research paper on food security

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Exploration of Food Security Challenges towards More Sustainable Food Production: A Systematic Literature Review of the Major Drivers and Policies

Sabreen wahbeh.

1 Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai 20183, United Arab Emirates

Foivos Anastasiadis

2 Department of Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece

Balan Sundarakani

Ioannis manikas, associated data.

Not applicable.

Food security is a central priority for international policy as one of the world’s most significantly urgent targets to achieve. It is considered one of the most pressing issues in many countries, the degree of food security representing the level of self-sufficiency and well-being of citizens. In particular, in the current COVID-19 pandemic era, it has more than ever become a mission-critical goal. In this research, we report on the food security drivers and the current state of recommended policies addressing chronic food insecurity aimed at ensuring the sustainability of future food production. Mapping the determinants of food security contributes to a better understanding of the issue and aids in the development of appropriate food security policies and strategies to enhance the sustainability of food production in all facets; namely environmental, social, and economic. Adopting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) data screening and selection guidelines and standards, we carried out a comprehensive, reliable, systematic, and rigorous review of research from the last ten years in order to identify the most frequently mentioned drivers and policies of food security in the literature available in two databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WOS). The number of extracted articles was 141 papers in total. An analysis revealed 34 drivers of food security and 17 most recommended policies for the mitigation of food insecurity. The existence of food loss and waste (FLW) policies was the primary driver of food security, followed by food security policies (FSP) in their different forms. However, FSP were the most recommended policies, followed by FLW policies. The identified food security drivers and recommended policies should be used by policy-makers to improve food security, thus contributing to sustainable food production. Our research findings, reflected in the latest version of the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), resulted in more tangible policy implications, suggesting the addition of two dimensions regarding food security. We also identified elements not listed under the GFSI that could be considered in its future revision, including environmental policies/indicators, consumer representation, and traceability throughout the entire supply chain. Overall, it can be concluded that food security is a complicated and multi-faceted issue that cannot be restricted to a single variable, necessitating the deeper integration of various multi-disciplinary interventions.

1. Introduction

Food security (FS) is “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [ 1 ] p.3. It is a significant priority for international policy [ 2 ], and has been perceived as being among the key challenges worldwide [ 3 ] as it represents a country’s degree of self-sufficiency and the well-being of its citizens [ 4 ]. Securing a nation’s self-sufficiency has become a top priority in the context of the current COVID-19 global epidemic era, even more so than earlier [ 5 ]. Economic expansion, rising incomes, urbanization, and growing population are driving up the demand for food, as people adopt more diverse and resource-intensive dietary habits [ 2 , 6 ]. The world’s current population is steadily increasing, placing significant pressure on the available natural resources to feed the growing population [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]; however, this dramatic growth in the global population is anticipated mainly in developing countries, which already suffer from devastating hunger and food insecurity [ 7 ]. One of the biggest obstacles to ensuring global food security is the need to roughly double food production within the coming few decades, particularly in the context of the developing world’s rapidly increasing demand [ 10 , 11 ]. The natural resources such as land, water, energy, and other resources used in food production are all subject to increasing competition [ 12 , 13 ]. Climate change poses difficulties for agricultural production [ 14 ], mainly in developing nations, while some existing farming practices harm the environment and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) [ 15 , 16 ]. There is a real danger that less developed countries may be forced to reverse direction. The FAO’s statistics on world hunger in 2009 showed a dramatic rise to 1.023 billion people, demonstrating precisely such a situation. When commodity prices fell the following year, this number dropped to 925 million, which was still more prominent than in 2007 (i.e., before the price spike) [ 17 ]. According to recent data published by the Global Hunger Index, the number of malnourished people grew from 785 million in 2015 to 822 million in 2018. Moreover, 43 out of 117 countries reported extreme hunger [ 18 ]. Approximately 20% of developing countries lack the resources and physical access necessary to provide their citizens with the most basic food. Children in developing countries face vitamin and nutritional deficiencies and being underweight, which puts them at risk for various sicknesses due to food insecurity [ 12 ]. National and global imbalances brought on by food insecurity are expected to worsen human suffering and make it harder for people to survive [ 12 ]. Despite the efforts of multiple global organizations such as the FAO and the UN, the problem of food insecurity is worsening [ 19 ], which means that more effective and sustainable solutions must be provided to ensure the alleviation of food insecurity and the sustainability of food production. Hence, policy-makers must understand that in a world that is becoming more globalized, food insecurity in one region could have significant political, economic, and environmental impacts elsewhere [ 2 ].

Throughout the twentieth century, policy-makers used the concept of food security as a key notion in formulating food-related policies [ 17 ]. Lang and Barling [ 17 ] have proposed two main schools of thought on food security: the first focused on increased production as the primary solution to under-consumption and hunger, while the second is a newer one that is more socially and environmentally conscious and accepts the need to address a wide range of issues, not just production. The former is primarily concerned with agriculture, while the latter is concerned with food systems. One approach to solve the food security challenge is to intensify agricultural production in ways that impose much less environmental stress and do not jeopardize our long-term ability to continue producing food [ 2 ]. The above sustainable intensification strategy comprises a policy agenda for several governments worldwide, but has also drawn criticism for being overly production-focused or incoherent [ 2 ]. The central mission of the twenty-first century is to establish a sustainable food system, which calls for a more concrete policy framework than that which is currently in place [ 17 ]. This mission has been disrupted by competing solutions for policy focus and policies that have, so far, failed to incorporate the complex array of evidence from social, environmental, and economic components into such an integrated and comprehensive policy response [ 17 ]. Millions of people are being pushed into a cycle of food insecurity and poverty due to climate change; however, we can combat both food insecurity and climate change by implementing climate-friendly agricultural production methods [ 12 ]. Tsolakis and Srai [ 20 ] have stated that any comprehensive food security policy should entail multi-dimensional policies considering aspects such as resilience, trade, self-sufficiency, food waste, and sustainability. As it is traditionally understood, food security concerns individuals, while ecological and environmental concepts operate locally and at supra-national, regional, and international levels [ 1 ]. According to Guiné, Pato [ 21 ], the four pillars of food security—availability, access, utilization, and stability—should be reconsidered to include additional factors such as climate change. Clapp, Moseley [ 22 ] has also stressed that it is time to officially update the existing food security definition to involve two further dimensions—sustainability and agency—containing broader dynamics that have an impact on hunger and malnutrition [ 23 ]. Sustainability relates to the long-term ability of food systems to ensure food and nutrition security in a way that does not jeopardize the economic, social, and environmental foundations that generate food and nutrition security for upcoming generations [ 22 , 23 ]. Agency represents the ability of people or groups to decide what they consume, what they produce, and how they produce, process, and distribute their food within food systems, as well as their capacity to participate in processes that shape the food system’s policies and governance [ 22 , 23 ]. Instead of dismissing food security as being insufficient, Clapp, Moseley [ 22 ] has contended that the inclusion of two extra dimensions—agency and sustainability—into food security policy and assessment frameworks will help to guarantee that every human has access to food, not just now but also in the future. Sustainability can be viewed as a pre-requisite for long-term food security [ 1 ]. Environmental aspects—particularly climate and the availability of natural resources—are pre-requisite for food availability and biodiversity protection [ 24 ]. The availability of food for everybody depends on economic and social sustainability. Food utilization, too, is influenced by social sustainability. The three components of sustainability—social, economic, and environmental—ensure the continuity of the three food security dimensions and the food system stability on which they rely. As confirmation of the vital relationship between food security and sustainability, “The International Food Policy Research Institute” has launched a 2020 Vision of Food Security to achieve food security, stating that “a world where every person has economic and physical access to sufficient food to sustain a healthy and productive life, where malnutrition is absent, and where food originates from efficient, effective, and low-cost food and agricultural systems that are compatible with sustainable use and management of natural resources” [ 12 ] (p357). Many policies, priorities, technologies, and long-term solutions must be developed and implemented worldwide to achieve the 2020 food security vision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. However, there is a scarcity of systematic studies analyzing the food security drivers and the recommended policies to improve food security.

Following a review of the academic literature, we discovered a scarcity of research that systemically summarizes the major drivers of food security, outlines the recommended policies to improve food security, ensures the sustainability of future food production, and provides policy recommendations to enhance food security based on a country’s context. In response to this gap in the literature, we carried out a comprehensive, reliable, systematic, and rigorous review of previous research from the last ten years in order to identify the most frequently mentioned drivers/policies in the scanned literature. The rationale behind this study is to identify and list food security drivers and the current state of recommended policies that address chronic food insecurity to ensure the sustainability of future food production, utilizing a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology. Moreover, we hope to identify drivers/policies in order to aid policy-makers in selecting the most appropriate policies based on each nation’s context (e.g., agricultural production, natural resource availability, climate, political stability, and so on). Most importantly, policy-makers can use the identified drivers of food security and the recommended policies in the literature to customize appropriate policies that ensure the sustainability of future food production and, hence, ensure food sustainability for future generations. Based on the evidence reported in the literature, the identified food security drivers and recommended policies will aid the policy- and decision-makers of various countries in sustainably improving the food security situation. The need to identify the main drivers of food security arises from the notable increase in households and individuals suffering from food shortages and insecurity globally [ 25 ]. Finally, the findings of this research will be used to inform the GFSI developers in order to include more comprehensive indicators expected to contribute to the sustainability of future food production.

2. Materials and Methods

This research aims to report on food security drivers and the current state of recommended policies that address chronic food insecurity in order to ensure the sustainability of future food production through the use of a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology. We highlight existing food security drivers and outline recommended policies to alleviate food insecurity following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) data screening and selection guidelines [ 26 ]. The extraction process was meticulously documented in order to ensure the transparency and replicability of this systematic literature review [ 27 ]. A panel of researchers was formed, following the systematic review guidelines [ 26 ], to define the research field and questions, select keywords and the intended databases, and develop the sets of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The research began by formulating the research questions to guide this systematic review based on identified gaps in the literature, guiding us in an attempt to answer the following research questions:

• Q1. What are the main drivers of food security?
• Q2. What are the main recommended policies to alleviate food insecurity?

By answering these questions, this paper provides a reference that policy-makers and practitioners can use to identify the main drivers of food security and the recommended policies in the literature in order to customize and choose appropriate policies that ensure the sustainability of future food production. The identified food security drivers and recommended policies are expected to aid policy- and decision-makers in improving the state of FS. This study also provides a roadmap for future research based on the evidence reported in the literature.

A specific research criterion was used to ensure that the research sources selected were sufficient and comprehensive enough to capture all of the significant and salient points to adequately answer the research questions [ 26 ]. To this end, we provide a critical review of the existing literature that has been published in two databases—Scopus and Web of Science (WOS)—between 2010 and 15 March 2021, to answer the abovementioned research questions. The time limit was set to cover the period following the global financial crisis of 2008/2009 and its effect on rising food prices, increased unemployment rates, and increasing food insecurity worldwide [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. This period allows for consideration of policies designed to ensure global food security following the food shortage crisis. The use of Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases helped us to include most potential published works in a broad scope of journals, thereby limiting the risks of bias and possible exclusions associated with the use of fewer journals.

We employed a set of identified keywords, which are summarized in detail in Table 1 . A critical analysis was conducted regarding the most relevant concepts that are available in the literature and which affect each of the four dimensions of FS: Food availability, food access, food utilization, and food stability. For instance, the research string “Agrifood supply chain” OR “Agri food supply chain” OR “Agri-food supply chain” was added as a secondary search string, because food availability is highly dependent on the food supply chain and how well its activities are managed. The food supply chain is exposed to many factors that can negatively impact the country’s food security level, such as severe weather conditions [ 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, it is critical to consider some characteristics of the food supply chain, such as biophysical and organoleptic features, shelf life, transport conditions, production time, and storage, to efficiently and effectively manage it [ 33 ]. Effective supply chain management is seen as a significant contributor to gaining and enhancing industrial competitive advantage and efficiency at the company level, possibly impacting food security positively [ 34 ]. “MENA Region” OR “Middle East and North Africa” OR “Middle East” OR “North Africa” research string was added due to the severity of food insecurity there and to ensure the inclusion of papers that address the problem in these countries and propose strategies to overcome food insecurity. According to the GFSI data [ 25 ], MENA region countries are experiencing a decline in food security; moreover, the number of households and individuals suffering from food shortages and insecurity is dramatically increasing.

