This is the last article you can read this month
You can read more article this month
You can read more articles this month
Sorry your limit is up for this month
AROUND 8.4 million Britons struggle to get enough to eat, according to the latest figures from the UN, which puts the UK on a par with countries like Latvia and Hungary.
This state of affairs is called food insecurity and it has been on the increase since the 2008 financial crisis and the decade of austerity that followed.
But in the last year, Covid-19 has made things worse. Because of the pandemic, more people than ever simply do not have enough to eat.
Early figures suggest a quadrupling of food insecurity in 2020 compared with 2018.
This varies from worrying about being able to get enough to eat, to having difficulties getting access to food, to actually going hungry.
In “normal” times, this kind of food insecurity is a risk faced by the most vulnerable in society.
This includes those on low incomes or living in poverty and people who lack support networks.
Women are specifically at risk of food insecurity because they head the bulk of single-parent households (86 per cent), which make up the largest number of Trussell Trust foodbank users in the UK.
In our recent research, conducted for the UWS-Oxfam Partnership, we explored how the pandemic escalated the scale of food insecurity in the UK.
We did so with a focus on four groups across Scotland: the homeless, young carers, asylum-seekers and people with disabilities.
These groups are more at risk of not having enough to eat, even in normal times.
We also looked at the emerging data and research on Covid-19 and the impact the pandemic has had on food insecurity across the UK.
Through our own and existing research, we established three main factors that have intensified food poverty during the crisis:
1. Rising need driven mainly by loss of or reduction in income.
2. New and growing challenges in getting access to food.
3. The impact of lockdown on the operation of foodbanks.
We interviewed people from organisations supporting the disabled, homeless, young carers and asylum-seekers about how the pandemic affected household finances.
For many young carers, lockdown led to immediate loss of employment.
Because they are often in low-paid and casual employment, the furlough scheme did not support them.
At the same time, the cost of living increased. Travel restrictions made it impossible to travel to shops with cheaper food, so money did not go as far as before when shopping locally.
Disabled people — in particular those told to shield — became more reliant on online shopping.
With delivery slots hard to come by and disabled people less likely to have internet access, doorstep services also came with additional costs.
Glasgow has the largest number of dispersed asylum-seekers (3,756) per head of population in the UK and most were relocated into hotels with full-board accommodation at the start of the pandemic.
This meant they lost their limited cash entitlement, were dependent on hotel meals and unable to buy the food they needed for health or cultural reasons.
Covid-19 exposed the vulnerability of Britain’s food system to the sharp shock of pandemic conditions.
Research in 2020 noted that the UK food system was dominated by “just-in-time” supply chains, which were severely challenged by stockpiling and panic buying in the first weeks of the pandemic.
Lockdown also demonstrated how vulnerable Britain’s emergency food aid system is and the devastating consequences of foodbank closures.
In other words, the pandemic showed how quickly food access problems can emerge.
The rules around shielding and self-isolation only compounded the situation.
Local authorities delivered food boxes to vulnerable people’s homes, but there was mixed success in terms of quality, quantity and reliability.
We discovered that many homeless and disabled people did not hold official “shielder” status despite serious health conditions, which meant they were excluded from food box schemes.
All these issues show how access and income challenges overlap to have a serious impact on availability of food to those who need it most.
While rising food insecurity meant a rise in demand for food aid, foodbanks were forced either to close or reorganise to comply with social distancing and lockdown rules.
Covid-19 and its shielding requirements meant that many older volunteers could no longer help out at foodbanks and so were lost just when they were really needed.
The many food aid services which continued working during lockdown drastically changed how they operated.
They became large-scale food delivery services instead of drop-in places.
This was a huge problem for many of their users. For example, we heard how foodbanks are important for the homeless and young carers because they offer an escape from isolation.
They are also places to find benefit advice and mental health support. All of this disappeared with the lockdown.
Despite the best efforts of foodbanks, the crisis showed that the emergency food aid sector was ill-equipped to deal with the surge in food insecurity created by Covid-19.
The best approach to dealing with food insecurity, both in normal times and in times of crisis, is to make sure that people have enough money to buy the food they need.
Financial resilience is key. Better preparations for supplying those who cannot access food despite having the financial means are also required.
The Right to Food movement, which advocates to enshrine in law people’s right to proper food is gaining momentum.
Perhaps the crisis will prompt policy change — certainly, some public attitudes research suggests that the British public is open to a stronger social security system.
Devolved administrations have also used their powers to make more funding available to support unpaid carers and increase crisis grant budgets.
These governments can also make the changes needed to help homeless people.
Asylum-seekers should also be included in the advocacy happening across Britain, to anchor the “right to food” in law.
Perhaps then food insecurity will become a thing of the past.
Hartwig Pautz is a senior lecturer in social sciences, University of the West of Scotland, and Damian Dempsey is a PhD student in housing and economic development policy, University of the West of Scotland. This article first appeared at theconversation.com.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by joining the 501 club.
Just £5 a month gives you the opportunity to win one of 17 prizes, from £25 to the £501 jackpot.
By becoming a 501 Club member you are helping the Morning Star cover its printing, distribution and staff costs — help keep our paper thriving by joining!
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by become a member of the People’s Printing Press Society.
The Morning Star is a readers’ co-operative, which means you can become an owner of the paper too by buying shares in the society.
Shares are £1 each — though unlike capitalist firms, each shareholder has an equal say. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving.
Some union branches have taken out shares of over £500 and individuals over £100.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by donating to the Fighting Fund.
The Morning Star is unique, as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media. We offer a platform for those who would otherwise never be listened to, coverage of stories that would otherwise be buried.
The rich don’t like us, and they don’t advertise with us, so we rely on you, our readers and friends. With a regular donation to our monthly Fighting Fund, we can continue to thumb our noses at the fat cats and tell truth to power.
Donate today and make a regular contribution.