployed and the lowest grade occupations) had lower absolute take-home spend per household in the 12 weeks to March 2023. However, when this was compared with the 12 weeks to March 2022, these groups saw their take-home food, drink and alcohol spend increase quicker than other groups. The report attributes this to the fact that these groups were more exposed to inflation. This is supported by a 2024 report from the Food Foundation which discusses the larger impact of increasing costs of essentials on households with lower incomes due to the need for them to spend higher proportions of their earnings on these items.

Other population groups affected by higher food costs are disabled people and people with food hypersensitivities. Disabled people may have specific dietary requirements related to their condition which can often be more expensive. Depending on the nature of their disability, some disabled people have difficulties preparing food, leading to increased reliance on convenience food, which is comparatively more expensive than preparing meals from scratch. There is a notable higher share of household budget spent on food by disabled groups (see Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food).

Households where adults have a food hypersensitivity (FHS) such as a food allergy or intolerance, or coeliac disease, spend more on weekly food purchases than those households with no FHS. A study commissioned in December 2022 by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to estimate the financial cost to FHS households found that on average, households with FHS spend an additional 12% to 27% more on weekly food purchases. These FHS households also spend 40.37 days per year on FHS-related activities including researching, shopping for suitable items and discussing their FHS condition. Broken down by FHS groups, for every £1 spent on weekly groceries by non-FHS households, an FHS household spends an additional £0.14 for those with a food allergy, £0.12 for those with coeliac disease and £0.16 for those with food intolerance. Takeaway or eating out is more expensive for those with a food allergy who spend £0.27 more, and for those with coeliac disease who spend £0.14 more than the £1 spent by non-FHS households.

Climate impacts

Extreme weather events have contributed to recent inflation and are set to increase with climate change (see this study by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit for an analysis of the role of climate change in the recent inflation spike). The effect of climate change on food prices is expected to continue, which could have an impact on existing food inequalities. The Climate Change Committee’s Climate Change Risk Assessment says that food price spikes as a result of climate change overseas may become increasingly likely. This is expected to have an impact on food inequalities as research by the Grantham Institute suggests that those with the fewest resources are the least able to adapt to climate change in general, as small changes in their income due to climate events (such as floods and rising temperatures) can result in overwhelming losses to welfare and livelihoods.

4.1.4 Government support schemes

Rationale

This indicator tracks trends in national food aid schemes led by government, both provision and usage, to measure the role government support plays as a lever in household food security, particularly for more vulnerable groups. It is important to acknowledge the role of wider government financial aid in supporting households to buy food, which is not covered in this indicator as the focus is on data that shows direct usage of aid to access food.

The headline statistic tracks Free School Meals (FSM), a programme intended to support learning and development by ensuring pupils do not miss out on a healthy and nutritious lunch due to financial constraints.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.1.4a: Percentage of pupils in England eligible for Free School Meals, academic years 2015/16 to 2023/24

Source: Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, Department for Education

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

In the financial year 2023/24, 2.1 million children in England (24.6%) were eligible for FSM. This is an increase of nearly 200,000 pupils since FYE 2022, when 22.5% were eligible. Since FYE 2016 there has been an increase of just over 950,000 pupils eligible for FSM (up from 14.3%). Up until FYE 2018 each year there was a slight reduction in pupils eligible for FSM, but since FYE 2018 each year has seen an increase in the percentage. Data for take up of FSMs is not published.

The continuing year on year increase in the number and rate of pupils eligible for FSM (Figure 4.1.4a) reflects the continuation of the transitional protections, which ensures that households retain their entitlement to FSM, regardless of any change in circumstances, during the rollout of Universal Credit (until the end of the child’s school phase). Therefore, there is an increasing number of pupils who are eligible for FSM, but protections mean pupils do not stop receiving FSMs in similar quantities. It is worth noting that the increase during the first year of the pandemic (January 2020 to January 2021) was higher than each of the previous year on year increases.

Across different ethnicities eligibility for FSM in England varies greatly. In FYE 2023, 64.9% of White (Traveller of Irish heritage) pupils and 58.3% of White (Gypsy/Roma) pupils were eligible for FSM. These figures were higher than the average across pupils where eligibility was 24.6%. Only 7.3% of Asian (Indian) pupils were eligible for FSM followed by 7.5% of Asian (Chinese) pupils.

Figures represent the number of pupils recorded as FSM eligible across state-funded nursery, primary, secondary, alternative provision schools, special schools, and non-maintained special schools. This does not include infant pupils in receipt of Universal Infant Free School Meals.

The overall uptake rate for FSM across all school types in Scotland was 71.0% in 2024, down from 76.2% in 2020, and also well below the series peak of 85.0% in 2014.

(To note, in 2015, universal entitlement to FSM was introduced for pupils in P1 to P3. This universal entitlement was extended to all pupils in P4 in August 2021 and then to all pupils in P5 (aged 9) in January 2022.)

In Wales in FYE 2024 19.3% of pupils were eligible for FSM. This is slightly lower than in FYE 2021 when 21.3% of pupils were eligible.

(To note, pupils are eligible for FSM if their parents or guardians are in receipt of certain means-tested benefits or support payments. The COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted on the quality of this data and may have resulted in over recording of this data in 2020 to 2022. These figures do not include pupils who only receive FSM due to the universal primary FSM policy.)

In Northern Ireland, in FYE 2023, the percentage of children eligible for FSM was 27.7%, dropping slightly from FYE 2020 when it was 28.4%.

(To note, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment Support Allowance (where an award of income-based job-seekers allowance has been converted and the amount of the award remains unchanged); and Universal Credit are some of the benefits which determine eligibility for FSM. As school meals are not universally available to children in pre-school education, parental receipt of these benefits is a better indicator of social disadvantage for the pre-school sector.)

Supporting evidence shows that some groups may not have access to FSM, such as children with disabilities and children in food insecure families who do not receive means-tested benefits. Trends across other food aid schemes are also covered, including: Healthy Start vouchers, which help pregnant or young parents buy healthy food and milk; the Household Support Fund (HSF), which supports vulnerable households get essentials over winter; and the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme, which works to support disadvantaged families by providing healthy meals during the school holidays.

Supporting evidence

Free school meals

As the FSM programme is a means-tested scheme with eligibility criteria, these figures do not track the experience of household food security across some groups who are not eligible. These include families who experience food insecurity but do not receive means-tested benefits and households on Universal Credit who have higher earnings. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that a third of school-age children in England (900,000) living in poverty are not eligible for FSM based on data for the academic year from 2022 to 2023. They argued on the basis of this that the eligibility threshold used for means-testing was too restrictive. Evidence gaps exist in terms of both the exact number of children who are food insecure and are not eligible for FSM as well as the take up of the scheme across eligible groups.

Despite meeting the eligibility requirements based on income, the Food Foundation estimates that a third of children (33%) with disabilities also miss out on FSM due to their specific dietary requirements, sensory processing difficulties or not being able to attend school. This increased the financial pressures on weekly budgets for 85% of those families affected. In March 2024, the Department for Education updated its FSM guidance guidance to clarify that schools have an existing legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled children so that they are not put at a substantial disadvantage compared to their non-disabled peers. This duty applies to food provision including FSM.

Healthy Start schemes

The Healthy Start scheme was introduced in 2006 to encourage a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies, and young children under four from very low-income households. Healthy Start has now completed the transition to a card-based system where those on the scheme receive a pre-paid card. The card is loaded up every four weeks with the funds they are entitled too. It can be used to buy, or put towards the cost of, fruit, vegetables, pulses, milk, and infant formula. Healthy Start beneficiaries have access to free Healthy Start Vitamins for pregnant women and children aged under four. 

The NHS Business Service Authority website for Healthy Start publishes the number of people on the digital scheme (formerly called ‘entitled beneficiaries’). This includes the number of children under the age of 4 and the number of pregnancies over 10 weeks. 

Figure 4.1.4b: Percentage change in the number of people receiving Healthy Start vouchers in English regions, Wales and Northern Ireland, between 2022 to 2024

Source: (Healthy Start, NHS Business Services Authority)NHS Business Service Authority)NHS Business Service Authority

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Between February 2022 and February 2024 all English regions and Wales and Northern Ireland saw a decrease in the number of people (beneficiaries) receiving Healthy Start vouchers except for London which stayed the same at about 50,700 beneficiaries (Figure 4.1.4b). Northern Ireland saw the largest decrease of beneficiaries of 9.7%, reducing from about 12,300 to 11,100, followed by the North East with a decrease of 8.9% (from about 23,100 to 21,000) and Wales with a decrease of 8.6% (from about 22,400 down to 20,500).

The size of the “Unknown” category, which accounts for postcodes that are incorrect or unclassified, increased by 164%. This rise may be due to inaccuracies in the source data, leading to a higher number of beneficiaries being reported under ‘unknown’ postcodes. Overall, this data reflects a general downward trend in program participation during this period.

Due to a data quality issue the data on the number of people eligible (those who are entitled to them if they would like them) for Healthy Start vouchers and the take up rate of the vouchers (the percentage of people who receive the vouchers out of those who are eligible) are unavailable from January 2023. It is not possible to see the proportion of people eligible for Healthy Start vouchers who are actually receiving them.

Changes to uptake of the scheme can reflect different causal factors. Low uptake may indicate a lack of awareness of the scheme, stigma surrounding the claiming of help through the scheme, or barriers to take-up among people who need it, such as the application process (Barrett, Spires and Vogel, 2024; Browne, Dundas and Wight, 2016; Jessiman and others, 2013). High levels of use may reflect a drive among people who are particularly in need to use it. Evidence to date is unclear of the impact of Healthy Start on food insecurity (Parnham and others, 2021).

In Scotland, Best Start Foods is a payment that can help buy healthy foods like milk or fruit during pregnancy and when your child is under 3. Payments are made every 4 weeks and range between £21.20 during pregnancy and when the child is between 1 and 3 years old and £42.40 when the child is between 0 and 1 years old.

In FYE 2024 there were 44,890 applications for Best Start Foods, decreasing 25% from 59,780 in FYE 2022. In FYE 2024 there were 43,560 individuals who received Best Start Foods payments, a decrease of 12% from 49,435 in FYE 2022. The number of payments made in FYE 2024 was 398,760, totalling £12,606,092. Both payments and value decreased from FYE 2022, by 14% and 8% respectively.

Household Support Fund (HSF)

The HSF was introduced on 30 September 2021 to help vulnerable households in England with essentials over the winter. The HSF is distributed by councils in England to directly help those who need it most. The grant is distributed through small payments to households to assist with meeting daily needs such as food, clothing, and utilities. The Fund has been extended to April 2025.

In the period from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, £842 million was made available across local authorities in England. Over 19.5 million awards were made by local authorities to households. Of the £842 million, 39% was awarded to support households in the school holidays by providing them with FSM support, while 24% was to help with other food costs (not FSM support). 65% of the funding went to households with children, 11% to households with pensioners and 11% to households with a disabled person.

Councils decide individually how to run their schemes. They may differ in eligibility criteria, application processes and who money is awarded to. For this reason, only national data is being included.

Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) Programme

The HAF programme was first launched as a pilot by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2018. It was designed to support disadvantaged families during the school holidays by providing healthy meals and enriching activities to young people.