Primary and secondary search strings used in this research.

The research string “Sustainable supply chain” OR “Resilient supply chain” was added due to much research that stressed the impact of designing a proper supply chain structure due to its significant impact on the future improvement of its performance [ 33 ]. The central mission of the twenty-first century is to establish a sustainable food system, which calls for a more concrete policy framework than what is currently in place [ 17 ]. Sustainability can be viewed as a prerequisite for long-term food security [ 1 ]. The environment, particularly climate and the availability of natural resources, is a prerequisite for food availability and biodiversity protection [ 24 ]. The availability of food for everybody depends on economic and social sustainability. Food utilization, too, is influenced by social sustainability. The three components of sustainability—social, economic, and environmental—assure the continuity of the three food security dimensions and the food system stability on which they rely. Moreover, food security is increasingly considered a prerequisite for long-term sustainability [ 1 ]. Adopting a “sustainable production and consumption approach throughout the global food supply chain” is a solution that will help reduce the amount of food waste along the food supply chain [ 35 , 36 ]. Cooper and Ellram [ 37 ] argued that building a resilient supply chain has many advantages such as decreasing inventory time, which will lead to cost and time savings, increasing the availability of goods, reducing the order cycle time, improving customer service and satisfaction, and gaining a competitive advantage. Stone and Rahimifard [ 38 ] stressed the importance of having a resilient agricultural food supply chain to achieve food security due to the incremental increase in volatility across the supply chain.

The research string “Food Safety” OR “Food diversity” OR “Food quality” OR “Food standards” OR “Micronutrient availability” was added due to one of the food security dimensions: utilization, which is concerned with all aspects of food safety, and nutrition quality [ 39 ]. According to FAO (2019), the utilization dimension should assess food diversity, food safety, food standards, and micronutrient availability. It is inadequate to provide enough food to someone unable to benefit from it because they are constantly sick due to a lack of sanitary conditions. It indicates that in the country, individuals are taking advantage of the food they receive or have access to, with extra emphasis on the dietary quality that contains nutritious ingredients such as vitamins (vitamin-A) and minerals (Iron, Zinc, Iodine) [ 40 ]. According to the World Health Organization, people diagnosed with malnutrition usually suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, protein deficiency, obesity, or undernutrition. The lack of micro-ingredients can increase the risk of developing severe chronic and infectious diseases for people in general and children in particular (toddlers 9–24 months). These diseases have an irreversible negative impact on people’s health, which enhances the persistence of poverty and food insecurity. It is critical to invest in the health and nutrition elements on a global scale by ensuring safe drinking water, immunization, enhancing sewage discharge, improving public health services, and reducing poverty levels [ 41 ].

The research string “Agricultural infrastructure” OR “Agricultural production volatility” OR “Vulnerability assessment” was chosen because much research has emphasized the importance of investing in a strong agricultural infrastructure to improve food security levels, especially in light of current challenges such as climate change, increased urbanization, water scarcity, and the shift away from using cropland for non-agricultural activities [ 7 , 8 , 41 ]. Food security is vulnerable to severe weather conditions, whereas harsh weather conditions may adversely impact the food supply chain in weak areas [ 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, it is critical to assess the vulnerability level of each country to protect the food supply chain. The use of the “Food loss” OR “Food waste” OR “Food waste and loss” research string was due to the general agreement among researchers on the importance of reducing food waste to improve food security [ 35 , 42 , 43 ]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2013), around one-third of the food produced globally (1.3 billion tons) is wasted or lost. Most wasted food is either fresh and perishable or leftovers from eating and cooking [ 36 , 42 ]. Basher, Raboy [ 43 ] argued that eliminating just one-fourth of the food waste would be enough to feed all the currently undernourished people. One of the Sustainable Development Goals established by the United Nations, “SDG 12.3 Food Waste Index” stresses that decreasing the amount of food loss and waste will help reduce hunger levels, promote sustainable production and consumption, and enhance food security [ 44 ].

The use of “Policy description” OR “Policy assessment” OR “Policy recommendation” OR “Policymaking” OR “Policy-making” OR “Policy making” research string was due to the impact of adequate and proper policy formulation on food security ( Table 1 ). Establishing effective and efficient food policies that ensure that each individual has an optimal level of food security is critical in every country because it directly enhances the country’s competitive advantage and efficiency [ 34 , 45 ]. Timmer [ 46 ] emphasized that designing the proper set of policies to end hunger based on each country’s context is challenging and requires collaborative participation from multiple stakeholders. Murti Mulyo Aji [ 34 ] stressed the role of the government’s policies in developing a collaborative supply chain that creates value throughout the supply chain by improving information, logistics, and relationship management. Effective and efficient supply chain management significantly impacts managing long-term partnerships and corporations among a wide range of firms that vary in size and sectors (public or private). This collaboration will enhance prediction of changes in customer demands in domestic and international markets. If previous policies were insufficient to ensure that country’s true competitive advantage, it could cause market distortion [ 34 , 47 ]. Countries are encouraged to gradually reduce the adoption of inequitable trade policies to focus on enhancing their true competitive advantage, demonstrating fair competition, and increasing economic efficiency, particularly in the spirit of trade liberalization [ 34 ].

The selection of research sources was accomplished in March 2021, and the search for keywords was enabled for titles, abstracts, and full texts in both electronic search engines (i.e., Scopus and WOS). Several keywords were identified to retrieve the available literature, and search strings consisted of primary and secondary keywords. The primary search string used was as follows: “food security” OR “food insecurity” OR “food availability” OR “food affordability” OR “food access” OR “food utilization” OR “food stability”. The reason behind including these multiple strings was to cover the maximum number of articles that handle the topic of food security or any of its four dimensions.

Specific exclusion and inclusion criteria were applied in order to develop high-quality evidence [ 26 ]. A reasonable number of articles were limited for deep analysis by following the specific exclusion and inclusion criteria to control the quality of the review in the food security field, as detailed in Table 2 above. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included within the time frame (2010–15 March 2021) and only those written in English. Furthermore, due to this study’s nature and to ensure consistency with the topic area, the most common and effective approach for examining drivers and recommended policies were limited to the business, management, accounting, and agricultural fields [ 48 ]. We have used the “business, management and accounting” research field in the Scopus database to ensure that all the included articles were business-related. Then, we restricted the research field to” Economics, business, and agriculture Economics” in the WoS database to ensure the inclusion of agriculture-related papers and maximize the inclusion of a diverse range of articles. Another round of retrieval was applied using a set of secondary keywords in order to narrow down the search to specific areas of food security. For this purpose, the primary keywords were escorted each time with “AND” and other secondary keywords, as listed in Table 2 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The initial search using the primary keywords (“food security” OR “food insecurity” OR “food availability” OR “food affordability” OR “food access” OR “food utilization” OR “food stability”) revealed a total of 113,709 documents (Scopus, n = 63,860; WOS, n = 49,849). Strict selection criteria were applied to the first search pool in order to maintain transparency and guarantee the selection of relevant material that answers the research questions. To ensure academic rigor, the search was restricted to including only peer-reviewed publications [ 49 ] (Scopus, n = 47,673; WOS, n = 40,305). The research was then restricted by publication date to between 2010 and 15 March 2021 (Scopus, n = 34,789; WOS, n = 31,278). Only journal articles published in English were selected (Scopus, n = 33,292; WOS, n = 30,313). Then, advanced research was conducted by combining the primary keywords with one of the secondary keywords. The results and the number of articles identified in each search step are detailed in Figure 1 . After removing duplicate articles from each database, a total of 281 journal articles (Scopus, n = 140; WOS, n = 141) were revealed. After combining both databases, 248 journal articles were obtained. These collected 248 journal articles were scanned by reading their abstracts in order to check their applicability to answering the research questions. At this point, 107 articles were excluded as they were considered irrelevant and outside the scope of the research. Finally, the total number of extracted articles was 141, as can be seen in Figure 1 . Data extraction and analysis were performed by a single reviewer (SW), and all extracted data and revealed results were double-checked by three researchers (FA, IM, and BS) to enhance the research and reduce bias in study selection. A complete description of the validity threats (Construct, Internal, External, and Conclusion Validity) following the validation process of Zhou, Jin [ 50 ] is provided in detail in Table 3 .

Research protocol following the PRISMA guidelines.

A reporting of validity threats in this systematic literature review.

Among the selected 141 articles, 28 (19.86%) were published in the Journal of Cleaner Production , 20 (14.18%) were published in Food Policy , and 5 (3.55%) were published in Quality-Access to Success . The rest of the journal names are visualized in Figure 2 .

The most popular journals publishing the 141 included articles. Others denotes journals that were cited once or twice.

After the 141 articles have been extracted, they were analyzed and summarized individually by listing all the discussed food security drivers, as well as the recommended policies for the improvement of food security and sustainable food production. Then, we synthesized the extracted information from all sources in order to identify the gaps, list the similarities between all the resources, and extract significant insights regarding the main drivers of food security and the recommended policies [ 26 ].

3.1. The Major Drivers of Food Security

Analysis of the retrieved literature revealed 34 different drivers of food security, as visualized in Figure 3 . Detailed information, along with a full citation list for all the drivers, is provided in Appendix A .

Summary of the major drivers of food security.

Most papers discussed food loss and waste (FLW) and emphasized its impact on food security [ 6 , 19 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. Around one-third of the food produced globally (1.3 million tons) is wasted or lost [ 96 ]. Basher, Raboy [ 43 ] has argued that, if we could save just one-fourth of the wasted food, it would be enough to feed all the world’s undernourished people, contributing positively to FS. The previous finding supports our research findings that FLW is the primary driver of FS. To reduce FLW, Halloran, Clement [ 6 ] has argued that effective communication, more efficient food packaging, and a better consumer understanding of food packaging could lead to solutions. To decrease food loss, Garcia-Herrero, Hoehn [ 62 ] has suggested improving food labelling, enhancing consumer planning, and developing technological advances in packaging and shelf life for perishable products. Morone, Falcone [ 83 ] has suggested the repetition of large-scale research to help define a set of policies encouraging the transition to a new model for consumption that promotes sustainably procured food and dramatically reduces the amount of waste (more details are provided in Section 3.2 ).

Additionally, several authors have considered food security policy (FSP) as a driver of food security in its different forms [ 56 , 63 , 65 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 79 , 85 , 94 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 ]. The primary goal of establishing food security policies that consider the factors influencing individuals and groups is to reduce poverty and eliminate hunger. One example is safety-net programs or public food assistance programs (FAPs). The main goal of providing safety-net programs is to increase food consumption among poor people and improve food security [ 102 ].

Many papers have discussed the importance of technological advancement as an enabler of food security [ 56 , 57 , 58 , 63 , 69 , 71 , 74 , 77 , 85 , 90 , 94 , 95 , 109 , 116 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 ]. The use of technology to promote behavioral changes has increasingly become a vital instrument to reduce food waste and indirectly improve food security [ 130 ]. Mobile applications offer households helpful guidance on increasing shelf life and experimenting with dishes using leftovers [ 58 ]. Shukla, Singh [ 130 ] has elaborated that, at present, farmers have access to mobile applications that provide them with reasonably and timely priced information.

