Skip to main content
English Cymraeg
Food and You 2: Wave 6 Key Findings

F&Y2 Wave 6: Chapter 3 Food Security

This chapter reports the level of food security in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and how food security varied between different categories of people.

Last updated: 26 July 2023
See all updates
Last updated: 26 July 2023
See all updates

Introduction

This chapter reports the level of food security in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and how food security varied between different categories of people.
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” World Food Summit, 1996. 

Food and You 2 uses the U.S. Adult Food Security Survey Module developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to measure consumers’ food security status.

Respondents are assigned to one of the following food security status categories:

  • high: no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
  • marginal food security: one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.
  • low: reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
  • very low: reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

Those with high or marginal food security are referred to as food secure. Those with low or very low food security are referred to as food insecure.

More information on how food security is measured and how classifications are assigned and defined can be found in Annex A and on the USDA Food Security website

Food Security

Across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, 75% of respondents were classified as food secure (61% high, 14% marginal) and 25% of respondents were classified as food insecure (12% low, 12% very low) (footnote 1)

Figure 6. Food security in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

Details explained in the text.
Nation High Marginal Low Very low
England 62 14 12 12
Wales 57 16 14 13
Northern Ireland 59 15 13 13

Download this chart

Source Food and You 2 Wave 6.

Around three-quarters of respondents were food secure (for example, had high or marginal food security) in England (76%), Wales (73%) and Northern Ireland (74%). Approximately a quarter of respondents were food insecure (for example, had low or very low food security) in England (24%), Wales (27%) and Northern Ireland (26%) (Figure 5).

Experiences of food insecurity

To establish a food security classification, respondents were asked up to ten questions from the US Adult Food Security Survey Module (footnote 2)

All respondents were asked the first three questions from the food security survey module. Respondents were asked how often, if ever, they had experienced any of the following in the previous 12 months:

  • I/we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more
  • the food that we bought just didn't last, and I/we didn't have money to get more
  • I/we couldn't afford to eat balanced meals

Figure 7. Experiences of food security by food security classification

Details explained in the text.
Experience in the previous 12 months High Marginal Low Very low
I/we couldn't afford to eat balanced meals 0 37 85 96
The food that we bought just didn't last, and I/we didn't have money to get more 0 30 85 94
I/we worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more 0 64 97 99

Download this chart

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

In the previous 12 months, respondents who had very low (99%), or low (97%) food security were more likely to have worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more, compared to those with marginal (64%) food security. Respondents who had very low (94%), or low (85%) food security were more likely to report that the food that they bought just didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more, compared to those with marginal (30%) food security. Respondents who had very low (96%), or low (85%) food security were more likely to report that they couldn’t afford balanced meals, compared to those with marginal (37%) food security. Respondents with high food security reported that they had not had any of these experiences (0% worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more, 0% the food that they bought just didn't last, and they didn't have money to get more) in the previous 12 months (Figure 7). 

How food security differs between socio-economic and demographic groups

Figure 8. Food security by age group.

Details explained in the text.
Age group High Marginal Low Very low
16-24 37 19 20 23
25-34 47 16 15 22
35-44 52 17 17 15
45-54 64 14 10 12
55-64 73 10 10 7
65-79 79 11 6 4
80+ 84 9 7 1

Download this chart

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Food security varied by age group with older adults being more likely to report that they were food secure and less likely to report that they were food insecure than younger adults. For example, 44% of respondents aged 16-24 years were food insecure (20% low, 23% very low security) compared to 7% of those aged 80 years and over (7% low, 1% very low security) (Figure 8).

Figure 9. Food security by annual household income.

Details explained in the text.
Annual household income High Marginal Low Very low
Less than 19,000 39 15 22 24
19,000 - 31,999 53 14 15 17
32,000 - 63,999 68 15 10 8
64,000 - 95,999 87 7 3 2
More than 96,000 92 5 3

Download this chart

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Food security was associated with household income. Respondents with a lower income were more likely to report being food insecure than those with a higher income. For example, 46% of those with an annual household income of less than £19,000 reported food insecurity (low 22%, very low 24%) compared to 5% of those with an income between £64,000 and £95,999 (low 3%, very low 2%) (Figure 9).

Figure 10. Food security by socio-economic classification (NS-SEC)

Details explained in the text.
NS-SEC classification High Marginal Low Very low
Full-time student 42 20 20 18
Long term unemployed or never worked 34 13 18 35
Semi-routine and routine occupations 47 17 17 19
Lower supervisory and technical occupations 56 15 13 16
Small employers and own account workers 64 14 13 8
Intermediate occupations 61 14 14 12
Managerial, administrative and professional occupations 70 12 9 9

Download this chart

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Respondents who were long term unemployed and/or had never worked (53%) were more likely to report that they were food insecure compared to all other occupational groups. Those who were full-time students (38%), and in semi-routine and routine occupations (36%), were more likely to be food insecure than many other occupations groups (for example, 18% of those in managerial, administrative, and professional occupations) (Figure 10) (footnote 3).

The reported level of food insecurity also varied between different categories of people in the following ways:

  • household size: households with 5 people or more (44%) were more likely to report that they were food insecure compared to those in households with 4-persons or fewer (for example, 17% in 2-person households).
  • children under 16 in household: 36% of households with children under 16 years reported that they were food insecure compared to 20% of households without children under 16 years.
  • children under 6 in household: 45% of households with children under 6 years reported that they were food insecure compared to 22% of households without children under 6 years.
  • urban vs rural: 27% of respondents living in an urban area reported that they were food insecure compared to 16% of respondents living in a rural area.
  • ethnic group: 34% of Asian or Asian British respondents reported that they were food insecure compared to 22% of respondents white respondents (footnote 4)
  • long term health condition: respondents with a long-term health condition (32%) were more likely to report being food insecure compared to those without a long-term health condition (20%). 