Findings in the evaluation of the 2021 HAF programme, including a survey of both families and clubs, show that:

• In 2021 730,000 children took part in the scheme across 151 English local authorities, of whom 616,000 children had their places directly funded by HAF and 498,000 were eligible for free school meals. 76% (556,000) were primary school children, while 24% (174,000) were secondary school aged.

• 93% of clubs provided at least one healthy meal (meeting the School Food Standards) every club day.

• Two thirds (67%) of families with a child attending HAF had a home address in one of the 30% most deprived areas on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

• 53% of children attending were ethnically White-British, with smaller representation reported for Black African (9%), Pakistani (5%), Bangladeshi (5%), White and Black Caribbean (5%), and less than 5% from other ethnic groups.

• 22% of clubs reported having to turn some children away in 2021, suggesting some level of unmet demand.

4.1.5 Food aid

Rationale

The food aid landscape refers to a broad range of measures that provide food to people in need. These include formal food banks (from the Trussell Trust and Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN)) and informal food banks, social supermarkets and pantries, and community cafes, kitchens and gardening initiatives. Existing data sources are unlikely to capture the scale and diversity of the sector.

Across the community food sector, food support is provided by a wide range of models, with differing ways to alleviate food insecurity (Fair Food Futures, 2024). Some community food organisations provide food support to anyone, others target specific groups. Many are reliant on medium or short-term funding, including funds provided from the HSF (see Indicator 4.1.4 Government support schemes for more information on the fund), and many rely on surplus food distributed by charities or collected from supermarkets and local businesses.

This indicator uses data from the FRS and shows the percentage of households using a food bank in the last 30 days and 12 months. It is one useful indicator of households experiencing severe food insecurity and actively seeking assistance in response. It is thus a measure of lack of access to food and a reflection of the ability of people to access food banks and their willingness to do so.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.1.5a: Percentage of households who have used a food bank in the last 30 days and 12 months by household food security status, UK, FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Food banks have become more widespread in the UK since 2010 ([Loopstra and Lambie-Mumford, 2023]). However, this is not proportional to increases in higher levels of food insecurity.

Data from DWP’s FRS shows that in FYE 2023, 3.3% of all households used a food bank in the last 12 months, while 1.4% used one in the last 30 days. These figures are higher for households with ‘low’ and ‘very low’ household food security at 14% and 31% respectively using a food bank in the last 12 months. Only 1% of households with ‘high’ household food security used a food bank in the last 12 months.

This marks a moderate increase in food bank usage from FYE 2022. The rate of households using a food bank in the last 30 days increased from 0.9% of households to 1.4%, and households using one in the last 12 months increased from 3.0% to 3.3% of households.

Data from the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey, conducted across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, suggests that food bank usage has declined following a peak in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Wave 2 of the survey (November 2020 to January 2021) 6% of online respondents said they had used a food bank or other emergency food provider in the last 12 months. However, this fell to 3% in Wave 6 (October 2022 to January 2023). While data from the Food and You 2 survey provides wider context to the change recorded between FYE 2022 and FYE 2023 in the FRS, these datasets are not comparable given the different time periods covered. Further information on their respective methodologies can be found in Indicator 4.1.1 Household food security status.

While data shows a notable increase in food insecurity (see Indicator 4.1.1), there has been a more moderate increase by contrast in food bank usage for FYE 2023. This would suggest that many food insecure people do not use food banks. For example, the FSA’s Consumer Insights Tracker records a stable percentage of people using food banks between August 2023 and June 2024. While there is some overlap in figures on food insecurity and food bank usage, these numbers do not always correspond to each other. According to the Trussell Trust, more than two thirds of those experiencing food insecurity have not received food aid.

Supporting evidence shows that young people and those on low incomes continue to use food banks disproportionately compared to other demographics. Other key risk factors leading people to use food banks include being in receipt of some means-tested benefits, having a disability, living alone or in a single parent household, living in rented housing or experiencing homelessness.

Supporting evidence

Demographics

While the demographic profile of people using food banks is complex, some groups are over-represented when compared to the UK population on average. Data from the Trussell Trust network shows that working age adults (aged 18 to 64), particularly those in receipt of means-tested benefits and or living alone, disabled people and households with children are more likely to use a food bank. Food bank usage is also strongly associated with rented housing and homelessness, with some people more likely to have experienced a form of homelessness in the past year and have needed to turn to a food bank for support, such as those who have ever sought or applied for asylum and young people. Those facing structural inequalities, such as people from ethnic minority groups, women, asylum seekers and people who were in care as a child are also more likely to use food aid. As many of these factors intersect, individuals facing multiple disadvantages may be more likely to use food aid.

Age

Figure 4.1.5b: Household food bank usage by age of head of household in the UK, FYE 2022 to FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: missing bars are the result of there being less than 0.1 million households or the percentage being less than 0.5%.

Young people use food banks disproportionately compared to older age groups. Food bank usage was highest in FYE 2023 for both recall periods in households headed by a 16 to 24 year old, with 7% of households using a food bank in the last 12 months, and 4% using one in the last 30 days (Figure 4.1.5b). The usage of food banks then declines for households headed by people from 25 to 34 years old, but rises again with 5% of households headed by 45 to 54 year olds using a food bank in the last 12 months and 2% using one in the last 30 days. For households headed by someone aged over 65 years old, only 1% used a food bank in the last 12 months and less than 0.5% in the last 30 days.

Income

Figure 4.1.5c: Household food bank usage by total gross weekly income in the UK, FYE 2022 to FYE 2023

Source: Family Resources Survey, DWP

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Those on low incomes use food banks disproportionately compared to higher-income groups. Food bank usage was highest in the last 30 days, and the last 12 months, in households with the lowest total gross weekly income in FYE 2023 (Figure 4.1.5c). 8% of households with a weekly income of less than £200 a week, and from £200 to £400 a week, used a food bank in the last 12 months. Within the last 30 days 4% of households with less than £200 a week income used a food bank, while 3% of households with a weekly income between £200 and £400 used a food bank. In households with £800 a week or more, food bank usage in the last 30 days was less than 0.5%.

Disability

Disabled people have a disproportionate reliance on food banks. Research by the Trussell Trust found that 69% of those referred to Trussell Trust food banks, and 48% of those experiencing food insecurity, are disabled people (including mental, physical and learning disabilities), compared to 26% across the general population. This is despite the fact that food banks are often not able to meet the needs of disabled people with physical barriers to access and less capacity to cater to specific dietary requirements (Food Foundation, 2023).

Food parcels

Trussel Trust food banks distributed 3.12 million food parcels in FYE 2024, a 4% increase on FYE 2023. This is the highest number of parcels distributed within one year by the network since records began in FYE 2019. Over the last 4 years, since FYE 2020, there has been a 63% increase in the number of Trussel Trust parcels distributed. Within FYE 2024 over 1.14 million parcels were distributed to children and almost 2 million to adults. It is worth noting that this data covers the number of parcels distributed, not people receiving them, so one person could receive many parcels within this data. While the Trussell Trust network represents the majority of food banks in the UK, they do not cover all of the food bank and food aid networks and are a partial representation of the need for food banks across the UK. There is a wide range of charitable food aid that will be supporting people that is not captured in this parcel data.

The rising cost of living has meant an increase in first-time use of food banks. A parliamentary research briefing, Food Banks in the UK, reported that the Trussell Trust saw a 37% increase in demand for food parcels between FYE 2022 and FYE 2023 and another 4% increase between FYE 2023 and FYE 2024, with 760,000 people in FYE 2023 and over 655,000 people in FYE 2024 using a food bank for the first time. Northern Ireland saw the largest increase in the number of parcels distributed in the year ending FYE 2024 with an 11% increase. England increased by 5% and Wales by 1% while Scotland saw a decrease in parcels of 0.1%.

Number of food banks

In terms of the number of food banks, in FYE 2024 the Trussell Trust operated 1,699 food banks across the UK while there were at least 1,172 other food banks mapped by IFAN. This does not include food banks operating from schools.

Food bank referrals

Data from food bank referrals shows demand for food bank support has continued to increase since 2019, and while an underestimate of the scale of demand, highlights the growth across certain population groups, including disabled people and single people.

In June 2024 in England and Wales there were 17,131 referrals by Citizens Advice for food bank parcels, equivalent to helping an average of 856 people every day with food bank referrals. In the last 5 years there has been a 253% increase in referrals by Citizens Advice, from 4,859 in June 2019.

In June 2024 over half of referrals (8,953 referrals) were made for people with a disability or long-term health condition. This figure has increased by 226% from 2,747 in June 2019.

In June 2024, just over a third of referrals (6,131 referrals) were for a single person, while around 20% (3,341 referrals) were made for a single person with children. Couples were less likely to be helped with a food bank referral, with 1,524 couples with children referred (9%) and 709 couples without children (4%) also referred for food bank parcels in June 2024.

It is worth noting that many food banks do not require a referral for someone to use their services and Citizen’s Advice is only one referral agent. Therefore, the numbers are highly likely to underestimate the scale and range of demand but remain useful as time trend data which reflect wider trends in demand for food bank support.

Social supermarkets

Outlets for buying discounted produce that may have been saved from going to waste, like a social supermarket, food club or community larder, are usually community run and can broaden access to food aid for those not eligible for food banks. Research carried out by the FSA published in 2024 found that one in 20 (5%) respondents reported they had used a social supermarket in the last 12 months, with 14% of respondents not being familiar with the term. In this study social supermarkets, also known as food clubs, hubs or community pantries, were defined as places that allow people to buy food items at a heavily discounted price, or as part of membership. They were described as community organisations that are different from food banks as they offer a choice of food, provide a retail-like environment and may provide social support (FSA, 2024).

Respondents with very low food security (17%) were more likely to use social supermarkets, than those with low (7%) or marginal (6%) food security. Those who were long-term unemployed and/or had never worked (14%), on an income of less than £19,000 (12%), in households with children under 16 years (8%) were more likely to have used a social supermarket compared to other groups (FSA, 2024). Those living in the North-West of England (10%), Greater London (7%), and the North-East of England (7%) were also more likely to use have used a social supermarket compared to other regions, such as the East of England (1%).

Figure 4.1.5d: Frequency that households used a social supermarket in the last 12 months, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. April to July 2023

Source: Wave 7 of Food and You 2 Survey, FSA

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

For those respondents that use social supermarkets, 17% did so weekly, while 21% did so monthly and 21% did so less than once a month; 36% of respondents could not remember how often they had used one in the last 12 months (Figure 4.1.5d). This suggests that people use social supermarkets more regularly compared to food banks (see Figure 4.1.5a), showing that people use varied types of food aid in different ways.

Quality of food provision

There is diversity in the type of food available at different food aid providers. Many community food organisations rely on surplus food distributed by charities or collected from supermarkets and local businesses, but this supply of food is unpredictable in terms of volume, frequency and quality (Fair Food Futures, 2024).

Data on food aid provision shows this can affect access to a healthy diet. In general food bank parcels do not provide a balanced, healthy diet for those requiring emergency food (Fallaize and others, 2020; Oldroyd and others, 2022). Some distributors have made efforts to address this: Trussell Trust food parcels have included perishable items since 2018 (House of Commons Library, 2024) and more than a third of what FareShare, one of the largest redistributors in the UK, redistributes is fruit and vegetables (FareShare, 2023). Further information on what constitutes a healthy diet is covered in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet.