Some authors have discussed sustainable agricultural development and practices as enablers of food security [ 56 , 57 , 59 , 64 , 71 , 73 , 94 , 97 , 105 , 109 , 111 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 124 , 130 , 132 , 134 , 136 , 137 , 139 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 ]. Some authors have discussed local production enhancement as a driver of food security to enhance the self-reliance of countries [ 57 , 69 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 94 , 98 , 103 , 105 , 109 , 112 , 117 , 120 , 134 , 137 , 144 , 148 , 149 ]. For example, Ahmed, Begum [ 98 ] has emphasized how, following the GCC ban, Qatar took several successful steps to foster local production, support domestic businesses, and promote the consumption of locally produced food by its citizens. Some authors have argued that building the capacities of small farmers is essential to achieving FS. Education policies are critical for educating farmers, building their capacities, and increasing their human capital; moreover, educational programs should also include food preparation and health education programs in order to ensure the safety of consumed food [ 101 ].

The government’s role in managing a country’s agriculture can also be seen as a driver of food security [ 67 , 75 , 84 , 86 , 100 , 109 , 116 , 117 , 119 , 121 , 137 , 138 , 147 , 150 , 151 , 152 ], as it is responsible for various aspects such as designing, testing, and implementing the right policies to ensure the welfare of its citizens, while providing the necessary assistance to small-scale farmers and ensuring their safety and security in all aspects of life. Governments in developing nations must focus on R&D, agriculture infrastructure (e.g., technologies for irrigation and soil preservation), expansion services, early warning systems, or subsidized farm income in order to alter the production function of the population [ 101 ].

Many authors have discussed the importance of food safety policies as an enabler of food security [ 61 , 64 , 69 , 103 , 105 , 111 , 112 , 129 , 149 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. Food safety policies include food and water safety at several points throughout the supply chain where food-borne diseases might develop [ 69 ]. Environmental policies are also seen as a fundamental enabler of food security [ 59 , 73 , 121 , 124 , 130 , 135 , 139 , 147 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 ]. Regardless of the various approaches discussed by the authors, they all agreed that environmental protection would help to ensure food availability for current and future generations. According to some authors, trade policies [ 69 , 94 , 95 , 103 , 111 , 112 , 114 , 123 , 129 , 141 , 146 , 161 , 164 ] and import policies [ 69 , 95 , 100 , 103 , 120 , 124 , 126 , 129 , 146 ] are enablers of food security. Regulating international trade can help to ensure food security. Lowering trade barriers, for example, has been proposed as a way to mitigate the adverse effects of market regulation caused by climate change [ 141 ].

Many authors have recognized policies that promote consumer education on sustainable consumption and increase consumer awareness and knowledge of the environmental impact of their purchases as a driver of food security [ 52 , 60 , 67 , 69 , 86 , 133 , 144 , 151 , 163 , 165 , 166 , 167 ]. Others have stressed proper communication among all stakeholders as a driver of food security [ 6 , 56 , 68 , 69 , 84 , 92 , 129 , 130 , 156 , 157 , 168 ]. Some authors have considered risk management as an enabler of food security [ 94 , 117 , 118 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 145 , 154 , 155 , 157 ]. For example, the aims of building a disaster risk reduction framework in the Pacific include boosting resilience, protecting investments (e.g., in infrastructure, operations, and FS), and decreasing poverty and hunger [ 169 ].

Some authors have proposed the effective gleaning process as a driver of food security [ 70 , 72 , 74 , 80 , 84 , 92 , 142 , 170 ]. Gleaning is the collection of the remaining crops in agricultural fields after their commercial harvest, or just in crop fields where their harvest is not cost-effective. Some old cultures have fostered gleaning as an early form of social assistance [ 80 ]. Some authors have considered the management of government food reserves to be a food security driver [ 64 , 104 , 112 , 117 , 118 , 124 , 136 ]. Despite the high cost of storing food, any country must maintain adequate food reserves to serve the country in case of a crisis scenario [ 171 ]. Some authors have considered integrative policies (i.e., food–water–energy, food–energy, or water–food) as a driver of food security due to their impact on environmental improvement through natural resource handling efficiency [ 56 , 73 , 133 , 139 , 172 , 173 ]. Some authors have considered establishing dietary standard policies as an enabler of food security [ 69 , 151 , 163 , 174 ]. The government should impose policies on healthy food consumption to prevent obesity, such as prohibiting trans-fats. Moreover, they should restrict trans-fat usage in food outlets, establish institutional food standards, implement menu labelling regulations for chain restaurants, and ensure that disadvantaged people have better access to healthy meals [ 151 ].

Authors have highlighted various additional arguments or policies that are considered drivers for FS such as establishing public programs to influence diets in a healthy manner, reducing yield volatility [ 85 , 94 , 105 , 119 , 124 , 126 , 175 ], the country’s natural resources [ 85 , 105 , 119 , 124 , 137 , 145 , 162 , 163 , 176 ], geopolitical and political stability [ 69 , 98 , 104 , 117 , 123 , 124 , 142 ], agricultural infrastructure [ 64 , 114 , 116 , 118 , 142 , 146 , 175 ], food distribution infrastructure [ 71 , 75 , 76 , 112 , 177 , 178 ], economic integration [ 109 , 112 , 123 , 179 , 180 ], collaboration among all supply chain stakeholders [ 75 , 130 , 134 , 157 ], proper measurement of food security dimensions [ 123 , 181 , 182 , 183 ], urban agriculture policies [ 56 , 147 , 148 ], adjustments in dietary structure [ 59 , 86 , 163 ], establishing employment programs for poor household representatives [ 110 , 152 ], customer engagement in designing public policies [ 158 ], and trust in public institutions [ 166 ].

3.2. The Recommended Policies to Alleviate the Food Insecurity

Analysis of the 141 retrieved papers revealed 17 major recommended policies, as visualized in Figure 4 . We also determined sub-policies under each category which were grouped based on common characteristics, relevance, and how they were categorized in the papers. The complete list of sub-policy categories and related references is provided in Appendix B .

The main 17 recommended policies and statistics.

Most authors recommended establishing FSP, in general, as a primary solution for food insecurity in developing and developed countries [ 56 , 57 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 69 , 81 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 91 , 94 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 126 , 127 , 130 , 131 , 133 , 134 , 137 , 142 , 144 , 145 , 148 , 149 , 151 , 152 , 175 , 177 , 180 , 182 , 184 , 185 ]. Many authors have suggested food consumption policies that offer safety-net programs or public food assistance programs (FAPs) such as food price subsidies, cash-based programs, structural pricing adjustments, or micro-credits as enablers of FS. The main goal of providing safety-net programs is to increase food consumption among poor people and improve food security [ 102 ]. Given the solid bidirectional causal link between poverty and malnutrition, FAPs have been recognized as critical components of the overall poverty reduction strategy. Food aid policies and initiatives can fill the gaps left by the for-profit food system and the informal (non-profit) social safety nets, ensuring food security for disadvantaged individuals, families, and communities [ 108 ]. Several authors have recommended establishing policies to enhance the performance and asset bases of small-scale farmers, such as loans, subsidies, access to information, and knowledge-sharing, to address food insecurity. Governments should adopt direct interventions such as structural price adjustments and targeted food subsidies to enhance the food access of farmers by lowering market prices and stabilizing consumption during high food price inflation [ 116 ]. Others have recommended establishing government input subsidy programs (input subsidy policies) that provide farmers with subsidies for investment into high-yielding technology (e.g., automation, fertilizers, high-yield seed). They all claimed this as an effective policy instrument for agricultural development, but each focused on a different mechanism. Shukla, Singh [ 130 ], for example, has discussed public distribution programs; Sinyolo [ 131 ] has emphasized policies aimed at increasing the amount of land planted with enhanced maize varieties among smallholder farmers; Wiebelt, Breisinger [ 124 ] has suggested investments in water-saving technologies, while Tokhayeva, Almukhambetova [ 137 ] have proposed the development of an agricultural innovation system. Others have recommended rural development policies to reduce yield volatility and improve the agricultural infrastructure (e.g., irrigation and water-saving technologies). Governments in developing nations must focus on R&D, agricultural infrastructure (technologies for irrigation and soil preservation), expansion services, and early warning systems [ 101 ]. Technological advancement, in general, is seen as a vital element in reducing yield volatility [ 85 ]. Capacity-building policies (e.g., educational, training, and technical support) have received considerable attention in the literature as a fundamental component of urban farming initiatives, and as attempts to promote self-reliance and networking. Capacity building in many areas connected to urban agriculture is essential for equipping residents with knowledge and expertise [ 148 ]. To enhance FS, some researchers have suggested policies supporting locally produced food, diversified agricultural production policies, policies that impact farm-level commodity pricing, food stock policies, establishing policies to increase the income of farmers, buffer stock policies, and resource allocation policies (for a complete list of references, see Appendix B ).

Many authors have proposed different policy recommendations to reduce food waste and, thus, food insecurity [ 6 , 19 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 103 , 130 , 138 , 144 , 150 , 160 , 167 , 168 , 170 , 177 ]. Many have agreed on the importance of policies that promote information and education campaigns that spread awareness at household and public levels by improving meal planning and management in consumers. However, each author suggested a different approach. For example, Schanes, Dobernig [ 58 ] have discussed face-to-face door-stepping campaigns (online and in traditional newspaper leaflets), word-of-mouth, and television shows or movies. However, Septianto, Kemper [ 66 ] have highlighted the importance of social marketing campaign design and framing (having vs. not having) in conveying the intended message to consumers. Tucho and Okoth [ 73 ] have asserted the advantages of producing bio-wastes and bio-fertilizers from food waste and human excreta (in a food–energy–sanitation nexus approach), and also advocated for educating families on how to do so at the household level. Xu, Zhang [ 86 ] has argued that governments should help society to develop a logical perspective on food consumption and aggressively promote the habit of eating simple meals, particularly in social catering. Von Kameke and Fischer [ 52 ] and Zorpas, Lasaridi [ 60 ] have emphasized the importance of teaching customers about efficient meal planning to reduce food waste. Von Kameke and Fischer [ 52 ] have proposed using the Nudging tool rather than campaigning. Xu, Zhang [ 86 ] have suggested initiating suitable policy instruments to nudge individuals to adopt sustainable consumption habits, with important implications for decreasing food waste and increasing food security in China. Smart (innovative) food packaging and labelling policies have received significant attention in the literature, as they are critical in reducing food waste and, thus, improving FS. The nature, size, and labelling of the packaging impact the lifetime of the food. Smart packaging innovations and new technologies are steadily penetrating markets, thus increasing the shelf-life of foods through enhanced protection, communication, convenience, and control [ 58 ].

Food banks, food sharing, and food rescue policies have also received significant attention in the global literature, as they help reduce food waste and improve FS. Food banking is a critical long-term rescue policy for re-distributing surplus food to those in need and reducing poverty and food insecurity [ 80 , 92 ]. Several authors have recommended positive sanctions such as financial rewards, tax credits, federal and state funding, vouchers, or reduced taxes to decrease food waste and improve FS. Positive sanctions consist mainly of financial incentives to encourage restaurants and grocery retailers to donate their leftover food [ 60 ]. Addressing liability concerns might be one incentive, as the research participants have highlighted this as a universal barrier and that this issue, in particular, must be handled [ 51 ]. Negative sanction policies have received considerable attention in the literature as a tool for reducing food waste and improving FS. These include fines and fees imposed on companies and individuals accountable for food waste [ 58 ]. Taxes and fines are a potential way to manage and motivate restaurants and retailers to donate their leftover food to charities and community centers [ 65 ].

The establishment of policies that regulate the sharing of information and knowledge among supply chain stakeholders has received some attention in the literature in terms of reducing food waste and improving food security. Comprehensive food waste legislation has been discussed as a potential enabler of food security. A possible regulatory tool would be to revise and remove unnecessary food safety requirements that result in excessive food waste levels [ 58 ]. According to Halloran, Clement [ 6 ], food waste increased due to European food safety regulations and standardization. Food waste recycling policies have been used as a method to reduce food waste. Food waste can be utilized for value generation at any point of the food supply chain process through efficient techniques, then reincorporated into the cycle [ 77 ]. Food waste has a long history as a source of ecologically friendly animal feed [ 61 ].