Figure 11. Changes in eating habits and food-related behaviours for financial reasons.

Details explained in the text.
Type of change Percentage of respondents
No, I/we haven't made any changes 20
Eaten more takeaways 2
Changed the length of time or temperature food is cooked at 2
I have made another food-related change 3
Used a food bank/emergency food 3
Changed the setting on the fridge or freezer 3
Swapped to buying food with lower welfare or environmental standards 5
Bought less food that is locally produced 10
Eaten food past its use-by date more 12
Kept leftovers for longer before eating 13
Reduced the amount of fresh food you buy 13
Bulked out meals with cheaper ingredients more 19
Made packed lunches more 23
Cooked from scratch more 25
Prepared food to keep as leftovers/ cooked in batches more 29
Bought reduced/discounted food close to its use-by date more 31
Changed the food you buy for cheaper alternatives 35
Changed where you buy food for cheaper alternatives 36
Eaten fewer takeaways 39
Bought special offer items 42
Eaten at home more 44
Eaten out less 46
Cooked at home more -

Download this chart

Respondents were asked what changes, if any, they had made to their eating habits and food-related behaviours in the previous 12 months for financial reasons. Most respondents (80%) reported that they had made a change to their eating habits for financial reasons in the previous 12 months, with only 20% of respondents indicating that they had made no changes. 

Common changes related to what and where respondents ate (46% ate out less, 44% ate at home more, 39% ate fewer takeaways), changes to shopping habits (42% bought items on special offer, 36% changed where they buy food for cheaper alternatives, 35% changed the food they buy for cheaper alternatives, 31% bought reduced/discounted food, 19% bulked out meals with cheaper ingredients) and changes to food preparation (29% prepared food that could be kept as leftovers/ cooked in batches more, 23% made more packed lunches). 

Around 1 in 10 respondents reported that they had reduced the amount of fresh food they bought (13%) and 10% of respondents had bought less food that is locally produced. Some respondents reported an increase in risky food safety behaviours due to financial reasons (13% kept leftovers for longer before eating, 12% had eaten food past its use-by date more, 3% changed the setting on the fridge / freezer, 2% changed the length of time or temperature food is cooked at) (Figure 11) (footnote 5).

Food bank use

Respondents were asked if they or anyone else in their household had received a free parcel of food from a food bank or other emergency food provider in the last 12 months. Most respondents (94%) reported that they had not used a food bank or other emergency food provider in the last 12 months, with 4% of respondents reporting that they had (footnote 6).  

Respondents who had received a food parcel from a food bank or other provider were asked to indicate how often they had received this in the last 12 months. Of these respondents, 37% had received a food parcel on only one occasion in the last 12 months, 40% had received a food parcel on more than one occasion but less often than every month, and 7% had received a food parcel every month or more often (footnote 7).

Free school meals

Respondents with children aged 7-15 years in their household were asked whether these children receive free school meals. Most respondents (78%) with a child(ren) aged 7-15 years in their household reported that the child(ren) do not receive free school meals. Approximately one in six (17%) respondents reported that the child or children receive free school meals (footnote 8)

The reported uptake of free school meals varied between different categories of people in the following ways:

  • annual household income: respondents with an income of less than £19,000 (45%) were more likely to report that the child(ren) receive free school meals compared to those with a higher income (for example, 4% of those with an income of £64,000-£95,999).
  • food security: respondents with low (36%) or very low (34%) food security were more likely to report their child(ren) received free school meals compared to those with a high (5%) or marginal (14%) food security. 
  • long-term health condition: respondents with a long-term health condition (30%) security were more likely to report the child(ren) received free school meals compared to those without a long-term health condition (13%).

Social supermarkets

Social supermarkets, food clubs and community pantries/larders allow people to buy food items at a heavily discounted price, or as part of a membership. These are generally community organisations and may offer additional services such as referral services and volunteering opportunities. Some or all of the food is surplus from the food supply chain. 

Awareness and use of social supermarkets

Respondents were asked if they or anyone else in their household had used a social supermarket in the last 12 months. Around 1 in 20 (4%) respondents reported that they had used a social supermarket in the last 12 months, whilst 80% of respondents reported that they had not. Only 14% of respondents reported that they had not heard of social supermarkets (footnote 9).  

The use of social supermarkets varied between different categories of people in the following ways:

  • annual household income: respondents with an income of less than £19,000 (9%) were more likely to have used a social supermarket than those with a higher income (for example, 2% of those with an income between £32,000 and £63,999)**.
  • NS-SEC: respondents who were long term unemployed and/or had never worked (20%) were more likely to have used a social supermarket than those in other occupational groups (for example, 3% in managerial, administrative, and professional occupations) or full-time students (4%).
  • food security: respondents with very low food security (14%) were more likely to have used a social supermarket than those with low (7%) or marginal (6%) food security. Those with high food security (1%) were least likely to have used a social supermarket. 

Figure 12. Frequency of social supermarket use

Details explained in the text.
Frequency of use Percentage of respondents
Can't remember 29
Less than once a month 20
2-3 times a month / about once a month 13
2-3 times a week / about once a week 31
Every day or most days 5

Download this chart

Source: Food and You 2: Wave 6

Respondents who had used a social supermarket were asked to indicate how often they had used this in the last 12 months. Of these respondents, 5% had used a social supermarket every day or most days, 31% had used a social supermarket 2-3 times a week or about once a week, 13% had used a social supermarket 2-3 times a month or about once a month, and 20% had used a social supermarket less than once a month. However, 29% of respondents who had used a social supermarket reported that they could not remember how often they had used a social supermarket in the last 12 months (Figure 12) (footnote 10).