Barriers to food aid

The role food banks play in the food insecure population is complex and sometimes limited. Research by Loopstra and Lambie-Mumford (2023) shows that while food insecurity drives food bank use, the likelihood of someone who is food insecure receiving help from a food bank is impacted by two main groups of factors: (1) individual-level factors relating to the circumstances and feelings about food bank use among people experiencing food insecurity, such as feelings of shame and the use of informal support network; and (2) the landscape and operational features of the local community food and support sector, such as the availability and physical accessibility of food banks.

According to the Trussell Trust, additional factors such as the accessibility of services to people from ethnic minority backgrounds and sources of other food aid can also impact the number of people being referred. In addition, there is no guarantee that food provided by food banks will match individual or cultural preferences. There is a significant issue with the provision of culturally appropriate food suitable for different ethnic and religious groups across food banks (Food Foundation, 2022; Power and others, 2017). There have also been reports of accessibility issues, with only some food aid providers being able to cater to food needs.

These barriers in part stem from challenges in the food aid supply chain, including limited resources, operational inefficiencies and high logistics costs, which can exacerbate people’s access to food aid with implications for the viability, sustainability and ethics of food aid (Sawyerr and others, 2024).

Further research is needed to better understand the impact of barriers to food aid for different groups, such as the relationships between austerity, food insecurity and food banking in rural areas (May and others, 2020).

Limitations of food aid data

While the above data tracks changes in levels of food aid usage, these figures may underestimate food insecurity, including the most severe experiences in the population. Widespread use of proxy data to estimate levels of food insecurity, including tracking the distribution of food parcels from food banks, while available and comparable, can result in inaccurate assessments of local levels of food insecurity (Food Aid Network, 2022). Data on food bank usage remains limited with long-term quantitative data on the impacts of food bank use and food insecurity especially lacking (Loopstra and Lambie-Mumford, 2023). Other limitations of the data include: lack of standardised measurements across all food banks, for example across people, the number of parcels and size of parcels; incomplete coverage of all food banks and food parcel distribution activities in one area; and barriers to accessing food banks which mean only people who are able to access and use food banks are recorded.

The above figures also mask changes in the number and type of food aid providers, which has seen a marked shift since the COVID-19 pandemic (Benchekroun and others, 2024; All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ending the Need for Food Banks, 2023). During and since the pandemic, there has been a rapid expansion in the number and range of organisations providing food assistance in some way. For example, the number of food pantries in the Your Local Pantry network, one food club model, has risen by a fifth between 2023 and 2024 and now has more than 120 Pantries spread across the UK. However, many of these newer organisations operate informally and largely do not collect data on those using their services. There is scope for research to better understand how other forms of food aid compared to food banks are used, and which forms of food aid may be more accessible compared to food banks.

Sub-theme 2: Access to food shops

4.2.1 Physical access to food shops

Rationale

This indicator shows the average distance travelled for all food shopping by region to monitor the ability of English consumers to physically access food shops. In this context, food shopping trips include all trips to shops, and from shops to home, even if there is no intention to buy.

Food retailers play an integral role in the food system given their role in the community and potential to influence food choices (University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, 2024). Access to these stores implies being better able to access good quality, affordable foods, all central tenets of being food secure. Households which are potentially vulnerable are those without access to a car or means of private transport, less mobile individuals such as disabled people or older people, and households in rural areas which typically have a more dispersed population and more limited public transport network.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.2.1a: Average distance travelled for food shopping by English region (miles per food shopping trip), 2022

Source: Underlying data from the National Travel Survey, Department for Transport

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

In 2022, people living in the East of England travelled the furthest per trip to buy food, averaging 3.51 miles per trip. This was followed by the South East, where people travelled an average of 3.12 miles. Conversely, Londoners travelled the shortest distance at 1.36 miles, followed by residents of the West Midlands, who averaged 2.4 miles per person.

Looking at the total distance travelled in a year, in the more rural regions of England the population is more likely to have to travel further to access facilities such as food stores. In urban conurbations people travelled only 142 miles per year to access food stores in 2022, while in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings they travelled 407 miles per year to buy food. The further a person has to travel, the more time it is likely to take to access food, the more costly it may be and the more risk there is of disruption.

In England since FYE 2003 there has been a substantial decrease of 24% in the distance travelled to buy food in a year, decreasing from 288 miles per year in FYE 2003 to 218 miles in 2022, peaking at 330 miles in FYE 2006. (The data switched to calendar year in 2020.)

Figure 4.2.1a only covers England and there is not equivalent data for the rest of the UK. However, the Scottish Government’s publication Rural Scotland Key Facts 2021 estimates that in Scotland in 2020, only 69% of the population living in remote rural locations were within a 15-minute drive of a shopping centre, while only 29% were when using public transport. 92% of those living in accessible rural locations could reach a shopping centre within a 15-minute drive, while 22% could on public transport. This is understandable as some areas of Scotland have a low population density and people would therefore need a longer travel time to reach services.

Analysis using source data from Figure 4.2.1b and geographical area data from ONS Geography Portal shows that within the countries/regions of the UK supermarket density is lowest in Scotland and highest in London.

Supporting evidence shows that at the UK-level most home-consumed food is sold through supermarket retailers, with a similar pattern of the most supermarkets per person being located in the South East region of England. However, some vulnerable groups, such as disabled and older people, are more likely to have difficulty accessing food shops or face physical challenges in accessing them.

Supporting evidence

Levels of food insecurity vary across the UK, with the greatest variation visible in England. Further information on the geographic distribution of food insecurity across the UK is available in this map which provides estimates of three different measures of adult food insecurity based on survey data commissioned by the Food Foundation conducted in January 2021 by YouGov.

Availability of supermarkets

According to data from Kantar’s Worldpanel Take Home GMS data from 12 w/e 3rd November 2024, over 90% of food purchased for preparation in the home in Great Britain is sold through supermarket and discount retailers. The rest of these sales comprise “Other Outlets” (which include smaller multiple outlets such as Farmfoods and Booth’s) and “Symbols and Independent” stores (such as SPAR and Londis). The last 15 years has seen a growth in the grocery market share for discounters (such as Aldi and Lidl) and particularly increased after food, drink and alcohol inflation began to rise in 2022 (this is covered in further detail in Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups). In the first quarter of 2023 discounters held 22.8% of overall market share.

Access to supermarkets is important given that fewer affordable food options are available in smaller food shops. A study conducted by Which? in 2023 found that the majority of small local stores assessed did not stock essential budget line items, meaning that the cheapest options are not available to people reliant on their local shops.

Figure 4.2.1b: Number of supermarkets per 10,000 people in the UK by English region and country, 2023

Source: Number of chain supermarkets across Local Authority Districts (LAD) and smaller geographical areas in the UK, ONS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

In 2023 Scotland had the most supermarkets per person in the UK (by English region and country), with 3.39 supermarkets per 10,000 people, followed by 3.32 supermarkets in Northern Ireland (Figure 4.2.1b). London had the fewest supermarkets per 10,000 people at 2.20, followed by West Midlands with 2.35.

It is worth noting that there are likely to be fewer shops where there is much lower population density. For example, the high number of supermarkets recorded in Scotland may not be because of a large number of supermarkets per capita. Instead, it may reflect the existence of supermarkets which cover large catchment areas and serve a relatively small number of people. This can have implications for food prices, with research showing that remote rural areas in Scotland have higher food prices compared to the country’s average (Revoredo-Giha and Russo, 2020).

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 lockdown had a significant impact on how households sourced their food. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey found that 68% of households physically went to grocery shops less often, while 34% did more grocery shopping online and 29% sought more local options for their shopping.

Access for disabled people

Disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to have difficulty accessing food shops. Findings from the Government’s Disability Unit’s UK Disability Survey found that 40% of disabled people had experienced difficulties shopping around for products or services, with reported barriers including a lack of appropriate facilities (16%), difficulty using public transport (15%), and difficulty moving around premises (13%).

A survey carried out by the ONS in 2022 found that in Great Britain disabled people were more likely than non-disabled people to indicate difficulty accessing groceries, such as food or drink (25.0% for disabled people and 10.5% for non-disabled people). Disabled people who experienced difficulty accessing products or services were more likely than non-disabled people to report other barriers, including difficulty using transport (22.9% vs 6.1%), not having enough places to rest (15.3% vs 0.8%), difficulty using pavements (13.9% vs 0.9%), difficulty getting into or moving around buildings (12.5% vs 1.2%), difficulty accessing toilets (13.1% vs 2.2%) and other people’s attitudes (9.0% vs 1.6%).

These findings are supported by research published by the charity Scope in 2021 which found that the most common physical barriers that disabled people reported in the UK while buying food in store were large numbers of other customers, items being out of reach, and not knowing where items are due to changes in store layout.

The Food Foundation’s Food Insecurity Tracker in 2023 found that of households in the UK with an adult limited a lot by disabilities, 23.2% had experienced food insecurity by not being able to get to food shops. In comparison, only 8% of households with no one affected by a disability could not get to food shops.

In June 2024, 32% of households in the UK with an adult limited a lot by disability experienced food insecurity, compared to only 10.1% of households with no disabilities. In July 2021 these figures were 24.1% and 5.2% respectively. However, the winter of 2022/23 saw a peak for both these groups with 45.4% of households with an adult limited a lot by disability experiencing food insecurity in September 2022, and 13.4% of households with no disabilities experiencing food insecurity in January 2023.

Access for older people

Food shops can also present physical challenges for older people. Research by Dickinson et al (2020) found structural factors, such as supermarket design, increased the likelihood of households aged 60 to 94 years becoming food insecure. The research also demonstrated how smaller everyday ‘trivia’, such as lack of seating and accessible toilets in supermarkets, accumulated to make people more vulnerable. Surveys of older people have also found that access to food outlets can be problematic. For example, a report by the UK Malnutrition Task Force in 2017 found that 11% of people aged over 65 stated they had difficulty accessing a corner shop, 12% found it difficult to get to their local supermarket and 28% of rural households noted they did not have a supermarket within 4 kilometres.

4.2.2 Online access to food shops

Rationale

Online access to food shops has become an increasingly important avenue for consumers to access food shops in a timely, convenient and economical manner. This indicator tracks internet sales as a proportion of food shopping and all other retailing over time to monitor the ability of UK consumers to digitally access food shops.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.2.2a: Internet sales, as a percent of all retail and food stores by value, in Great Britain, January 2008 to September 2024

Source: Retail Sales Index internet sales, ONS

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Note: “Food stores” is mostly supermarkets but also includes specialist food stores such as butchers and bakers and off-licences. Supermarkets will have a proportion of non-food items such as clothing and appliances.

A proportion of food shopping is carried out online in Great Britain and has experienced consistent growth, although at a slower pace and from a lower starting point than all retail. During the pandemic, there was a rapid increase, with online food shopping peaking at 12.4% of all food shopping in January 2021. This was more than double the proportion of food shopping that was online in February 2020 when only 5.4% was online. Over the past three years, the proportion stabilised and slightly declined to 9.2% of food sales being online by September 2024. This reflects a gradual return to in-store shopping but also a lasting increase in online food shopping compared to pre-pandemic figures.