A few authors have highlighted the impact of technological advancement (e.g., mobile applications) as a strategy to reduce food waste. Some authors have proposed implementing gleaning operation policies that provide tax incentives and government assistance to gleaners in order to decrease food waste. Some authors have proposed implementing peak storage reduction policies, such as stock-holding incentives. Nudging tools (which nudge people toward forming sustainable consumption behaviors) have been mentioned by a few authors.

Food safety policies received significant attention in the retrieved literature [ 61 , 64 , 69 , 70 , 103 , 105 , 111 , 112 , 120 , 125 , 129 , 130 , 137 , 138 , 149 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]; however, they have been discussed in various different forms. Few authors have discussed food quality and food hygiene compliance certifications. Compliance with sanitary standards is required to maintain the best practices for preventing food-borne diseases and food security threats [ 155 ]. Other authors have discussed the importance of food safety standards. Meanwhile, few authors have emphasized the importance of food safety throughout the supply chain, but each proposed a different strategy to achieve it. For example, some authors have suggested using an effective IT system [ 130 ], RFID [ 138 ], or developing food safety training policies [ 155 ].

Many authors have advocated for the implementation of trade policies to address food insecurity in developing and developed countries [ 94 , 95 , 101 , 103 , 111 , 112 , 119 , 123 , 129 , 136 , 141 , 146 , 148 , 149 , 152 , 157 , 161 , 164 , 178 , 180 ], but in different contexts. For example, some have suggested establishing infrastructure development policies that target agricultural logistic infrastructure, or improving the speed and quality of shipping logistics. In contrast, some authors have agreed on the importance of state trading and private trade-supporting policies. Others have suggested the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers, while a few authors recommended reliable marine connection and transportation logistics policies.

Environmental policies are a fundamental enabler of food security [ 59 , 73 , 94 , 120 , 121 , 124 , 130 , 135 , 139 , 141 , 145 , 147 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 166 ]. However, authors have focused on many different aspects of these policies. Some authors, for example, have emphasized the importance of establishing policies to mitigate the effects of climate change. Others were too specific, suggesting greenhouse gas reduction policies, and proposed penalizing non-compliance. Due to the strong links between climate change, poverty, and food insecurity, some authors have proposed establishing coordinating policies among the three. Other authors have stressed the consideration of policies that encourage the optimization of fertilizer use.

Many authors have considered food import policies as a solution to food insecurity [ 94 , 95 , 100 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 109 , 112 , 116 , 117 , 119 , 120 , 124 , 126 , 134 , 146 ]; however, most authors provided different opinions regarding the most effective policy to implement. For example, some authors have stressed the importance of policies that provide direct government financial assistance to local agriculture, or the importance of policies that sustain local agricultural product prices compared to imported products. Some have recommended providing temporary tax benefits for agricultural investment, while others recommended import ban (substitution) policies. A few authors have recommended direct budget subsidies, subsidized loan interest rates, and strategies for the diversification of imported food origin.

Many authors have discussed the importance of establishing a common agricultural policy (CAP) to address sustainable agriculture [ 56 , 57 , 64 , 89 , 109 , 111 , 118 , 119 , 132 , 142 , 143 , 149 , 161 , 172 , 184 , 186 ]. Others have stressed the importance of food surplus policies in enhancing a country’s food security status [ 51 , 58 , 70 , 72 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 82 , 84 , 90 , 91 ]. Some authors have suggested strategies to regulate a company’s liability regarding the donation of surplus food. A few authors have proposed food policies that subsidize the purchase of surplus food—also known as “ugly food”—by controlling for prices and surplus item characteristics. Some authors have suggested establishing food loss policies. However, few authors have specified the need for policies promoting food loss quantification.

Many authors have discussed the policies that promote traceability across the whole supply chain as an enabler for food security [ 56 , 69 , 103 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 137 , 138 , 168 , 178 ]. However, the different authors discussed different technologies such as investment into information technology such as RFID, effective IT systems, ICT systems, and blockchain technology. Government policies should promote investments into traceability systems that focus on rapid withdrawal in unsafe food scenarios such as product recall regulations, fines imposed on hazardous product distributors, and food-borne food risk monitoring [ 129 ]. Many authors have discussed various risk management strategies to improve a country’s food security [ 94 , 117 , 118 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 145 , 154 , 155 , 157 ]. However, each considered a different approach to overcome the risk. Specifically, they have discussed food scandal policies, the COVID-19 pandemic, programmed risk identification, proactive policy measures to handle flood crises, early warning systems for natural disasters, or risk management throughout the food supply chain. Some authors have highlighted water quality policies such as efficient water-use policies, improving water resources policies, using water-efficient crops, investments into water-saving technologies, and food and water safety throughout the supply chain.

Some authors have discussed the management of government food reserves as an enabler of food security [ 64 , 104 , 112 , 117 , 118 , 124 , 136 ], and others have discussed integrative and coherent policies between food, water, and energy (as a nexus) [ 56 , 73 , 133 , 139 , 172 , 173 ]. Meanwhile, other authors have discussed policies that promote consumer education on sustainable consumption, improving consumer status awareness and knowledge regarding the ecological impact of their purchases [ 60 , 69 , 133 , 144 , 163 , 165 ]. Few authors have addressed the importance of dietary standard policies [ 69 , 151 , 163 , 174 ], urban agriculture policies [ 56 , 147 , 148 ], and food-aid policies [ 118 , 150 ].

Some policies were suggested in one paper only such as devising the right population policy in China [ 85 ], flexible retail modernization policies [ 158 ], policies that facilitate short-term migration [ 187 ], policies to stimulate equitable economic growth through manufacturing and services [ 95 ], and sound research governance policies [ 140 ].

4. Discussion

In this section, we discuss the polices and drivers in the greater areas, then compare them based on specific contexts. This approach serves to provide better understanding, thus informing decision-makers about the importance of choosing the right policies through considering many food security dimensions. By looking deeply at the extracted food security drivers and policies and the way in which they can be applied to each country’s context, we take an example from the MENA region. The MENA region includes a diverse range of nations, including low-income and less-developed (e.g., Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), low–middle-income (e.g., Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Morocco, and Tunisia), upper middle-income (e.g., Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya), and high-income (e.g., the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) countries [ 126 ]. As food availability is a serious problem in the MENA region low-income countries (Syria and Yemen), due to war and violent conflicts [ 188 ], policies aimed at increasing food availability continue to pique the interest of policy-makers. In these countries, where citizens are incapable of fulfilling their basic food needs [ 189 ], the existence of food security policies in different forms is crucial for achieving food security [ 53 , 97 , 98 , 124 , 184 ], more than FLW policies. Policy-makers should focus on ensuring the availability of either locally produced or imported food, which requires appropriate trade policies to deal with food shortages and improve the availability dimension in these countries. Trade policies should focus on creating infrastructure development policies that target agricultural logistic infrastructure, improve the speed and quality of shipping logistics, and establish reliable marine connections and transportation logistics policies that remove tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Policy-makers should establish import policies that sustain local agricultural product prices compared to imported products, provide direct government financial assistance to local agriculture, and provide temporary tax benefits for agricultural investment.

Additionally, the governments should improve food access in the MENA region low-income countries by reducing or stabilizing consumer and producer food prices. To enhance food access, FSPs (e.g., education policies in general and capacity-building policies) may help to improve individual human capital. Governments also must provide supplemental feeding programs, typically targeting vulnerable groups in need of special diets, such as pregnant women and children [ 101 ].

Moreover, the government should improve credit access through the following means: policies that enhance the performance and asset base of small-scale farmers; the existence of policies that impact farm-level commodity pricing, thus retaining farmers and increasing local production; the existence of government input subsidy programs for individuals, and the existence of policies supporting locally produced food. These are all possible policies to improve the MENA region FS. Governments and global health organizations should promote food utilization in MENA low-income countries through the development of policies that monitor overall food quality, such as access to clean water and micronutrient fortification, or through individual educational programs on safe food preparation [ 155 ]. Finally, enhancing food quality can optimize the individual nutrient absorption [ 101 ].

In contrast, discussions of food security in the MENA region high-income countries have indicated that food availability, access, and utilization are generally higher and not a problem. However, food stability is low, which requires the attention of policy-makers to improve FS. Food stability impacts the other food security pillars (access, availability, and utilization). Moreover, it requires the economic, political, and social sustainability of food systems, which are vulnerable to environmental conditions, land distribution, available resources, conflicts, and political situations [ 190 ]. Food stability necessitates increased efforts and expenditures to achieve food security in the sustainable development goals, especially in light of increased academic and governmental interest in incorporating sustainability values into policies.

As food waste is prevalent in these countries, FLW policies are more critical than FSP, which is in alignment with our findings regarding food security drivers. FLW makes it difficult for the poor in developing countries to access food by significantly depleting natural resources such as land, water, and fossil fuels while raising the greenhouse gas emissions related to food production [ 115 ]. Addressing food loss and waste in these countries can hugely influence the reduction of wasted food and indirectly enhance food security. The number of food-insecure individuals may be reduced in developing regions by up to 63 million by reducing food loss, which will directly reduce the over-consumption of cultivated areas, water, and greenhouse gas emissions related to food production [ 115 ]. According to Abiad and Meho [ 189 ], food waste produced at the household level differs across MENA-region countries. For example, it ranges from 68 to 150 kg/individual/year in Oman, 62–76 kg/individual/year in Iraq, 194–230 kg/individual/year in Palestine, and 177–400 kg/individual/year in the UAE. It is critical to take more aggressive but scientifically sound initiatives to minimize FLW, which will require the participation of everyone involved in the food supply chain such as policy-makers, food producers and suppliers, and the final consumers [ 191 , 192 ]. Food waste reflects an inefficient usage of valuable agricultural input resources and contributes to unnecessary environmental depletion [ 191 , 193 ]. Furthermore, food loss is widely recognized as a major obstacle to environmental sustainability and food security in developing nations [ 194 ]. Preventing FLW can result in a much more environmentally sustainable agricultural production and consumption process by increasing the efficiency and productivity of resources, especially water, cropland, and nutrients [ 115 , 191 , 192 , 195 ]. Preventing FLW is crucial in areas where water scarcity is a prevalent concern, as irrigated agriculture makes up a sizeable portion of total food production, and yield potential may not be fully achieved under nutrient or water shortages [ 191 , 196 , 197 ]. According to the study of Chen, Chaudhary [ 197 ], food waste per capita in high-income countries is enough to feed one individual a healthy balanced diet for 18 days. Chen, Chaudhary [ 197 ] also found that high-income countries have embedded environmental effects that are ten times greater than those of low-income countries, and they tend to waste six times more food by weight than low-income countries. Consequently, implementing proper FLW policies in high-income countries can help to alleviate the food insecurity problem while maintaining the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of future food production.

Implementing effective food storage techniques and capacities is considered a key component of a comprehensive national food security plan to promote both food utilization and food stability; furthermore, proper food storage at the household level maintains food products for a more prolonged period [ 198 ]. Encouragement of economic integration between MENA region countries is very applicable considering the heterogeneity of these countries. For example, countries with limited arable land and high income, such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, can invest in countries with a lower middle income, such as Egypt, and use its land to benefit both countries. On the other hand, Boratynska and Huseynov [ 101 ] have proposed food technology innovation as a sustainable driver of food security and a promising solution to the problem of food insecurity in developing countries. Due to the higher food production demand to support the expanding urban population while having limited water and land availability, higher investments in technology and innovation are needed to ensure that food systems are more resilient [ 190 ]. Boratynska and Huseynov [ 101 ] have argued that, in general, using innovative technologies to produce healthy food products is frequently a concern. However, improving the probability that innovative food technology will enable the production of a diverse range of food products with enhanced texture and flavor while also providing a variety of health advantages to the final consumer is essential. Jalava, Guillaume [ 193 ] have argued that, along with reducing FLW, shifting people’s diets from animal- to plant-based foods can help to slow environmental degradation.

