The Food Foundations roadmap for reducing food insecurity in the UK: a review
In our latest food spotlight, I review The Food Foundation (TFF) new roadmap to address UK food insecurity (FI). There’s lots of evidence that food insecurity has a deeply damaging impact on individuals and society. But what can make a difference?
Food insecurity is not inevitable; it is a political choice
This is one of the headlines from the report. TFF looked at five years of worth of data and concluded that policy interventions to support low-income families result in rapid improvements in FI levels. But, if the support is taken away, it has substantial negative impacts.
A fall in food insecurity
Analysis of last two rounds of the TFF Food Insecurity tracker highlights a drop of over one million adults facing food insecurity in January 2025 compared to June 2025. Despite the drop, close to six million adults (11.3% of households) experienced FI - having to cut back on food or skip meals entirely – in June.
So, why the fall? That’s the million dollar question. Is it a result of the political choices of the current Government? Is it the time of year – the summer was warm, so people wouldn’t need to spend on energy costs? Potentially there was an over supply of fruit and veg due to good harvests, leading to price reductions. Food inflation is still at record levels. The report doesn’t suggest any solutions.
Proposed roadmap to reduce food insecurity in the UK:
Step 1: ensure wage and benefit levels factor in the cost of a healthy diet
Step 2: strengthen nutritional safety net schemes that support low-income children
Step 3: rebalance the cost of the food basket to make healthy food the more affordable option
Step 4: support local authorities to address food insecurity in their communities through monitoring and social infrastructure
Step 5: establish a threshold for levels of household food insecurity that triggers emergency measures when crossed.
Will the proposed road map make the difference?
Whist the suggested steps make sense I still have several reservations. The first and biggest one relates to Step 4. Placing the emphasis on the role community organisations can play in building resilient local food infrastructures when the same reports describe them as ‘operating on a knife-edge in a sector that is fragile’, just seems absurd.
Linked to this is the premise that the respective Government departments- DEFRA, DWP, and MHCLG – will collaborate to align policy levers, funding streams, and regulatory frameworks – to enable more monies to flow to LA to further support these community organisations.
My other reservations relate to DEFRAs ability to influence other bigger and more powerful Government departments and the compliance of the ‘big food sector players’ to agree to a rebalancing of the cost of a food basket.
Overall, my impression is there’s nothing new in the substance of the report. But this is well trodden ground: The House of Lords, The Health Foundation, Trussell Trust and many others have all set out similar sets of recommendations recently.
Perhaps the big difference is the context. We are awaiting the Government food strategy (delayed until spring 2026). The authors – The Food Foundation –have a seat on the Governments Food Strategy Advisory Board.