There was also a substantial spike in the proportion of online sales for all retailing, peaking at 37.5% in February 2021. Post-pandemic adjustments saw this proportion settle at 27.7% by September 2024. This is still markedly higher than pre-pandemic levels, indicating a continuing shift towards online shopping. Within this, the category of textile, clothing and footwear stores was the leading area of spend, having the highest proportion of online sales at 28% in September 2024.

Over the last 15 years, internet sales of food items from food stores in Great Britain have experienced a consistent growth pattern from January 2008 (1.6%) to September 2024 (9.2%). Some do not benefit from this improved digital access due to accessibility issues such as affordability and ability.

Supporting evidence

Online platforms

Online food shops are used less often compared to in-person food shops. Data from the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey on where and how frequently consumers living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland buy food shows that large supermarkets are used most frequently with 75% of respondents shopping in a large supermarket at least once a week in mid-2023, however respondents also reported buying food from mini supermarkets (51%) and local/corner shops, newsagents or garage forecourts (24%) about once a week or more. Online supermarkets were used less frequently, with 13% of respondents ordering food from online supermarkets about once a week or more, while 4% of respondents reported having a recipe box delivered once a week or more.

Rural and urban areas

Figure 4.2.2b: Total spending both online and in-person by rural/urban, 12 weeks to 19 March 2023, Great Britain

Source: one-off analysis with data purchased from Kantar’s Worldpanel

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

In all types of areas supermarkets are the most popular type of shop to buy food, in terms of sales (Figure 4.2.2b). This is followed in all area types by discount supermarkets (including Aldi and Lidl). Semi-rural areas have the highest percentage of sales at supermarkets at 56.4%, followed by suburban areas at 55.8%. Urban areas have the lowest percentage of sales at supermarkets. Internet sales are most popular in rural areas with 14.4% of sales, followed by semi-rural areas with 14.0% of food sales via the internet. City areas have the lowest percentage of internet sales at 10.2%.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Data from Kantar’s Worldpanel shows that internet shopping took a larger share of food sales in 2020 due to the pandemic and peaked at a 14.6% share in the 12 weeks to 19 March 2021. This gradually dropped back and by the 12 weeks to 19 March 2023 its share was down to 11.4%

Greater access

Digital access to food shops offers benefits to some consumers by offering accessible web pages, assistance with carrying shopping and tracking spending. Research conducted by the Consumer Council on the food shopping experience for consumers in Northern Ireland found that participants thought websites for ordering groceries online were easy to navigate and that home delivery services also benefited consumers who needed assistance to bring heavier items into their home. For others, it saved time and helped with tracking spending via their online basket, with most feeling delivery charges were reasonable.

Digital exclusion

While Figure 4.2.2b shows that, proportionally, online food shopping is most popular in rural areas, Newing and others found in 2022 that the most remote and rural catchments tend to experience comparatively poor online groceries provision. This is visualised by the e-food desert index covering Great Britain. It highlights how remote and rural neighbourhoods are affected by the dual disadvantage of comparatively poor access to physical retail opportunities in addition to limited provision of online groceries.

This combination of digital exclusion and restricted access to physical shops is shared by other food insecure households (for example, households including disabled and elderly adults), who experience poor access to both physical and online food shops. While online access to food shops has become an increasingly important avenue for consumers, obstacles to using digital products for some people can restrict their ability to access food shopping online. The House of Commons debate on digital exclusion found that many private sector websites do not meet disabled people’s communication needs, making them inaccessible and leading to digital exclusion. A survey carried out by Scope found that just under half (45%) of disabled people said they experienced accessibility issues with the supermarket’s website or app when buying food online.

Other obstacles include affordability, with some people not being able to pay for access to the internet or internet-enabled devices, and ability, with some not having the required skills to navigate technology, the internet and websites. In 2021, 6% of UK households did not have access to the internet at home at all. Those most at risk of digital exclusion were older people, the financially insecure, and people impacted by a limiting condition like a hearing or vision impairment.

These issues of accessibility often overlap. Research carried out by the charity Scope for the period 2020 to 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that some disabled people experienced barriers to accessing online food deliveries. This was due to issues relating to using apps, a lack of delivery slots, and the cost of delivery, including being unable to reach the minimum spend requirements, a particular problem for those living alone. This supports research carried out by the Trussell Trust which found that those with digital access issues were overrepresented at food banks (Hunger in the UK).

Forward look

A rise in the proportion of shopping carried out online has meant physical shops, high streets and shopping centres have adapted their offer to customers (House of Commons Library, 2024). Greater online retail is not correlated with the closure of physical shops. However, the strength of the high street is closely correlated to other local factors, such as levels of disposable income and the local labour market (Centre for Cities, 2023).

Sub-theme 3: Diet and Nutrition

4.3.1 Consumption patterns

Rationale

Data from the Family Food Report shows how UK dietary patterns are changing through the amount and type of food purchased. It is one useful indicator of the utilisation dimension of UK food security by measuring changes to the nutritional value of UK food consumption. It also shows the degree to which UK food supply meets consumers’ preferences and the norms and values that influence UK consumer demand for certain types of food.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.3.1a: Change in UK purchases, in volume, of different food groups eaten in the home, FYE 2020 to FYE 2023

Source: Family Food Report, Defra

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Between FYE 2020 and FYE 2023 the purchases of all main food categories (in grams per person per week) decreased in the UK. Fish purchases decreased by 15.1%, milk by 12.2% and fruit by 12.1%. In the same time period, the volume of food eaten out (for example, at restaurants) by households also decreased, which could indicate that people were buying less food altogether. This data only covers purchases of food eaten in the home; for information on how much food is thrown away and not consumed, see Theme 2 Indicator 2.2.2 on Food waste.

Falls in purchasing of some food groups may contribute to continued poor diets in the UK, with the various health implications of not meeting recommended dietary intakes explored in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet. Growing awareness of ‘plant-based’ diets and a fall in total meat consumption is also a longer-term trend which is a positive trajectory for sustainability and health, when accompanied by improvements elsewhere in the diet. This contrasts with rising global consumption (which is covered in further detail in Indicator 1.1.4 Global livestock products). Estimates in Defra’s Family Food Report show that consumption of ready meals and convenience meat (such as burgers, sausages and cooked meats) has risen in the long term while consumption of less processed meat (for instance joints, steaks and chops) has decreased.

Supporting evidence

Plant-based diets

As there has been a growing interest in and awareness of ‘plant-based’ diets, Family Food Report data estimates that purchases of meat has decreased while that of non-dairy milk substitutes has increased. The term ‘plant-based’ encompasses a range of diets which aim to reduce the consumption of meat and other animal products, however there is no universally agreed definition of the term (Key, Papier and Tong, 2022). Data from Wave 7 of the Food and You 2 survey in 2023 suggests 4% of consumers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland are vegetarian (avoid meat and fish), 3% are pescatarian (avoid meat), 1% are vegan (avoid all animal derived products), and 10% are mainly vegetarian but occasionally eat meat. Data from Wave 4 of the Food and You 2 survey in 2022 suggests, of the respondents that reported having eaten less meat, poultry, or fish in the previous 12 months (28%), respondents were most likely to report eating less red meat (57%), processed meat (69%) and dairy or eggs (45%) for health reasons, with environmental/sustainability the second most common reason across all three food groups (55%, 36%, 32%, respectively). This has implications for levels of UK food demand as a move towards more plant-based diets could result in changes to demand in other food groups, such as livestock, with potential impacts on overall nutritional security. Further information on UK food demand and nutritional security is covered in Theme 2 and Theme 4 Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet respectively.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic had some impact on the UK diet and affected people in different ways. Data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) showed that there was no indication of a marked deterioration in diets between August and October 2020 at the overall population level compared with data collected before the pandemic. However, there was a wide range of individual differences. Almost one-fifth of households (19%) who participated in the study reported cutting down or skipping meals since the pandemic started. This was most often because of the non-availability of the food they wanted in the shops, with only 3% of participants citing lack of money as the reason for cutting down or skipping meals.

The Food Foundation also found that 16.2% of adults reported food insecurity in the first three weeks of the lockdown from March to April 2020, stating “a lack of food in shops alone explained about 40% of food insecurity experiences.”

The FSA’s COVID-19 consumer tracker, conducted across England, Wales and Northern Ireland each month between April 2020 and October 2021, asked participants whether they had cut down the size of their meals or skipped meals because they could not afford to buy food. In October 2021, a higher proportion of respondents (21%) reported cutting meal sizes or skipping meals due to not having enough money than in April 2020 (18%), with the range of respondents reporting cutting meal sizes or skipping meals due to not having enough money ranging from 12% in August 2020 to 22% in May 2021.

NDNS data also found that households with children were more likely to report low financial and food security during the pandemic. Further information on how out of home spending patterns changed during the pandemic is covered in Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food.

Longer-term trends

While COVID-19 had a significant impact on the UK’s food purchases in FYE 2021 (see Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food), with data from the Family Food Report indicating that the level of purchases for most food products have returned to longer-term trends. For example, while fruit, vegetable and meat purchases all increased from FYE 2020 to FYE 2021 by 7.3%, 11.2% and 2.8% respectively, they have since resumed their long-term decline. Household purchases of vegetables have been generally declining since 1978 when an average of 1,247g per person was purchased per week. This was interrupted by an increase in FYE 2021 to 1,275g, followed by a 15% decrease back to the long-term trend in FYE 2022 when 1,079g per person was purchased per week.

In a Progress Report for 2023 , the Food Foundation found that across the UK the proportion of vegetables by weight in an average shopping basket had fallen from 7.1% in 2018/19 to 6.8% in 2022/23. Similarly, a spike in fruit purchases in 2020/21 was followed by an 11.5% decrease back to the long-term trend in 2021/22.

Likewise, meat purchases peaked in 1980 and were relatively stable between 2013 and 2019/20. In 2020/21, there was an increase which was followed by a decrease of 12.5% in 2021/22. Data published in Defra’s Family Food Report shows that UK consumers have reduced their combined household consumption of beef, pork and lamb by almost 62% from 1980 to 2022, while in the same period, household uncooked chicken purchases increased from 141g per person per week to 195g. Within this, consumption of less processed meat (such as joints, steaks and chops) has decreased.

Milk purchases per week (including non-dairy) have continued to decline, falling from 2,978ml in 1974 to 1,635ml in 2021/22, equivalent to a drop of 45.1%, with the latest yearly change showing an 8.7% decrease.

Conversely, consumption of ready meals and convenience meat has increased between 1974 and 2021/22. The health impacts of UK takeaway consumption can be found in in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet.

Income

Purchasing data from Defra’s Family Food report shows consumption patterns are highly correlated with the income of a household. The price point of goods can be an important factor in different consumption patterns. For example, price may be a barrier to fruit and vegetable consumption as these tend to be more expensive than other staple items and purchases tend to increase with higher incomes.

The proportion of household spend on premium items is correlated with household income. In the 12 weeks ending 19 March 2023, households with an income of less than £10,000 spent 19.9% of their spend on budget items (costing up to 57% of the category median) and 9.1% household spend on super premium items (costing 175% of the category median). This differs from households with an income of over £70,000, which spent 15% of their household spend on budget items and 14.1% of their household spend on super premium items.