The MENA region example described above can be adapted to different regions based on their food security situation, and relevant policies can be devised to improve food security more sustainably.

5. Conclusions

Food security is a complicated and multi-faceted issue that cannot be restricted to a single variable, necessitating the deeper integration of many disciplinary viewpoints. It is essential to admit the complexity of designing the right policy to improve food security that matches each country’s context [ 46 ] while considering the three pillars of sustainability. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance to implement climate-friendly agricultural production methods to combat food insecurity and climate change [ 12 ]. Mapping the determinants of food security contributes to better understanding of the issue and aids in developing appropriate food security policies to enhance environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

This research contributes to the body of knowledge by summarizing the main recommended policies and drivers of food security detailed in 141 research articles, following a systematic literature review methodology. We identified 34 food security drivers and outlined 17 recommended policies to improve food security and contribute to sustainable food production. Regarding the drivers, one of the foremost priorities to drive food security is reducing FLW globally, followed by food security policies, technological advancement, sustainable agricultural development, and so on (see Appendix A ). Regarding the recommended policies, most studies have detailed the contents and impacts of food security policies, food waste policies, food safety policies, trade policies, environmental policies, import policies, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), food surplus policies, and so on (see Appendix B ).

5.1. Policy Implications

We assessed the obtained results in comparison to the latest version of the GFSI. Using the GFSI (2021) indicators as a proxy resulted in the identification of gaps and specific policy implications of the results. The idea was to identify which of the policies and drivers have been already implemented and which have not (or, at least, have not been very successfully implemented). We used the GFSI as it is a very well-established benchmarking tool used globally by 113 countries to measure the food security level. We examined the indicators mentioned under each of the four dimensions of food security, and listed associations with the identified policies and drivers found in the literature. Accordingly, we suggest the addition of two dimensions to the current index:

• Sustainability

The first dimension relates to measuring the sustainability dimensions that each participating country adopts in its food production process. We noticed that many authors stressed the importance of the existence of clear environmental policies that drive long-term food security. However, the current GFSI lacks indicators measuring this dimension. The reviewed literature suggested environmental indicators considering optimized fertilizer use, carbon taxes, aquaculture environment, bio-energy, green and blue infrastructure, gas emissions reduction policies, policies to reduce the impacts of climate change, and heavy metal soil contamination monitoring.

• Consumer representation

The second dimension is related to consumer voice representation within the GFSI. The reviewed literature suggested implementing policy measures that promote consumer education on sustainable consumption and improve the consumer status, consciousness, and knowledge regarding the ecological impact of their purchases. Any sustainability initiative should be supported and implemented by the final consumer.

Additional gaps in the policies and drivers of food security were identified and allocated under the relevant indicators in the GFSI based on the four dimensions of food security. Under the affordability dimension, we found a lack of policies in the reviewed literature addressing the Inequality-adjusted income index. Regarding the Change in average food costs indicator, we observed that the policies that exist in the literature concern the farmer level only (e.g., policies that impact farm-level commodity pricing and policies supporting locally produced food), and not all of the citizens at the national level. Additionally, policies that promote traceability across the whole supply chain were missing. There were no policies in the reviewed literature under the food quality and safety dimension representing the following: the dietary diversity indicator; micronutrient availability (e.g., dietary availability of vitamin A, iron, and zinc); regulation of the protein quality indicator; the food safety indicator (specifically the two sub-indicators of food safety mechanisms and access to drinking water), and illustration of the national nutrition plan or strategy indicator. Therefore, future research should pay more attention to and emphasize the importance of such policies, particularly in developed countries seeking to improve their food security status and score high on the GFSI.

Moreover, the reviewed literature suggested “developing food safety training policies” to improve food safety and FS; however, no indicators or sub-indicators within the GFSI represent such training policies. The GFSI developers should pay more attention to safety training practices and include them in the index’s future development. Under the availability dimension, the reviewed literature suggested establishing a food loss policy that promotes the quantification of food loss under the food loss indicator. This indicator should be enhanced through well-articulated policies that address the problem of food loss and attempt to mitigate its impact. However, while there were various policies concerning food waste or surplus, there were no indicators within the GFSI that represented food loss. As food loss and waste was identified as the primary driver of food security in this study, we recommend expanding the GFSI to include food loss quantification and reduction policies under the availability dimension. Finally, under the political commitment to adaptation dimension, some policies were identified in the reviewed literature in two sub-indicators: early warning measures/climate-smart agriculture (e.g., proactive policy measures to handle flood crises, programmed risk identification, and early warning systems for natural disasters) and disaster risk management (e.g., food scandals, COVID-19, and risk management throughout the food supply chain). However, under the other two relevant sub-indicators—commitment to managing exposure and national agricultural adaptation policy—there were no identified policies.

5.2. Contributions of the Study

The key contributions of this study to the existing literature are threefold. First, we identified the (34) main food security drivers and the (17) most-recommended policies to improve food security and enhance the future food production sustainability. Several studies have partially covered this area, but none have employed a systematic literature review of 141 papers covering such an scope in this topic. The gravity of food security worldwide is well established; hence the contribution of this work. Second, we provide a reflection of policies/drivers on the latest version of the GFSI, resulting in more tangible policy implications (see Section 5.1 ). Third, through a systematic literature review, we identified elements not listed under the GFSI that could be considered in its future revision. Examples include environmental policies/indicators such as optimized fertilizer use, carbon taxes, aquaculture environment, bio-energy, green and blue infrastructure, gas emission reduction, policies to reduce the impact of climate change, and heavy metal soil contamination monitoring; consumer representation, as the reviewed literature suggested policy measures that promote consumer education on sustainable consumption, as well as improving consumer status, consciousness, and knowledge regarding the ecological impact of their purchases; and traceability throughout the entire supply chain.

5.3. Study Limitations and Future Research

In this study, we identified the major drivers and the recommended policies to improve food security and enhance the future food production sustainability based on the reviewed literature. However, we recommend conducting a Delphi research study in consultation with policy-makers and industry experts. A Delphi study can be used to validate the findings of this systematic literature review based on a specific country’s context. This research was conducted using only 141 articles from two databases; therefore, we suggest replicating this research using different databases, which will allow for the inclusion of more related papers. Moreover, this research included only peer-reviewed articles, which may be considered, based on the guidelines of Keele [ 185 ], as a source of publication bias. Future research may consider including gray literature and conference proceedings. This research did not include the three sustainability pillars within its research string; therefore, we recommend considering the inclusion of the three pillars in future research. Future research should also investigate the use of alternative protein food technology innovation, such as plant-based protein, cultured meat, and insect-based protein, as a sustainable solution to the food security problem. Additionally, understanding the factors influencing acceptance of various technologies by the final consumer is particularly important given some regional characteristics such as harsh arid environments and the scarcity of arable land, freshwater, and natural resources.

Appendix A. Summary Table of Major Drivers of Food Security

Appendix b. summary table of most-recommended policies, funding statement.

This research was funded by the UAE Ministry of Education, Resilient Agrifood Dynamism through evidence-based policies-READY project, grant number 1733833.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.W., F.A., B.S. and I.M.; methodology, S.W., F.A., B.S. and I.M.; validation, S.W., F.A., B.S. and I.M.; formal analysis, S.W.; investigation, S.W., F.A., B.S. and I.M.; resources, I.M. and B.S.; data curation, S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, S.W.; writing—review and editing, F.A.; visualization, S.W.; supervision, F.A., B.S. and I.M.; project administration, B.S. and I.M.; funding acquisition, B.S. and I.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology

PLOS Climate

• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health

PLOS Medicine

• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

PLOS Pathogens

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

• PLOS Collections

Food Security

PLOS publishes a broad range of Open food security research that is essential to global food availability, access, utilization, and stability. Explore pivotal interdisciplinary research across key food security fields including crop science, nutrition, and food systems.

Explore food security research from PLOS

PLOS food security research addresses the global issues of food availability, exacerbated by the compounding impacts of climate change, demographic change, geopolitics and economic shocks.

Our Open Access multidisciplinary research papers showcase innovative approaches and technologies that help address key research areas in line with relevant United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including overcoming boundaries in both crop sciences and food systems.

Through rigorous academic research and engagement with a broad range of societal stakeholders, we aim to effect systemic, evidence-based transformation across all aspects of global food access and security.

Stay up-to-date on food security research from PLOS

Research spotlights

As a leading publisher in the field, these articles showcase research that has influenced academia, industry and/or policy.

Potential of breadfruit cultivation to contribute to climate-resilient low latitude food systems

Factors associated with dietary diversity among pregnant women in the western hill region of Nepal: A community based cross-sectional study

Food security and small holder farming in Pacific Island countries and territories: A scoping review

Food security research topics.

PLOS publishes research across a broad range of topics. Take a look at the latest work in your field.

Climate-smart agriculture

Food prices

Food loss and waste

Sustainable agriculture

Water use in agriculture

Crop science

Crop and livestock disease

Supply chains

Explore the latest research developments in your field

Our commitment to Open Science means others can build on PLOS precision food security research and data to advance the food security field. Discover selected popular food security research below:

A meta-analysis of the adoption of agricultural technology in Sub-Saharan Africa

Climate smart agriculture and global food-crop production

A novel intervention combining supplementary food and infection control measures to improve birth outcomes in undernourished pregnant women in Sierra Leone: A randomized, controlled clinical effectiveness trial

Does agricultural cooperative membership impact technical efficiency of maize production in Nigeria: An analysis correcting for biases from observed and unobserved attributes

Saltwater intrusion and climate change impact on coastal agriculture

Uncontained spread of Fusarium wilt of banana threatens African food security

Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: A modeling study

Maximising sustainable nutrient production from coupled fisheries-aquaculture systems

Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO 2 emissions this century

Assessment of drinking water access and household water insecurity: A cross sectional study in three rural communities of the Menoua division, West Cameroon

Levels of heavy metals in soil and vegetables and associated health risks in Mojo area, Ethiopia

Combining viral genetic and animal mobility network data to unravel peste des petits ruminants transmission dynamics in West Africa

Browse the full PLOS portfolio of Open Access food security articles

38,630 authors from 175 countries chose  PLOS   to publish their food security  research* 

Reaching a global audience, this research has received over 24,887   news and blog mentions ^ , research in this field has been cited 219,213 times after authors published in a plos journal*, related plos research collections.

Covering a connected body of work and evaluated by leading experts in their respective fields, our Collections make it easier to delve deeper into specific research topics from across the breadth of the PLOS portfolio.

Check out our highlighted PLOS research Collections:

Sustainable Cropping

Domestic Animal Genetics

Future Crops

Stay up-to-date on the latest food security research from PLOS

Related journals in food security

We provide a platform for food security research across various PLOS journals, allowing interdisciplinary researchers to explore food security research at all preclinical, translational and clinical research stages.

*Data source: Web of Science . © Copyright Clarivate 2024 | January 2004 – February 2024 ^Data source: Altmetric.com | January 2004 – February 2024

Breaking boundaries. Empowering researchers. Opening science.

PLOS is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.

Open Access

All PLOS journals are fully Open Access, which means the latest published research is immediately available for all to learn from, share, and reuse with attribution. No subscription fees, no delays, no barriers.

Leading responsibly

PLOS is working to eliminate financial barriers to Open Access publishing, facilitate diversity and broad participation of voices in knowledge-sharing, and ensure inclusive policies shape our journals. We’re committed to openness and transparency, whether it’s peer review, our data policy, or sharing our annual financial statement with the community.