Forward look

The longer-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, associated lockdowns and subsequent economic challenges on the UK’s food security will be better illustrated in data from 2022 onwards. Future analysis must take particular care to note the impact of COVID-19 on food insecure and lower-income households.

Changes to consumer preferences affect the UK’s balance of production and trade. A recent study shows the trend of consumer preference for plant-based food over animal-based foods is increasing the UK’s dependence on international trade for its nutritional security. Over the last 50 years imports of fruits and vegetables have increased to become major sources of vitamin A and C in UK diets. For instance, plant imports are now the largest source of vitamin C, overtaking domestic crops. See further analysis of the UK’s balance of production to supply of micronutrients in Theme 2 food sources Indicators.

4.3.2 Healthy diet

Rationale

This indicator tracks the dietary and nutritional intake of the UK population, comparing reported dietary intakes to UK dietary recommendations. It is therefore a useful indicator of the utilisation of UK food security by measuring the degree to which different population groups are meeting UK dietary recommendations and overall changes to the nutritional value of UK food consumption.

Government advice on a healthy, balanced diet is provided in the UK’s national food model, the Eatwell Guide (EWG). EWG shows that a healthy diet is based on plenty of fruit and vegetables (at least 5 portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day) and starchy carbohydrates (particularly higher fibre or wholegrain). It also includes some protein foods (such as beans, pulses, fish, eggs or meat), dairy or dairy alternatives and 2 portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily. The guide shows that where foods and drinks high in saturated fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) are consumed that these should be eaten less often and in small amounts.  It is also advised that people who consume large quantities of red meat and/or processed meat reduce their intakes to fewer than or equal to 70g per day.

This Indicator uses data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities’ NDNS. The NDNS collects dietary information using a paper food diary dietary assessment with open text entry and estimated portion weights completed by the participant over 4 consecutive days. These diaries are reviewed by fieldworkers and foods and portions are coded centrally by trained coders into a dietary assessment system. The survey also assesses nutritional status using physical measurements and a blood and urine sample.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.3.2a: Nutritional intake of the general population compared with government recommendations, FYE 2017 to FYE 2019

Sources:

Urinary sodium for children and teenagers: NDNS: results from Years 1 to 4 (combined) - GOV.UK;

Urinary sodium for adults (aged 18 to 64): National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Assessment of salt intake from urinary sodium in adults (aged 19 to 64 years) in England, 2018 to 2019 - GOV.UK;

All other nutrients in the table: NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 (combined) – statistical summary - GOV.UK

			Mean intake
Nutrient	Recommendation	Children 4 to 10 yrs	Teenagers 11 to 18 yrs	Adults 19 to 64 yrs
Total fat	≤35% energy excluding alcohol (ethanol)	34.2	34.2	35.2*
Saturated fat	≤10% energy excluding alcohol (ethanol)	13.1*	12.6*	12.8*
Trans fat	≤2% energy excluding alcohol (ethanol)	0.5	0.5	0.5
Total carbohydrate	≥50% energy excluding alcohol (ethanol)	51.0	50.0	46.8*
Free sugars	≤5% energy excluding alcohol (ethanol)	12.1*	12.3*	10.3*
Fibre (AOAC)	2 to 4 years ≥ 15g/d
	5 to 10 years ≥ 20g/d	14.3*
	11 to 15 years ≥ 25g/d		16.0*
	16+ years ≥ 30g/d			19.7*
Salt	4 to 6 years ≤ 3g/d	3.9*
	7 to years ≤ 5g/d	5.3*
	11+ years ≤ 6g/d		7.0*	8.4*
Fruit and vegetables	5 portions/d	-*	2.9*	4.3*
Red and processed meat	≤ 70g/day for adults	39	53	56
Oily fish	1 portion (140 grams) per week for adults	16*	18*	56*

Note: Figures followed by an asterisk indicate where intakes do not meet government recommendations.

Figure 4.3.2a shows nutritional intakes of the UK population according to the latest data from the NDNS. NDNS data from 2016/17 to 2018/19 (for all nutrients except urinary sodium in children which goes from 2008/09 to 2011/12) found that mean intakes of saturated fat, free sugars, and salt exceeded recommended maximums, while intakes of fibre, fruits, and vegetables and oily fish were below recommendations across all age groups. While people often worry about their protein intake, NDNS data indicates that the protein intakes of all population age and income groups are more than sufficient.

Average energy (calorie) intakes reported in NDNS are below average requirements due to underreporting of food consumption which is a universal issue in dietary surveys. However, modelling data based on calculated calorie consumption using height and weight data from the Health Survey for England, estimates that children who are living with overweight or obesity consume anywhere between 180 and 560 additional calories each day, depending on their age and sex. Adults who are living with overweight or obesity consume between 250 and 450 excess calories each day. Further exploration of dietary trends is provided under ‘supporting evidence.’

Supporting evidence shows that dietary intakes vary across population groups and that financial constraints strongly influence the ability to choose and consume healthier foods and drinks. Over the last 30 years, food and drink has become cheaper, more calorie dense, higher in saturated fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), more available and more heavily promoted, which is reflected in purchasing behaviours, food and nutrient intakes, and much higher levels of obesity. Healthy diets, in line with UK dietary recommendations, are associated with a reduced risk of some diseases and micronutrient deficiencies.

Supporting evidence

Dietary intakes of the population

Figure 4.3.2b: Adherence to specific Eatwell Guide recommendations by the UK population, using data from NDNS Waves 5-9 (FYE 2012 to FYE 2017 )

Source: Health impacts and environmental footprints of diets that meet the Eatwell Guide recommendations: analyses of multiple UK studies, Scheelbeek and others in 2020

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

It is estimated that just under a third (30%) of the UK population meet at least 5 of the 9 EWG dietary recommendations, based on data from wave 5 to 9 of the NDNS. However, fewer than 1% meet all 9 of the recommendations (Figure 4.3.2b).

Data from the NDNS indicates that people in lower-income groups generally have a lower consumption of fruit, vegetables, oily fish, fibre and some vitamins and minerals than higher-income groups, and a higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. While no income group fully meets dietary recommendations, analysis of NDNS data by equivalised household income shows that those on higher incomes were typically closer to meeting some of the dietary recommendations. The poorest 10% eat, on average, 42% less fruit and vegetables than recommended, while the richest eat 13% less. In practice, this means the bottom 20% of the population by income eat one fewer full portion of fruit and vegetables per day than the highest income 20%. On average, fruit and vegetable intake decreases as levels of deprivation increase.

Figure 4.3.2c: Percentage of adults in England aged 16 years and over eating ‘5 a day’ by ethnicity, FYE 2023 only

Source: Fingertips, Department of Health and Social Care (phe.org.uk)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Dietary intakes are also likely to vary by ethnicity. Data from the Active Lives survey shows differences in consumption of fruit and vegetables by ethnicity (Figure 4.3.2c). To date, NDNS has not had a sufficient volume of participants to assess the data by ethnicity. However, this will be possible in future as the survey moves to a new online method.

The most recent NDNS data indicates that intake of some vitamins and minerals are below recommended levels in some population groups, as shown below.

Blood tests undertaken as part of the NDNS found low folate levels across most age groups, with dietary intake of folate falling since 2008. During pregnancy, folate needs to be increased, and 89% of women aged 16 to 49 have red blood cell folate levels below the threshold associated with an increased risk of foetal neural tube defects (NTDs), a group of congenital conditions affecting the brain, spine and/or spinal cord. NTDs include anencephaly, spina bifida, and encephalocele. The development and closure of the neural tube between the brain and spinal cord is normally completed within the 28 days following conception. NTDs are thought to be caused by failure of the neural tube to close. To reduce the risk of NTDs, women who may become pregnant are advised to take 400 micrograms of folic acid every day before pregnancy until the twelfth week of pregnancy.

An adequate level of vitamin D in the body is required for protection of musculoskeletal health. Vitamin D is either synthesised by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight, which is the main source of vitamin D for most people, or it can be obtained from food or supplements. NDNS data shows that most age groups have low vitamin D levels, with dietary intake covering less than a third of the estimated requirements in adults and children. From late March or early April to the end of September, most people should be able to get all the vitamin D they need from sunlight on their skin. Since it is difficult for people to get enough vitamin D from food alone, all population groups are advised to take a daily supplement containing ten micrograms of vitamin D during the autumn and winter when sunlight exposure is minimal. Including supplementation, mean intakes are higher, however average intake does not meet the estimated requirements for any age group.

Iron, as a component of haemoglobin in red blood cells, is required for transporting oxygen around the body and, in the form of myoglobin, for the storage and use of oxygen in muscles. Mean iron intakes for girls aged 11 to 18 years and women aged 19 to 64 years were below requirements (56% and 76% of the requirements respectively) according to NDNS data. Women and girls have increased iron requirements compared to men and boys to account for losses which occur with menstruation. The NDNS blood tests found evidence of both iron-deficiency anaemia and low iron stores in 9% of girls aged 11 to 18, 5% of women aged 19 to 64 and 2% of women aged 65 and above.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic had some impact on the UK diet and affected individual people in different ways.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on grocery shopping behaviour. Recent analysis from the Institute of Fiscal Studies indicates that takeaways and meal delivery grew by more than 50% during the COVID-19 pandemic and have stayed high since. Data from the FSA from June and July 2020 shows that while some people became more health conscious during lockdown, many others responded by increasing their reliance on snacking, quick foods, ultra-processed foods or takeaways as a result. These findings are supported by Public Health England’s (PHE) analysis of grocery shopping behaviours during the first lockdown, which found an increase in the sales of snacks

Data from an NDNS follow-up study similarly showed that there was a wide range of individual differences, although there was no indication of a marked deterioration in diets at the overall population level compared with data collected before the pandemic. While participants from households reporting lower financial or food security had poorer diets in some respects than participants from other households, by consuming less fruit and vegetables and fish and more sugar-sweetened soft drinks, there were no differences in reported consumption across other food groups. This includes confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, with little difference in energy intakes between financial security categories. Further information on the impact of COVID-19 on consumption patterns is covered in Indicator 4.3.1 Consumption patterns.

Ultra-processed food

There is live and current debate about the topic of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and health. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)’s position statement on processed foods and health concluded that observed associations between UPF and health are concerning, but it is unclear whether these foods are inherently unhealthy due to processing or due to their nutritional content. The statement noted that diets high in UPF are often energy dense, high in saturated fat, salt or free sugars, high in processed meat, and/or low in fruit, vegetables and fibre, which previous risk assessments had linked to poor health outcomes. Both the FSA and FSS have published advice on this topic, endorsing the SACN conclusion.

It is estimated that UPF contribute between 51% and 68% of total dietary calorie intake in the UK (with higher estimates for children and young adults). Intakes also appear to vary by socioeconomic status with UPF contributing a higher proportion of total energy intake for lower-income compared to higher-income groups.

Government dietary advice, based on recommendations from SACN, as depicted within the EWG, already shows that many foods that would be classified as UPF are not part of a healthy, balanced diet as they are high in calories and HFSS.

Food environment

According to the Department of Health and Social Care in 2024, as a proportion of income, food and drink in the UK has become cheaper, more calorie dense, higher in saturated fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), more available and more heavily promoted, marketed and advertised. This shift in the food environment is reflected in purchasing behaviours, food and nutrient intakes and much higher levels of overweight and obesity, as outlined below.

There is a broad body of research that suggests food consumed while eating out of home sector (OOH), including from takeaways, tends to be higher in calories, salt and sugar while also being low in fibre, fruit and vegetables, and portion sizes are larger (Huang and others, 2022; PHE, 2020). It has been estimated that the OOH sector in the UK provides up to 25% of average adult energy intake. Defra’s Family Food Report estimated that in the FYE 2020 29% of household food and non-alcoholic beverages spend in the UK was in the OOH sector, but this proportion fell to 21% in the FYE 2023.

People in more deprived areas have greater access to fast-food outlets, as evidenced by research by PHE which found that the poorest areas in England have five times more fast-food outlets than the most affluent areas. Studies have also shown that access to online food delivery outlets further exacerbates the risks associated with fast food consumption, with the greatest access to online food outlets also being in the most deprived areas of England (Keeble and others, 2021; Keeble, Adams and Burgoine, 2023). Research from Bite Back indicates almost half (48%) of young people buy from meal delivery applications at least a few times a month.

According to the Food Foundation in 2023, one-third of advertising spend by the food industry in 2022 to 2023 was spent on marketing confectionery, snacks, desserts and soft drinks, while only approximately 1% of advertising budgets was spent on marketing fruits and vegetables. The spend and degree of advertising by the OOH sector is growing faster than other areas. A report by Bite Back showed that digital and social media advertising expenditure by the top ten biggest-spending fast-food outlets and delivery platforms increased by £37.5m between 2021 and 2022, an increase of 75%, rising from £50 million in 2021 to £87.5 million in 2022. The Department of Health and Social Care found in 2021 that advertising of unhealthy, high calorie food has been identified as a contributory factor to the increasing prevalence of obesity around the world. The School for Public Health Research found in 2021 that children and adults from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be exposed to advertising of HFSS foods.

Affordability of a healthy diet

The affordability of a healthy balanced diet remains an issue for consumers. For example, 29% of respondents to Food Standards Scotland’s (FSS) Food in Scotland Consumer Tracking Survey of 2024 stated they could not afford a healthy balanced diet.

Evidence suggests healthy diets cost more than less healthy diets. Research into individuals’ dietary data by Eustachio and others (2021), which is contained in the NDNS (from FYE 2013 to FYE 2017), showed that meeting the ‘5-a-day’ recommendation for fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with an increased diet cost of £0.34 to £0.46 per day.

Recent data shows that the cost of a healthy diet can vary widely depending on a range of factors. In 2022, the Food Standards Agency published a Northern Ireland-based research project using UK consumer price index indicating that food costs for the minimal essential food basket ranged from 23% to 45% of net income in Northern Ireland, varying according to household size, age of children and source of income. FSS undertook some exploratory research to provide an estimate of the cost of a healthy diet for a week using information from a single supermarket. This resulted in a wide range of estimates for the cost of a healthy basket: the cost of a basket of food needed to create a specific set of meals which meet dietary recommendations for a week for a couple cost £67.56 at its lowest price and £166.11 at its highest price, a difference of £98.55 (146%). Modelling work to cost a healthy basket for a family of 4 for a week was undertaken by PHE and completed by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities in 2021/22, the findings of which broadly align with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

Figure 4.3.2d: Percentage of disposable income required to afford the diet recommended in the Eatwell Guide by income quintile in the UK, FYE 2021 to FYE 2023

Sources: Broken Plate 2023 Report, and Triple wins for children’s poverty food insecurity and health, both published by the Food Foundation, 31 October 2024

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Analysis by the Food Foundation reports that in FYE 2023 the lowest income fifth of households (quintile 1) would need to spend 45% of their disposable income on food to meet government dietary recommendations compared to 11% for higher income groups (Figure 4.3.2d). They also estimate that households with children in quintile 1 would have to spend 70% of their disposable income on food to meet the government dietary recommendation. This figure would be 12.4% for households in the highest income group (quintile 5) with children. Further information on how much households spend on food is covered in Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food.

Financial constraints significantly influence the ability to choose and consume healthier foods and drinks. In 2024, the Food Foundation, found that 1 in 7 (14%) of the lowest-priced fruit and vegetable products across 7 major retailers contained added salt or sugar, with low-income families facing several barriers in accessing and affording their ‘5-a-day’. Vegetable products were more likely than fruit products to contain added salt or sugar, and baked beans, tinned peas and tomato sauces were the most likely to contain added salt and sugar. A survey from the Food Foundation of 6,051 adults in January 2024 found that 60% of households experiencing food insecurity reported buying less fruit (compared to 11% of food secure households) and 44% buying fewer vegetables (compared to 5.5% of food secure households). The rising cost of healthier foods can paradoxically result in obesity due to the reliance on inexpensive HFSS foods, which are more accessible to low-income individuals. The Food Foundation reported in 2023 that healthier foods in the UK are more than twice as expensive per calorie than unhealthy foods.

A retail food price modelling project for Defra in 2020 by Davidson and others shows that consumer food prices are principally determined over time by farmgate prices, import prices, exchange rates, labour costs and non-labour costs in food manufacturing. A more recent study was conducted by the same group for Defra, the results of which can be found here. Further information on the dynamic between the cost of imports and input prices is covered in Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.1.

Impacts of UK diet

Healthy diets in-line with UK dietary recommendations are associated with reduced risk of dental caries, obesity, chronic diseases (such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers) and micronutrient deficiencies. Adherence to the EWG is associated with a 7% reduction in mortality, according to research by Scheelbeek and others in 2020. For example, eating less red and processed meat is likely to reduce risk of bowel (colo-rectal) cancer (SACN, 2010). UK adults aged 40 years old, with median dietary intakes, could gain approximately 1.3 years of life expectancy by sustaining a diet that meets EWG recommendations. In comparison, those with the highest risk diets may see life expectancy gains up to 8 years by changing to EWG dietary recommendations according to the findings of Fadnes and others in 2023.

Healthy diets have also been associated with some positive environmental impacts. Adherence to the EWG has been estimated by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to reduce dietary emissions by 13% on average. Modelling by FSS (2024) indicates that adhering to existing UK dietary recommendations on red and red processed meat contribute significantly to recommendations by the Climate Change Committee to reduce total meat intakes by 20% by 2030. If all adults living in Scotland met the existing recommendation of no more than 70g a day, it would achieve a 16% reduction in total meat intake. This is in a context where the majority of the population in Scotland do not have a diet similar to the EWG, and meat and dairy are therefore relatively more important in the diet as an important source of micronutrients. However, research by Galazoula and others in 2021, for example, suggests that a healthy diet is not necessarily sustainable. Further information on the environmental impacts associated with UK consumption is covered in Indicator 4.3.3 Sustainable diet.

Obesity is a concern among all population groups. Data from Health Survey for England, 2022, shows that the prevalence of overweight (including obesity) has remained stable in England since 2019, with 64% of adults estimated to be living with overweight or obesity, and 29% of adults estimated to be living with obesity in 2022. The daily supply of calories per person amounted to 3,362 kilocalories per day in 2021, equivalent to 34% more calories than the recommended level. However, this does not measure the amount of energy actually consumed, or account for consumer waste. This suggests a continuing trend of overconsumption of calories that, alongside overconsumption of HFSS foods, contributes to obesity.

Prevalence of overweight and obesity is highest among those living in the most deprived areas (71.5% and 35.9% respectively) and lowest in those living in the least deprived areas (59.6% and 20.5% respectively). This is supported by National Health Service (NHS) England data which showed that hospital admissions directly attributable to obesity were 4 times more likely in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas. Data from the National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) shows that obesity prevalence was twice as high for children aged 4 to 5 and 10 to 11 years living in the most deprived areas compared with those living in the least deprived areas.

Underweight is also a concern, though it is much less common than overweight or obesity. Data from the 2022/24 NCMP suggests that in England, approximately 1.2% of children aged 4 to 5 years and 1.7% of children aged 10 to 11 years have low weight for their height and age. The rate is higher in children from Asian ethnic groups, particularly children recorded as being of Indian ethnicity. Among children aged 4 to 5 years, those living in the most deprived areas were more likely to have a low weight for their height compared to those living in the least deprived areas, but this was not the case among those aged 10 to 11.

Data collected by NHS England on hospital admissions for malnutrition, covering both undernutrition and overnutrition, and nutrition-related deficiencies, such as rickets, show differing trends. Malnutrition figures show a gradually increasing trend, with figures in 2022/23 double that of 2007/08 (when records began). In the UK, the primary causes of malnutrition are clinical, meaning secondary to another health condition which may affect nutritional needs or impact on a person’s ability to eat and drink. This is rather than it solely being caused by poor or inadequate dietary intake. The number of people with a primary or secondary diagnosis of rickets has varied but broadly remained stable since records began. It is not possible to establish from the admissions statistics what the underlying causes are. While data on scurvy is tracked and available by NHS England, cases stem from clinical or social causes, such as drug addiction, which impact on dietary behaviours, and so are not considered relevant to this report.

Research by Berkowitz and others in 2018, and by Estrella and others in 2021 in North America suggests that food insecurity is associated with poorer mental and physical health, higher healthcare utilisation and cost. Research conducted by the Resolution Foundation in 2023 found that 45% of adults who experienced severe food insecurity felt much more unhappy or depressed than usual. 

Additional findings from qualitative social research on the impact of living with food insecurity on health are covered in the case study on the lived experience of food insecurity and its impact on health.

Forward look

While the relationship between nutrient intakes and food insecurity in the UK are currently unclear, international data indicates that food insecurity may be associated with poorer diets in adults and that adults with food insecurity are more likely to be living with overweight and obesity than food secure adults. Meanwhile, higher food insecurity in children has been found to be associated with a reduced likelihood of meeting nutritional intake recommendations for some micronutrients.

The FSA monitors food security and other consumer-related behaviours through its Food and You 2 survey, which is described in more detail in Indicator 4.1.1 Household food security status. Questions on food insecurity have been included in the NDNS since April 2022 although this data has not yet been published. Therefore, we do not yet know the long-term impact of recent increasing food prices and declines in food sales on population health and nutrition.

Case study 1: The lived experience of food insecurity and its impact on health

Introduction

Diet is an important health indicator (see Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet), being second and third in the 20 top risks in the hierarchy of factors contributing to death for females and males, respectively, according to the Global Burden of Disease, 2020. Barriers to healthy eating are complex, encompassing social, economic and infrastructural factors (Briazu and others, 2024). Increasing food prices presents a challenge for those on lower incomes who are more likely to cut back on purchasing healthy foods such as fruit, vegetables and fish (Johnstone and Lonnie, 2023). The struggles to make healthy food choices faced by some consumers, may have been exacerbated by the period of high inflation between 2021 and 2023. The reality of living with food insecurity may not be fully reflected in large-scale survey data (Lonnie and others, 2024). Integrating qualitative social research into our understanding of food insecurity within the context of the UK food system, including in relation to people’s lived experiences, is important. Such research provides insights into our understanding of dietary and health inequality gaps, which are expected to widen if no actions are taken due to current economic pressures, climate change impacts and import dependency in the UK and globally (UK Health Security Agency, 2023 ; Power and others, 2021).