Breaking boundaries in Open Science

We push the boundaries of “Open” to create a more equitable system of scientific knowledge and understanding. All PLOS articles are backed by our Data Availability policy, and encourage the sharing of preprints, code, protocols, and peer review reports so that readers get more context.

Interdisciplinary

PLOS journals publish research from every discipline across science and medicine and related social sciences. Many of our journals are interdisciplinary in nature to facilitate an exchange of knowledge across disciplines, encourage global collaboration, and influence policy and decision-making at all levels

Community expertise

Our Editorial Boards represent the full diversity of the research and researchers in the field. They work in partnership with expert peer reviewers to evaluate each manuscript against the highest methodological and ethical standards in the field.

Rigorous peer review

Our rigorous editorial screening and assessment process is made up of several stages. All PLOS journals use anonymous peer review by default, but we also offer authors and reviewers options to make the peer review process more transparent.

• Open access
• Published: 05 May 2023

A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security

• Ioannis Manikas 1 ,
• Beshir M. Ali   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5865-8468 1 &
• Balan Sundarakani 1  

Agriculture & Food Security volume  12 , Article number:  10 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

12 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Measurement is critical for assessing and monitoring food security. Yet, it is difficult to comprehend which food security dimensions, components, and levels the numerous available indicators reflect. We thus conducted a systematic literature review to analyse the scientific evidence on these indicators to comprehend the food security dimensions and components covered, intended purpose, level of analysis, data requirements, and recent developments and concepts applied in food security measurement. Data analysis of 78 articles shows that the household-level calorie adequacy indicator is the most frequently used (22%) as a sole measure of food security. The dietary diversity-based (44%) and experience-based (40%) indicators also find frequent use. The food utilisation (13%) and stability (18%) dimensions were seldom captured when measuring food security, and only three of the retrieved publications measured food security by considering all the four food security dimensions. The majority of the studies that applied calorie adequacy and dietary diversity-based indicators employed secondary data whereas most of the studies that applied experience-based indicators employed primary data, suggesting the convenience of collecting data for experience-based indicators than dietary-based indicators. We confirm that the estimation of complementary food security indicators consistently over time can help capture the different food security dimensions and components, and experience-based indicators are more suitable for rapid food security assessments. We suggest practitioners to integrate food consumption and anthropometry data in regular household living standard surveys for more comprehensive food security analysis. The results of this study can be used by food security stakeholders such as governments, practitioners and academics for briefs, teaching, as well as policy-related interventions and evaluations.

Introduction

Providing sufficient, affordable, nutritious, and safe food for the growing global population remains a challenge for human society; this task is made further difficult when governments are expected to provide food security without causing climate change, degrading water and land resources, and eroding biodiversity [ 1 ]. As long as food self-sufficiency and citizens’ wellbeing depend on sustainable food security, food security will remain a global priority [ 2 , 3 ]. According to the 1996 World Food Summit definition, food security is achieved ‘when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ [ 4 ].

This definition by the Food and Agriculture Organization has laid the foundation for the four food security dimensions [ 5 ]: availability , access , utilisation , and stability . Relatedly, any kind of food security analysis, programme, and monitoring, with respect to predefined targets, requires valid and reliable food security measurement. However, measuring such a non-observable concept as a latent construct has remained challenging because of its complex and evolving nature: it has many dimensions and components [ 6 ], and involves a continuum of situations , invalidating the application of dichotomous/binary measures [ 7 ]. Food security measurement poses two fundamental yet distinct problems [ 8 ]: determining what is being measured and how it is measured . The what question refers to the use of appropriate indicators for the different dimensions (availability, access, utilisation, and stability) and components (quantity, quality, safety, and cultural acceptability/preference), while the how question refers to the methodology applied for computing the indicators (i.e. data, methods, and models).

Scholars have proposed a variety of indicators to measure food security. Over this time, the definition and operational concept of food security has changed as well, and, with it, the type of indicators and methodologies used to gauge it. One such important change is the paradigm shift ‘from the global and the national to the household and the individual, from a food-first perspective to a livelihood perspective, and from objective indicators to subjective perception’ [ 6 ]. Despite the call to harmonize measurements for better coordination and partnerships, to date, there remains no consensus among governments, quasi-legal agencies, or researchers on the indicators and methodologies that should be applied for measuring and monitoring food security at global, national, household, and individual levels [ 9 ]. Instead, an overabundance of indicators makes it difficult to ascertain which indicators reflect which dimensions (availability, access, utilization, or stability), components (quantity, quality, safety, cultural acceptability/preferences), and levels (global, national, regional, household or individual) of food security [ 10 ]. The number of food security dimensions or components assessed also greatly vary in the literature. Indicators that assess only a specific dimension or component oversimplify the outcomes and do not reveal the full extent of food insecurity, for example. Although such highly specific indicators do help conceptualise and reveal food insecurity, they still fail to accurately show trade-offs among the different dimensions, components, and intervention strategies. There is ultimately a possibility of shifting the food insecurity problem from one dimension/component to another.

The practical limitations of existing food security measurements were once again exposed by 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), the Scientific Group for the United Nations Food Systems Summit [ 11 ] that ‘the world does not have a singular source of information to provide real-time assessments of people facing acute food insecurity with the geographic scale to cover any country of concern, the ability to update forecasts frequently and consistently in near real-time’. They further stated that current early warning systems lack suitable indicators to monitor the degradation of food systems. Aggravating this problem, these measurement indicators are not standardised, making comparisons among indicators over space and time complicated [ 9 ]. First, some of the indicators are composite indicators measuring two or more food security dimensions, whereas others measure individual dimensions. Second, some of the indicators focus on factors contributing to food security than on food security outcomes. Third, some indicators are quantitative, whereas others are qualitative measures based on individuals’ perceptions. Fourth, the levels of analysis greatly vary as well because some indicators are global and national measures, whereas others are household and individual measures. Fifth, the intended purposes of the indicators range from advocacy tools to monitoring and evaluating progress towards defined policy targets.

Although numerous food security indicators have been developed for use in research, there is no agreement on the single ‘best’ food security indicator among scientists or practitioners for measuring, analysing, and monitoring food security [ 12 , 9 ]. The different international agencies also use their own sets of food security indicators (e.g. World Food Programme: Food Consumption Score (FCS), United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS); FAO: Prevalence of Undernourishment (POU) and Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES); and Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU): Global Food Security Index (GFSI)). An ideal food security indicator should capture all the four food security dimensions at individual level (rather than at national or regional or household levels) to reflect the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security. However, most of the available indicators are measures of food access at the household level. Footnote 1 In practical use, only a few indicators that ‘satisfactorily capture each requisite dimension of food security and that are relatively easy to collect can be identified and adopted at little detriment to a broader agenda’ [ 9 ], which we attempt herein. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the main objective of this study was to critically review food security indicators and methodologies published in scientific articles using systematic literature review (SLR). The specific objectives were as follows:

To identify and characterize food security indicators with respect to dimensions and components covered, methods and models of measurement, level of analysis, data requirements and sources, intended purpose of application, and strengths and weaknesses;

To review and summarise the scientific articles published since the last decade by the indicators used, intended purpose, level of analysis, study region/country, and data source;

To quantitatively characterize the food security dimensions and components covered in the literature, and to review scientific articles that measured all the four food security dimensions; and

To identify and review recent developments and concepts applied in food security measurement.

Although there exist a few review studies on food security measurement in the literature (e.g. [ 8 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], the present study is more comprehensive as it covers a wide range of food security indicators, levels of measurement, and analysis of data requirements and sources. Moreover, unlike the existing review studies in the literature, the current study applies the SLR methodology to the analysis of food security indicators and measurement.

Review methodology

We followed a two-stage approach in this review. First, we identified the commonly used food security indicators based on recent (review) articles on food security measurement [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 ]. Using the retrieved information from these articles (and their references), the identified indicators were characterised (in terms of the dimensions and components covered, methods of measurement, level of analysis, intended uses, validity and reliability, and data requirements and sources). Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 present the summary of the characterisation of the identified food security indicators: experience-based indicators (Table 1 ), national-level indicators (Table 2 ), dietary intake, diversity and expenditure-based indicators (Table 3 ), and indicators reflecting coping strategies and anthropometry measures (Table 4 ). This first-stage analysis was used to address the first objective of the study. In the second stage, the SLR was conducted.

Literature searching and screening processes

We applied the SLR methodology to systematically search, filter, and analyse scientific articles on food security measurement. The SLR is a commonly applied and accepted research methodology in the literature [ 39 ]. Although the SLR methodology is widely applied in different disciplines such as the health and life sciences, its application in economics is limited. However, it has recently been applied in agricultural economics (e.g. [ 40 – 43 ]. In this study, we closely followed the six steps of a systematic review process [ 39 ], namely, (a) defining research questions, (b) formulating search strings, (c) filtering studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, (d) conducting quality assessment of the filtered studies, (e) collecting data from the studies that passed quality assessment, and (f) analysing the data. The literature screening process that we followed is also in line with the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) [ 44 ].

The bibliographic databases of Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were used to search scientific articles on food security measurement (i.e. indicators, data, and methods) and help us answer the research question ‘How has food in/security been measured in the literature?’ Two categories of search strings were applied: One focussing on food security indicators ( Category A ), and another one on data requirement and sources of food security measurement ( Category B ). Specifically, the search strings (“food security” OR “food insecurity” OR “food availability” OR “food affordability” OR “food access” OR “food utilization” OR “food utilisation” OR “food stability” OR “nutrition security” OR “nutrition insecurity”) AND (“measurement” OR “indicators” OR “metrics” OR “index” OR “assessment” OR “scales”) were used for Category A . For Category B , we used (“food security” OR “food insecurity” OR “food availability” OR “food affordability” OR “food access” OR “food utilization” OR “food utilisation” OR “food stability” OR “nutrition security” OR “nutrition insecurity”) AND (“data” OR “big data” OR “datasets” OR “survey” OR “questionnaire”). The retrieved articles together with some of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the number of retrieved articles at each step, are presented in Fig.  1 . The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were also used during the literature searching and screening process in addition to those criteria presented in Fig.  1 : (a) Search field: title–abstract–keywords (Scopus); topic (WoS), (b) Time frame: 2010–09/03/2021, (c) Language: English, (d) Field of research: Agricultural and Biological Sciences Footnote 2 ; Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Scopus); Agricultural Economics Policy; Food Sciences Technology (WoS), and (e) Type: journal articles ( Category A ); journal articles, data, survey, database ( Category B ). We limited our literature search to publications from 2010 onwards since it was during this period that due attention has been given to the harmonisation of food security measurement. Footnote 3 This was also evident from the 2013 special issue of Global Food Security journal on the theme Measuring Food and Nutrition Security . Footnote 4

Literature searching and screening criteria

As we noted above, an ideal food security indicator should capture all the four food security dimensions at individual level to reflect the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security. We reviewed only those articles that have explicitly measured food in/security by applying at least one food security indicator. These indicators, measuring at least one of the four food security dimensions, were identified based on recent (review) articles on food security measurement [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 ]. A total of 110 articles were selected for full content review after the pre-screening process based on title, keyword and abstract review (Fig.  1 ). After the full content review, 32 articles were further excluded. Fourteen of these were excluded, as they did not measure food security explicitly (e.g. [ 45 , 46 ] or the food security indicator/method of measurement was not described (e.g. [ 47 ] or they used ‘inappropriate’ indicators that do not capture at least one of the four food security dimensions (e.g. [ 48 ]. For example, Koren and Bagozzi [ 48 ] used per capita cropland as a food security measure, which is not a valid indicator for the multidimensional food security concept (it cannot even fully capture the food availability dimension). Thirteen publications that we classified as methodological, two review articles [ 49 , 50 ], and three articles on seed insecurity [ 51 ], marine food insecurity [ 52 ] and political economy of food security [ 53 ] were also excluded. Finally, we reviewed, analysed, and summarised the scientific evidence of 78 articles on food security measurement (see Additional file 1  for the list of the articles and the data). The validity and reliability of the SLR have been ensured by specifying the SLR setting following Kitchenham et al. [ 39 ], and by providing sufficient information regarding the literature extraction and screening processes. Moreover, the three authors have double-checked the correctness of the processes such as definitions of search strings and inclusion–exclusion criteria, and confirming the retrieved data and data interpretation to reduce bias. The limitations of the study are also discussed (see under the “ Discussion ” section).