Description and Analysis

The lived experience of food insecurity and its impact on diet: Quantitative data captured by this theme of the UKFSR shows the scale and magnitude of food insecurity in the UK. However, it is important to understand the lived experience of people living with food insecurity. Qualitative data can often provide richer insights into struggles, uncover nuances and drivers of behaviours which can be used to interpret the results of national surveys, as well as identify gaps in knowledge missed in quantitative research (Hunt, Pettinger and Wagstaff, 2023).

This case study considers qualitative data collected in 2 research projects funded by the Transforming UK Food Systems - Strategic Priorities Fund (TUKFS-SPF) Programme. The Programme aims to fundamentally transform the UK food system by placing healthy people and a healthy natural environment at its centre. The Food Insecurity in people living with Obesity (FIO Food) project offers insights into the lived experience of consumers living with food insecurity and obesity considering the context of the retail environment, while the Food Systems Equality (FoodSEqual)-Health project shares knowledge and learning from working with disadvantaged communities to improve access to, and the affordability of, fresh produce alongside community-based health and social care support.

Project one: the FIO Food project: The FIO Food project aims to combine knowledge from large-scale population data with an understanding of the lived experience of food insecurity and obesity, to support environmentally sustainable and healthier food choices in the retail environment. A key feature of the project is that it is co-produced with those who have lived experience and uses a transdisciplinary approach, involving collaboration with experts in nutrition, public health, psychology, health geography and data analytics, as well as stakeholders from policy and retail sectors (Lonnie and others, 2023).  

Qualitative data from this project uncovers the influences surrounding purchasing decisions of people living with obesity and food insecurity, and ways in which they attempted to navigate the rising cost of food during the period of high inflation between 2021 and 2023.

Figure 4.3.2e: Pen portraits of diet inequalities

Source: Outputs from the FIO Food project lived experience workshop in Aberdeen

Name of shopper	Type of shopper	Experience
Shirley	The secret shopper	I have a car, a house and live in a nice area, but I was made redundant during the COVID pandemic. I feel ashamed that I need to use the local community food larder as I don’t have enough money to buy the weekly shopping. I live in an area that is perceived to be nice, but I am in trap of poverty.
Olivia	The rural shopper	There isn’t many shops near me, I live in a remote area. It’s not heat or eat, I can’t afford either. Prices of food are higher at the local corner shop. I’d like to get a veg box, but I don’t know what to do with all the produce and it ends up in the bin.
Sam	The scoop shopper	I go shopping with a list, but it is too expensive to buy all my food at a supermarket. I use a local ‘scoop shop,’ to buy dried foods by weight, such as pasta and lentils – it is cheaper to buy smaller amounts, I only get what I need.
Robert	The reduced counter shopper	I shop at 7-8pm at a local supermarket which is the time that the food is reduced. It’s called ‘feeding time at the zoo’ locally, when all the food is reduced I wait for meat to be reduced in price, then do the rest of my shopping. I don’t have time to think about all this eco-friendly nonsense.
Mandy	Make ends meet shopper	It was hard to admit that I needed help to feed the family. I use the local food bank and larder to get food. I have noticed that the quality and quantity of food there has decreased recently. It has helped to get help with budgeting for food shopping and to use shopping list to plan what to cook.
Fred	The pensioner shopper	I don’t have a fancy computer to do online shopping. I can’t carry heavy shopping bags from the supermarket, so I prefer to do a single shop each day. It’s cheaper for me to eat cold food, as I don’t have to pay for cooking.

Note: Lived experience of the challenges that people living with food insecurity face when shopping for healthy and sustainable foods to support their health and healthy weight. Outputs from the Public Involvement workshop during the Challenge Poverty Week in October 2022 – quotes from participants. Co-organised with Aberdeenshire Council. Names have been changed to protect anonymity.

Figure 4.3.2e illustrates qualitative data gathered during one of the project workshops during Challenge Poverty Week in 2022. Over 30 Aberdeenshire consumers who face challenges of food insecurity and obesity discussed barriers in purchasing foods that would help to maintain a healthy diet. These findings highlight the struggles associated with the stigma of food insecurity while shopping, and limited access to healthy produce. This is multidimensional for some people, where limitations include insufficient budget, geographical challenges (for example, living in rural areas and ‘food deserts’), and/or lack of the digital skills that allow online shopping. As a result, shoppers with food insecurity buy what they can afford rather than what they would wish to buy to support their health.

Project two: FoodSEqual: FoodSEqual, and its daughter project FoodSEqual-Health, are interdisciplinary projects that are committed to transforming food systems with disadvantaged communities by using the community food researcher model. FoodSEqual-Health is running an intervention called Fresh Street Community, which provides non-means-tested vouchers for purchasing fruit and vegetables at a bespoke stall set up as a social enterprise at local hubs. The intervention tackles both access to, and affordability of, fresh produce in two locations (Whitley, Reading and Whitleigh, Plymouth), and explores the benefits of social connectivity with access to wellbeing and healthcare, which are provided alongside the fruit and vegetable stalls.

Engagement with participants at the Reading site (Whitley Community Development Association – WCDA) in November 2023, prior to the start of the intervention, showed that a large proportion of households experiencing food insecurity consumed very few portions of fruit or vegetables. For example, 48% of households consumed no portions of fruit or vegetables the preceding day, and thematic analysis of one-to-one structured interviews illustrated the struggles people face with maintaining healthier eating habits:

• ‘I don’t eat vegetables – but I am encouraged to because this is at WCDA’

• ‘I don’t have any strong memories of family meals – none of school dinners as I was always packed lunch. The family favourite meals didn’t include vegetables – except mashed potato. I don’t change what I eat depending on season’

• ‘I struggle to get enough fruit and veg in me – it comes down to cost and time. I am struggling with my mental health – and it makes me not want to cook – or cook things that I have to watch. I am trying to make it healthier but struggling. I eat salad as no preparation is needed. It’s about time management – I do try and keep up with seasonal fruit and vegetables, but it depends on price. I want to get to a point where price comes after my nutrition needs. I do all the cooking on my own.’

• ‘I have problems with depression and anxiety, eating fruit and vegetables I noticed I felt better after 5-weeks’

Discussions with participants at the same site after the intervention in June 2024 revealed the dependency that some households have on both the stall and the vouchers:

• ‘So grateful for the vouchers as been struggling for a while.’

• ‘What you doing is great we couldn’t manage without you - money is tight.’

• ‘I’ve not eaten for 3 days - money not come in yet.’

The relationship between food insecurity and poor health: Unhealthy dietary patterns, coupled with the psychological stress of food insecurity, can lead to increased caloric intake, subsequent weight gain and obesity comorbidities, as well as a profound effect on mental health (Eskandari and others, 2022; IHME, 2022; Rindler, 2023). Low-income households may employ coping strategies such as shopping at multiple stores to find the best prices, bulk buying, coupons, and batch cooking to mitigate food insecurity (Stone and others, 2024). However, exploratory analyses showed some of these practices, such as budgeting, may lead to poorer diet quality. Efforts to purchase healthy, nutritious food are challenging and less consistent despite a preference for healthier options (Stone and others, 2023; Hunter and others, 2024).

Conclusion

Research findings based on people’s lived experience highlight the struggles associated with maintaining healthier eating habits and support the wider evidence base on the connection between food insecurity and diet and health inequalities. Qualitative research can shed light on the mental and emotional challenges experienced by disadvantaged communities and individuals as they struggle to provide food for themselves and their families, especially due to financial restrictions and stigma (Hunter and others, 2024).

4.3.3 Sustainable diet

Rationale

While there is no universal definition of what constitutes a ‘sustainable diet,’ they are broadly considered to be ‘diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010). They combine environmental, health and socio-economic dimensions, such that they are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, affordable, and nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy.

Some components of a sustainable diet are covered in other themes and indicators of the UKFSR. The health aspect is covered in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet; the socio-economic aspect is covered throughout Theme 4, in particular in Indicator 4.1.2 Household spending on food, Indicator 4.1.3 Price changes of main food groups, Indicator 4.2.1 Physical access to food shops and Indicator 4.2.2 Digital access to food shops; while some environmental indicators include the use of antibiotics in UK food production in Theme 2 Indicator 2.2.1, levels of food loss and waste in Theme 2 Indicator 2.2.2, and UK consumption of plastics in Theme 3 Indicator 3.1.2.

This indicator, ‘sustainable diet,’ builds on data covered in other themes of the report to assess the degree to which UK diets have a low impact on the environment and contribute to food security by supporting the preservation of biodiversity and planetary health. This is measured through trends in GHG emissions, water, land use and biodiversity based on how guiding principles on ‘sustainable healthy diets’ developed by the FAO and World Health Organisation (WHO) characterise environmentally sustainable diets. They provide one measure of the sustainability of the UK food system and are a key feature of household food security.

Headline evidence takes data from WRAP and shows estimates of the total GHG emissions associated with food and drink consumption in the UK (across all stages of the value chain) which contribute to one aspect of planetary health. Supporting data shows the impacts of UK consumption on deforestation, water scarcity and biodiversity loss.

Headline evidence

Figure 4.3.3a: Total UK Food System Emissions Estimates for 2015 to 2021 by supply chain stage

Source: UK Food Systems GHG Emissions Model 2015-2021 (wrap.ngo)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Between 2019 to 2021, UK GHG food-related emissions have broadly remained stable or shown some notable decreases depending on the supply chain stage. There was a notable decrease in emissions from imports which fell by 3.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e) between 2019 and 2021 from 58.10 Mt CO2e in 2019 to 54.32 Mt CO2e in 2021. This was likely a result of a decrease in imports during this period. As explored in Theme 2 the percent of food consumed in the UK that was grown domestically increased from 53% in 2019 to 58% in 2021, as a fall in imports from the EU was largely replaced by an increase in consumption of UK-produced food. A decrease in imports over this period was likely to be a result of COVID-19 and the UK leaving the EU Customs Union. Since 2021 imports from the EU have increased but remain lower than levels prior to the UK’s exit of the EU.

Similarly, the supply chain and consumer sector saw a downward trend over the same period, decreasing by 3 Mt CO2e from 36 Mt CO2e in 2019 to 33 Mt CO2e in 2020, with a small rise to 34 Mt CO2e in 2021.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns are likely to have influenced levels of emissions in some food system sectors. Substantial decreases of approximately 12% in emissions between calendar years 2019 and 2020 were recorded in the hospitality and food service sector, supply chain transport and consumer transport sectors, according to a report by WRAP in 2024. These are likely to have been driven by business closures and reduced frequency of shopping over this period. Given some public health restrictions were still in force in 2021, data from 2022 may show a rebound in the data for some sectors.

Supporting evidence shows a more nuanced picture across other measures tracking the impacts associated with UK food consumption. The measures show a fluctuating trend in predicted regional species loss, a slight upward trend in deforestation and larger increase in water scarcity impacts.

Supporting evidence

Food products are associated with different environmental impacts. In 2022, Clark and others completed the most comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of food products to date, estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products across four indicators: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential. Their report shows that food types range from having low, to medium, to high environmental impacts. Examples of low environmental impact foods include sugary beverages, fruits and breads. Intermediate impact foods include many desserts and pastries. While high impact foods include meat, fish and cheese. The largest source of environmental impacts, including carbon emissions, from food occurs during the production phase (on average around 70%, but rising to as high as 95% in some cases). Research by Poore and Nemecek in 2018 found that other areas have a relatively small impact, for example packaging, transport and retail for high impact products can contribute to less than 1% of GHG emissions. The food health profiling method used by Clark and others revealed that healthier products are often more environmentally sustainable, but there are exceptions to this trend. Foods that consumers may think are substitutable can have markedly different impacts, for example, replacing meat, dairy, and eggs with plant-based alternatives could have large environmental and health benefits in places where consumption of these foods is high. Meat purchases have declined since the 1980s in the UK (see Indicator 4.3.1 Consumption patterns), suggesting a trend in less environmentally impactful diets. Further information on the impacts of a healthy diet is covered in Indicator 4.3.2 Healthy diet.

Deforestation

Figure 4.3.3b: Area of deforestation associated with UK consumption of food commodities annually in hectares (Ha), 2005 to 2021

Source: Adapted from the 2023 data release of UKBI - A4. Global biodiversity impact, JNCC - Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation (non-food commodities removed)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

In the last three years of recorded data, from 2019 to 2021, the area of deforestation worldwide estimated to be associated with UK consumption of food commodities has shown a slight upward trend (Figure 4.3.3b). In 2019, the deforested area was 19,702 hectares, which increased to 21,402 hectares in 2020, and remained relatively stable at 21,371 hectares in 2021. Historically, from 2005 to 2018, there was a general decline in deforestation, with the area decreasing from 47,122 hectares in 2005 to 20,794 hectares in 2018. This earlier trend highlights a reduction in deforestation over the period, followed by an uptick in recent years. Deforestation associated with UK consumption has been primarily driven by cattle-related products, followed by soy, palm oil, cassava, and maize. Further information on the impact of deforestation on global food supply is covered in Indicator 1.2.2. Global land use change and Indicator 1.5.1 Global land degradation.

Water scarcity

Figure 4.3.3c: Scarcity-weighted blue water use associated with UK consumption of food commodities annually, 2005 to 2021

Source: Adapted from the 2023 data release of UKBI - A4. Global biodiversity impact, JNCC - Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation (non-food commodities removed)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

Similarly, scarcity-weighted blue water use worldwide, which scales the blue water footprint (surface and groundwater consumed as a result of production) according to water availability in a region after human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been met, has increased between 2019 and 2021. Scarcity-weighted blue water use estimated to be associated with UK consumption of food commodities has increased consistently from 2019 to 2021, from 657 billion cubic meters in 2019 to 722 billion cubic meters in 2021 (Figure 4.3.3c). From 2005 to 2018 the trend displayed greater variance. The recent upward trend has been primarily driven by wheat, followed by rice, maize, sugar cane, and olives. Further information on the impact of water scarcity on food supply is covered in Indicator 1.2.4 Water availability, usage and quality for global agriculture and Indicator 2.2.7 Water quality.

Biodiversity loss

Figure 4.3.3d: Predicted regional species loss associated with UK consumption of food commodities annually, 2005 to 2021

Source: Adapted from UKBI - A4. Global biodiversity impact, JNCC - Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation (non-food commodities removed)

Download the data for this chart (ODS, 47.6 KB)

The predicted regional species loss within the UK estimated to be associated with UK consumption of food commodities has increased slightly over the last three years from 2019 to 2021 (Figure 4.3.3d). In 2019, there was a loss of 63 species, which remained unchanged in 2020, but increased to 68 species in 2021. Over the longer term, from 2005 to 2018, there was a general decrease in the rate of species lost from 87 species lost in 2005 to 62 species lost in 2018, reflecting a downward trend with some variability. The data indicates that while there was a consistent reduction in species loss over the last 20 years, while recent years show a reversal of that trend with an increase in species loss. This has been primarily driven by wheat, followed by rice, maize, oil palm fruit and barley. Further information on the impact of biodiversity loss on food supply is covered in Indicator 2.2.5 Biodiversity.

Methodology

The data source on the impact of UK consumption on deforestation, biodiversity loss and water scarcity is an adapted version of the 2023 data release of UKBI - A4. Global biodiversity impact, JNCC - Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation (non-food commodities removed). It covers all agricultural crop commodities as described by the FAO in addition to cattle and excludes other foods, such as seafood and meat beyond cattle. The dataset combines environmental datasets and trade modelling to proportionally attribute impacts associated with UK consumption. It is, therefore, sensitive to overall levels of consumption (as higher consumption is associated with higher impacts), the sustainability of production practices associated with our consumption (as increasing the efficiency of production methods would be reflected in the underlying environmental datasets), and sourcing patterns (as changes in sourcing patterns would lead to differences in the impacts associated with production of that commodity between countries). Further information on the profitability of farming is covered in Theme 3 Indicator 3.3.3.

Attitudes towards sustainable diets

People are not fully aware of what contributes towards a sustainable diet and how to make sustainable food shopping choices. Results of an FSA poll on consumer views of healthy and sustainable diets in 2021 showed that 48% of respondents believed they knew what a sustainable diet consisted of, and 51% understood the impact their diet had on the environment. In comparison, 75% of respondents believed they knew what a healthy diet consists of and 78% understood the impact their diet had on their health. Similarly, a more recent interview study by Whittall and others in 2023 on public understanding of sustainable diets showed that while participants understood what was meant by sustainable eating and could identify sustainable actions, there was noticeable uncertainty, and competing definitions of sustainability and sustainable actions were also given.

While studies such as that of d’Angelo and others from 2020 suggest there is increasing awareness of the negative environmental impacts of food production systems, and results from a Defra-commissioned study published in 2022 record high environmental concern amongst consumers, consumers have low awareness and knowledge around the impact of food on environmental outcomes according to the same Defra study. In 2021/22, the FSA’s Food and You 2 survey asked respondents in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to choose from a list of actions which they thought were most likely to contribute to making sustainable choices. Respondents thought that eating less processed food (50%) and minimising food waste (47%) contributed most to having a sustainable diet, and 59% thought that buying locally-produced, or in-season food contributed most to making sustainable food shopping choices. While these actions may contribute to a sustainable diet, consumers failed to appreciate the larger role other factors play in making sustainable choices, such as reducing meat or dairy consumption.

Different factors influence whether people act on their awareness to make more sustainable consumption choices. A Defra project, to develop insights into strategic issues, looked at sustainable and healthy food choices in 2023, to understand the drivers and barriers to those choices, and initiatives that may encourage uptake. The research suggested that the primary drivers for sustainable food choices were reduced environmental impact, reduced waste and food quality, with the perceived cost of healthy and sustainable food choices being the primary barrier to adopting those choices. A randomised control trial published by the FSA in 2023 found that listing products in order of sustainability in a simulated online supermarket did not have an effect on the proportion of sustainable choices made, either when the ordering was covert or when it was accompanied by a statement informing participants about the ordering. This suggests that purchasing choices are not influenced by subtle changes to the shopping environment and are largely driven by preferences for certain grocery products.

Affordability remains an important barrier to people making more sustainable food choices. This highlights the interconnection and interdependence between different elements of food security, in particular affordability and sustainability, and the ongoing barriers to people making more sustainable food choices, though the latter is moving in a positive trajectory. Results of an FSA poll from 2021 on consumer views of healthy and sustainable diets showed that the cost of sustainable foods was the most commonly reported barrier to eating a sustainable diet (29%), while 16% reported that it was a lack of understanding about what is or is not sustainable. Similarly, the aforementioned research project by Defra found that the main barriers for sustainable food choices were perceived lack of affordability, lack of knowledge and convenience of healthy and sustainable food choices.

In addition, stronger motivations are needed to change levels of meat and dairy consumption. Research on the psychologies of food choice published by the FSA in 2022 found in general that very strong motivations are needed to change eating habits for meat and dairy due to the barriers in terms of capability and opportunity.

About the UK Food Security Report

The UK Food Security Report (UKFSR) sets out an analysis of statistical data relating to food security in the UK. It fulfils a duty under Part 2, Chapter 1 (Section 19) of the Agriculture Act 2020 to prepare and lay before Parliament at least once every three years “a report containing an analysis on statistical data relating to food security in the United Kingdom”.

The UKFSR examines past, current, and future trends relevant to food security to present a full and impartial analysis of UK food security. It draws on a broad range of published data from official, administrative, academic, intergovernmental and wider sources.

The UKFSR is intended as an independent evidence base to inform users rather than a policy or strategy. In practice this means that it provides government, Parliament, food chain stakeholders and the wider public with the data and analysis needed to monitor UK food security and develop effective responses to issues.

Contact and feedback

Enquiries to: foodsecurityreport@defra.gov.uk

You can also contact us via Twitter/X: @DefraStats

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

What we will do with this data

Production team: Michael Archer, Lewis Bird, Jess Booth, Jane Brown, Rebecca Clutterbuck, Grant Davies, Simon Dixon, Nikita Driver, Tom George, Gayle Griffiths, Evangeline Hopper, Helen Jamieson, Ronald Kasoka, Matt Keating, Sarath Kizhakkoott, Gurjeevan Landa, Rachel Latham, David Lee, James LePage, Ian Lonsdale, Claire Manley (FSA), Eszter Palotai, Maria Prokopiou, Erica Pufall (FSA), Alexis Rampa, Lewis Ratcliffe, Leigh Riley, Karen Robertson (FSS), Danny Roff, William Ryle-Hodges, Daniel Scott, Chris Silwood, Swati Singh (FSA), Carine Valarche, Maisie Wilson, Isabella Worth

Acknowledgements

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 Angelina Sanderson Bellamy, University of the West of England Bristol

• Professor Tim Benton, Chatham House

• Dr Tom D. Breeze, University of Reading

• Dr Jonathan Brooks, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, University of Exeter Business School

• Professor Katrina Campbell, Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast

• Professor Bob Doherty (Dean and Principal Investigator of FixOurFood), School for Business and Society, University of York

• Selvarani Elahi MBE, UK Deputy Government Chemist, LGC

• Dr Pete Falloon, Met Office/University of Bristol

• Professor Lynn Frewer, Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle University

• Dr Kenisha Garnett, Cranfield University

• Professor Emeritus Peter J. Gregory, School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading

• Dr Saher Hasnain, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

• Alan Hayes, Strategic Advisor, Future Strategy

• Dr John Ingram, Food Systems Transformation Programme, University of Oxford

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

• Professor Alexandra Johnstone, The Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen

• Dr Hannah Lambie-Mumford, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

• Dr Marta Lonnie, The Rowett Institute, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences & Nutrition, University of Aberdeen

• Dr Rachel Loopstra, Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool

• Dr Katie McDermott, University of Leeds

• Dr Ian Noble, Chair of UK Food Sector Advisory Group – Innovate UK

• Dr Kelly Parsons, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge

• Dr Maddy Power (Assistant Professor), Wellcome Trust Research Fellow, Department of Health Sciences, University of York

• Dr Michelle Thomas, University of Reading

• Professor Carol Wagstaff, University of Reading

Return to Theme 3: Food Supply Chain Resilience

Continue to Theme 5: Food Safety and Consumer Confidence

Annexes

Glossary and Acronyms

Return to Contents Page

Return to the United Kingdom Food Security 2024 home page to download the data for charts