Review of articles by region, indicators used, intended purpose, and level of analysis

Following the exclusion of the non-pertinent articles (Fig.  1 ), 78 articles were included in our food security measurement dataset for the analysis (Additional file 1 ). Relatively, more publications were retrieved from the years 2019 and 2020 whereas there were no articles from 2010. Footnote 5 The journals of Food Security (33%) and Food Policy (14%) are the main sources of the retrieved articles (Fig.  2 ). The journals in the field of agricultural economics are also important sources of the retrieved articles (15%). Figure  3 depicts the distribution of the retrieved articles by region/country of study focus. Sub-Sahara Africa has been the main focus of the studies, followed by Asia. At country level, USA (8 studies) and Ethiopia (7 studies) were the most studied countries. Besides the studies represented in Fig.  3 , we identified nine other studies focusing at global and regional levels: global [ 7 , 12 , 54 , 55 ], developing countries (Slimane et al. [ 56 ]), Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region [ 57 ], Latin America and Caribbean [ 58 ], and Sub Sahara Africa [ 59 , 23 ]. Despite food insecurity being a global issue, there is lack of studies covering the different parts of the world (e.g. MENA region, Latin America and Europe).

Number of articles per journal (total number of articles: 78)

Summary of articles by country (Note: Some articles focus on more than one country, resulting in 89 articles by study area)

Figure  4 shows the summary of the number of articles by the type of food security indicator that they applied. Seventeen articles applied the household-level calorie adequacy (i.e. undernourishment) indicator, making it the most frequently used one. This indicator measures calorie availability relative to the calorie requirement of the household by accounting for age and sex differences of the household members (note that this indicator is different from FAO’s Prevalence of Undernourishment (POU) indicator (Table 2 ; [ 13 ]). A household is considered as food insecure if the available calorie is lower than the household’s calorie requirement. This indicator has been used in the literature to assess the prevalence of food insecurity [ 35 , 36 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ], for programme evaluation [ 68 , 66 ], and to analyse food security determinants [ 35 , 60 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. Some studies addressed the main drawback of the calorie adequacy indicator (its failure to account for diet quality) by measuring both calorie and micronutrient adequacy [ 54 , 65 , 70 , 72 ].

Summary of the publications by the type of food security indicators employed

Out of the 17 studies that applied the calorie adequacy indicator, three articles [ 35 , 69 , 71 ] classified households into food secure and food insecure based on the amount of expenditure on food that is required to purchase the minimum caloric requirement. A household is classified as food insecure if the expenditure on food is less than the predetermined threshold amount required for achieving the minimum caloric requirement. This measure allows us to account for the effect of food price inflation on household’s food access.

A subjective (self-reported) version of the household calorie adequacy indicator, the Food Adequacy Questionnaire (FAQ), was also used in 4 of the 78 articles (Fig.  4 ). Tambo et al. [ 73 ] and Smith and Frankenberger [ 74 ] measured food insecurity as the number of months of inadequate food provisioning during the last year owing to lack of resources. Bakhtsiyarava et al. [ 75 ] used FAQ to derive a binary measure of food security based on self-reported shortage of food in the last year, whereas Verpoorten et al. [ 23 ] measured food security using the question ‘Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family gone without enough food to eat? Never/Just once or twice/Several times/Many times/Always’. Although these simple food security measures based on FAQ can usefully capture a household’s experience of food insecurity and for conducting preliminary assessments, they are prone to subjective biases [ 24 ]. A comparison of studies is complicated because FAQ’s measures are not standardised (e.g. differences in phrases and scales used in the questions).

The dietary diversity indicators Household Diet Diversity Score (HDDS), Women Diet Diversity Score (WDDS), Individual Diet Diversity Score (IDDS), and Food Consumption Score (FCS) were also frequently used in the literature (Fig.  4 ). About 44% of the publications used diet diversity indicators for measuring food security. (Additional file 2 : Tables S1, S2) summarise the studies that applied the dietary diversity score measures (HDDS, WDDS, IDDS) and FCS. Most of the studies applied the diversity score indicators for estimating food insecurity prevalence (Additional file 2 : Table S1). Bakhtsiyarava et al. [ 75 ], Bolarinwa et al. [ 76 ], Islam et al. [ 77 ], and Sibhatu and Qaim [ 78 ] applied HDDS when analysing the determinants of food security. Tambo et al. [ 73 ] and Islam et al. [ 68 ] used HDDS as a measure of food security for program evaluation.

The main weakness of the dietary diversity measures is that they do not account for the quantity and quality of the consumed diet (nutritional value); for instance, consumption of very small quantities of certain foods would raise the diversity score without contributing much to a household’s/individual’s nutritional and micronutrient supply [ 78 ]. HDDS does not also account for intra-household diet diversity. Thus, a higher diet diversity score does not necessarily mean a better household/individual food security. Most of the retrieved articles addressed these drawbacks by combining diversity measures with other food security indicators (Additional file 2 : Table S1). For example, Sibhatu and Qaim [ 78 ] applied HDDS and WDDS in combination with measures of calorie and micronutrient adequacy. Tambo et al. [ 73 ] combined HDDS and WDDS with the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) and FAQ, whereas Bolarinwa et al. [ 76 ] integrated HDDS and per capita food expenditure.

There is also a difference in the literature regarding the recall period used when measuring dietary diversity, namely, 7 days vs 24 h (Additional file 2 : Table S1). A 7 day recall period leads to higher diversity scores than a 24 h recall period because it considers the daily variation in food consumption [ 78 ]. Although the 7 day recall period is associated with higher respondent bias, conclusions drawn from a 24 h recall period may also be misleading, as some relevant food groups might not be considered in the food security assessment (e.g. livestock products that food insecure households seldom consume daily) [ 78 ]. It is therefore important to consider the differences in recall periods when designing measurement.

About 57% of the studies that employed FCS (Additional file 2 : Table S2) used it to estimate food insecurity prevalence [ 36 , 65 , 70 , 71 ,, 79 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 84 ]. Four other studies applied FCS to analyse the determinants of food security [ 85 – 88 ], whereas two used it for impact evaluation [ 89 , 90 ].

D'Souza and Jolliffe [ 85 ] showed how applying two different food security indicators (per capita daily caloric intake and FCS) could lead to different conclusions when analysing the effect of food price shock on household food security. They estimated the marginal effects of wheat price increase on per capita daily caloric intake and FCS using unconditional quantile regression for each decile of the food security distribution. They found that households with lower calorie intake (food insecure households) did not exhibit a decline in per capita calorie intake because of the wheat price increase. However, households with higher calorie intake (food secure households) exhibited a higher reduction in per capita calorie intake in response to the price increase. On the other hand, the FCS estimation results showed that the most vulnerable households exhibited larger reductions in dietary diversity (FCS) in response to higher wheat prices compared with the households at the top of the FCS distribution (households with higher FCS). Thus, the most vulnerable households might maintain their calorie intake by compromising diet quality. These results imply that food security monitoring or impact assessments based solely on calorie intake could be misleading, and may have severe long-term implications for households’ well-being. In this regard, analysis based on dietary diversity-based measures (e.g. FCS) provides more insights into the effects of shocks on household food security (diet quality) across the entire food security distribution [ 85 ]. However, Ibok et al. [ 36 ] noted that FCS (and per capita calorie adequacy) are not good indicators of household’s vulnerability to food insecurity compared with CSI. In response, they developed the Vulnerability to Food Insecurity Index.

About 40% of the retrieved publications used experience-based indicators (Household Food Insecurity Access Scale [HFIAS], Household Hunger Scale [HHS], Household Food Security Survey Module [HFSSM], Latin American and Caribbean Household Food Security Scale [ELCSA], Food Insecurity Experience Scale [FIES]) for measuring food security (Fig.  4 ). HFIAS is the most widely used experience-based indicator (11 articles), followed by HFSSM (9 articles) and FIES (5 times). ELCSA and HHS have been used three times each. HFIAS was primarily used for estimating the prevalence of food insecurity, whereas its adapted version HHS was mainly used for analysing the determinants of food insecurity (Additional file 2 : Table S3). The HFSSM was mainly used to analyse the determinants of household level food security in the US (six articles) (Additional file 2 : Table S4). Courtemanche et al. [ 91 ] and Burke et al. [ 19 ] used HFSSM for program evaluation, respectively, to analyse the effects of Walmart Supercenters (which increase food availability at lower food prices) on household food security and school-based nutrition assistance programs on child food security (Additional file 2 : Table S4).

Romo-Aviles and Ortiz-Hernández [ 92 ] used the ELCSA food security indicator to analyse the differences in food, energy, and nutrients supplies among Mexican households according to their food insecurity status (Additional file 2 : Table S4). In the first stage, they applied an ordinal regression model to analyse the determinants of household food insecurity status. In the second stage, they analysed the effect of food insecurity (i.e. a household’s food insecurity state as an independent variable) on household’s energy and nutrient supplies by using the ordinary least squares (OLS) model. Sandoval et al. [ 66 ] compared ELCSA and the household calorie adequacy indicator in food security analysis: prevalence estimation, determinants analysis, and program evaluation. They concluded that the two indicators provided very different food insecurity prevalence estimates, and the determinants were shown to vary significantly. The results of the programme evaluation also showed that the magnitude of the effect of a cash transfer program was significantly larger when using the ‘objective’ undernourishment indicator than the ‘subjective’ ELCSA food security indicator.

The majority of the five studies that used the FAO’s FIES indicator analysed the determinants of food security at regional and global levels, whereas one study [ 73 ] used it for program evaluation to assess the effect of provisions of a plant health service on food insecurity prevalence among farming households (Additional file 2 : Table S5).

Figure  5 summarises the data on the proportion of articles according to the number of indicators used per article. About 58% of the 78 articles used only one indicator in their food security analysis. The HFSSM and household calorie adequacy indicator have respectively been used eight and seven times as the sole food security indicator in food security analyses. HFIAS (four times), FIES (three times), and FCS (three times) were also used as the only measures of food security. The experience-based indicators (HFSSM, HFIAS, and FIES) are the most frequently used indicators as a single measure of food security in the literature, whereas the other categories of food security indicators (dietary diversity, anthropometric, and coping strategy) are mostly used in combination with other indicators.

Summary articles by the number of indicators used per article ( N  =  78 )

Three studies (out of the 78 articles) applied at least six food security indicators (one study used eight indicators while the other two studies used six indicators each). Islam et al. [ 68 ] applied eight food security indicators to analyse the effects of microcredit programme participation on household food security. They applied the calorie adequacy indicator, HDDS (number of food groups consumed), Food Variety Score (FVS, number of food items consumed), three child anthropometry measures (stunning, wasting, underweight), and two women anthropometry measures (body mass index [BMI] and mid-upper arm circumference [MUAC]) as measures of food security. Bühler et al. [ 79 ] applied six indicators (FCS, Reduced Coping Strategy Index [RCSI], HFIAS, and child stunning, wasting and underweight) to evaluate the relationship between household’s food security status and individual’s nutritional outcomes. The indicators FCS, RCSI, and HFIAS were used to measure a household’s food security status, whereas the anthropometry measures were used as indicators of individual’s nutritional outcomes. Maxwell et al. [ 83 ] also applied six food security indicators (Coping Strategy Index [CSI], RCSI, FCS, HDDS, HFIAS, and HHS) to compare the estimates of food insecurity prevalence over seasons of the most frequently used indicators.

About 45% and 37% of the retrieved articles applied food security indicators to analyse food security determinants and for food insecurity prevalence estimation, respectively. The calorie adequacy indicator (11 articles), FCS (8 articles), HDDS (7 articles), HFSSM (7 articles), and HFIAS (7 articles) were the most frequently used indicators in this regard. The calorie adequacy indicator (11 articles), FCS (10 articles), HDDS (8 articles), and HFIAS (7 articles) were the most applied indicators for estimating food insecurity prevalence.

About 60% of the retrieved studies measured food security at household-level while 20% of them assessed food security at individual-level. The most frequently used household-level indicators were the calorie adequacy indicator (14 articles), FCS (13 articles), and HDDS (12 articles). The experience-based household food security indicators HFIAS and HFSSM were also used nine and seven times, respectively. For individual-level analyses, the following child anthropometry measures were mostly used: stunning (four times), wasting (three times), and underweight (three times). The individual-level food security indicators WDDS and BMI were also used four times each.

Summary of indicators by study region and data source

As shown in Fig.  3 , the main focus areas of the 78 publications were Sub Sahara Africa and South (east) Asia. These studies employed different indicators in different countries. The type of FS indicator employed in these studies by country is summarised in Fig.  6 (reported only for those countries where at least two indicators were used). The HFSSM indicator was used 7 times in the USA (the highest at country level), which is expected as the HFSSM is used for monitoring household-level food security in the USA. The HDDS was used four times in Kenya whereas the calorie adequacy indicator and HDDS were used three-times each in Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

Summary of studies by country and indicators applied [Note: Multiple indicators could be used per study, and a study may cover multiple countries]

About 42% of the 78 studies employed primary data. The majority of these 33 studies applied experience-based indicators: HFIAS (9 articles), HFSSM (6 articles), and other experience-based indicators (4 articles). Dietary diversity-based indicators (12 articles) and calorie adequacy indicator (8 articles) were also applied frequently by studies that employed primary data (Fig.  7 ). The distributions of the 33 studies that employed primary data by region is as follow: Africa (15 articles), Asia (7 articles), Central and South America (4 articles), Europe (2 articles) and North America (5 articles). The USA and Ethiopia are the countries with the highest number of studies by country (5 and 4 studies, respectively) (Fig.  7 ). The majority of the studies that applied calorie adequacy indicator and FCS have employed secondary data whereas most of the studies that applied experience-based indicators have employed primary data (Fig.  8 ). This may imply the fact that collecting data for experience-based indicators is convenient compared to the other type indicators such as the dietary-based ones.

Summary of indicators used by country and data source [Note: Multiple indicators could be used per study, and a study may cover multiple countries]

Summary of indicators used by data source [Note: Multiple indicators could be used per study]

Quantitative characterization of food security dimensions and components

An ideal food security indicator should capture all the four food security dimensions (availability, access, utilization and stability) and components (quantity, quality, safety and preference). Because ‘measuring food security explicitly’ was one of our inclusion criteria for selecting articles (Fig.  1 ), and as the most commonly used food security indicators in the literature are measures of food access (Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ), all the 78 articles measured the food access dimension. However, the utilisation (13%) and stability (18%) dimensions of food security were seldomly captured. For measuring food utilisation, six of the ten articles applied anthropometry measures [ 64 , 68 , 79 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 ]. Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ] applied the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), which allows measuring food utilisation as a construct using 11 indicators. Slimane et al. [ 56 ] derived an indicator of food utilisation from ‘ access to improved water sources and access to improved sanitation facilities ’, which are two of the ten indicators of the food utilisation dimension in FAO’s Suite of Food Security Index (Table 2 ; [ 29 ]. In the literature, the stability dimension has commonly been captured by using (i) composite indices [ 7 , 12 ], (ii) the concepts of vulnerability [ 35 , 36 , 61 , 69 , 86 ] and resilience [ 74 , 88 , 90 ], (iii) econometric approaches [ 76 , 88 , 96 ] (iv) dynamic farm household optimisation model [ 97 ], and (v) measuring food security over time/seasons [ 76 , 83 ].

Almost all the studies analysed the quantity and quality components of food security, whereas the food safety and preference/cultural acceptability components were rarely captured during food security measurements. Although these components are critical in achieving food security according to the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security, only 2 and 18 studies (out of the 78 articles) captured the food safety and preference components, respectively. Most of the studies (11 articles) that captured the preference component applied the HFIAS indicator, as the second question of the HFIAS 9-items questionnaire addresses the preference food security component. On the other hand, Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ] using the GFSI and Ambikapathi et al. [ 98 ] using an experience-based food security indicator captured the food safety component.

Only 3 of the 78 publications employed a comprehensive food security measurement, where they measured food security by explicitly considering all the four food security dimensions [ 7 , 12 , 96 ]. Caccavale and Giuffrida [ 12 ] and Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ] used composite food security indices to capture the four food security dimensions, while Upton et al. [ 96 ] applied a moment-based panel data econometric approach to the concept of development resilience in food security measurement. Caccavale and Giuffrida [ 12 ] developed the Proteus Composite Index (PCI) for measuring food security at national level. PCI can be used to monitor the food security progresses of countries by comparing within (over time) and between countries. It addresses the shortcomings of other composite indicators in terms of weighting, normalisation, and sensitivity. The PCI is constructed from 21 indicators: availability (2 indicators), access (7 indicators), utilisation (2 indicators), and stability (10 indicators) (Table 5 ). Eleven of these indicators were adopted from FAO’s Suite of food security Index [ 30 ].

Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ] is the only study (out of the 78 publications) that applied the GFSI for measuring food security at national level. Like FAO’s Suite of Food Security Index, the GFSI is a composite food security indicator that measures all the four dimensions of food security. Because the GFSI primarily assesses and monitors food security at a national level (i.e. ranking of countries based on the GFSI score), Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ] investigated the sensitiveness of the rankings of countries to the list of indicators used for the different dimensions and to the set of weights elicited from the panel of experts of the Economic Intelligence Unit by employing PCA and/or data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods. The authors concluded that the rankings based on the GFSI are robust in relation to both the expert weights used and the choice of indicators. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2021) produces the GFSI index each year by using 69 indicators covering the four dimensions of food security: availability, affordability (accessibility), quality and safety (utilization), and natural resources and resilience (stability).

Upton et al.’s [ 96 ] defined four axioms that an ideal food security measure must reflect. Relying on the 1996 World Food Summit food security definition [ 4 ], they defined the following four axioms:

Scale axiom: it addresses both individuals and households at different scale of aggregation (e.g. regions) reflecting ‘all people’;

Time axiom: reflecting ‘at all times’, it captures the food stability dimension to account for both predictable and unpredictable variability of food security over time;

Access axiom: derived from ‘physical, social and economic access’, it captures the food access (and implicitly the availability) dimensions; and

Outcomes axiom: reflecting on “an active and healthy life”, it reflects the food utilization dimension, which captures the dietary, nutrition, and/or health outcomes.

Upton et al. [ 96 ] did note that no food security measure at the time satisfied all these four axioms in the literature. In response, they employed a stochastic dynamic measure of well-being based on the concept of development resilience [ 99 ]. Barrett and Constas [ 99 ] defined development resilience as ‘the capacity over time of a person/household... to avoid poverty in the face of various stressors and in the wake of myriad shocks. If and only if that capacity is and remains high over time, then the unit is resilient’ (p. 14). [ 100 , 101 ] demonstrated the econometric implementation of the stochastic dynamic measure of well-being at multiple scales using household or individual survey data. They showed how a measure of household or individual well-being and resilience can be estimated, and aggregated at regional or national level using a system of conditional moment functions. By adopting the [ 100 , 101 ] moments-based (dynamic) panel data econometric approach, Upton et al. [ 96 ] used the resilience concept in food security measurement to reflect the above four axioms as follows:

The scale axiom is satisfied by estimating food security at the individual or household level, and then by aggregating it into higher-level groups (e.g. regions).

The time/stability axiom is captured by using [ 100 , 101 ] dynamic approach.

The access axiom is considered by conditioning the moments of the food security distribution regarding economic, physical, and social factors that influence food access.

The outcome (utilisation) axiom is considered by using nutritional status indicators as dependent variables in the econometric model. Upton et al. [ 96 ] used HDDS and child MUAC as outcome indicators.

Recent developments in food security measurement

The concepts of vulnerability and resilience have only recently been introduced in food security measurement and analysis. Rather than directly measuring food security or food insecurity, researchers have been seeking to measure vulnerability to food insecurity and food security resilience, and their respective determinants/drivers. Out of the 78 publications, 5 and 4 articles respectively employed the concepts of vulnerability [ 35 , 36 , 61 , 69 , 86 ] and resilience [ 74 , 88 , 90 , 96 ] in their food security measurement and analysis.

Ibok et al. [ 36 ] developed the Vulnerability to Food Insecurity Index (VFII) for measuring the vulnerability of households to food insecurity, and validated it by comparing the estimates of vulnerability to food insecurity with the traditional food insecurity measures (calorie adequacy, CSI, FCS). The VFII is a composite index constructed from three dimensions (Table 6 ): exposure (probability of covariate shock occurring), sensitivity (previous/accumulative experience of food insecurity), and adaptive capacity (how households respond, exploit opportunities, resist or recover from food insecurity shocks, which is the coping ability of households). A set of indicators are used for each of the three dimensions (Table 6 ). By defining thresholds, Ibok et al. [ 36 ] assigned households into one of the three categories: highly vulnerable, mildly vulnerable, and not vulnerable to food insecurity. The results showed that VFII has a weak positive correlation with FCS and per capita calorie adequacy, whereas it has a negative correlation with CSI. Some of the households with poor calorie per capita consumption were classified as not vulnerable to food insecurity, whereas some households with acceptable calorie per capita consumption were identified as highly vulnerable to food insecurity. The authors concluded that a household’s vulnerability to food insecurity can be better measured using CSI than using FCS and per capita calorie adequacy (using the VFII as a benchmark).

[ 86 ] analysed the effects of households’ vulnerability to different climatic hazards on their food access by employing a generalised linear regression model. They used FCS as a measure of household food access, concluding that households that are vulnerable to flood were found to be more likely to be food insecure (i.e. to have a low FCS) than less vulnerable households.

Vaitla et al. [ 88 ] and Upton et al. [ 96 ] employed dynamic panel data modelling to measure the food security resilience of households. They analysed the determinants of food security status at a point in time, and its food security resilience by using different food security indicators. They defined resilience as ‘the probability that a household is truly above a chosen food security cut-off, given its underlying assets, demographic characteristics, and past food security status’. Similar to Upton et al. [ 96 ], they used the moments (mean and variance) of the food security score over time to estimate resilience as the probability of attaining a given level of food security. Vaitla et al. [ 88 ] used FCS and RCSI as a dependent variable in their dynamic panel data model. They concluded that the determinants of a household’s food security status and food security resilience are different. They also showed that the drivers of food security resilience vary across the two food security measures used as dependent variables.

Lascano Galarza [ 90 ] investigated the effects of food assistance on a household’s food security status at a point in time, and its food security resilience, by applying FAO’s Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis II framework. The author used FCS and food expenditure as measures of food security when evaluating the effects of the food assistance program and the household’s resilience on food security status. Factor analysis and multiple indicators multiple causes models were used to construct the resilience score and to analyse its effect on food security. The resilience score was derived from four indicators: assets, access to basic services, social safety nets, and adaptive capacity. The author ultimately found a significant positive association of food assistance programmes with a household’s food security status and food security resilience.

Smith and Frankenberger [ 74 ] analysed the effects of resilience capacity in reducing the effect of shocks on household food security using HHS and FAQ (number of months of inadequate household food access) as measures of food security. The results of their fixed effect panel data model showed that resilience capacity enhancing attributes such as household assets, human capital, social capital, information access, women empowerment, diversity of livelihood, safety nets, and market access reduce the negative effect of flooding on household food security.

Which food security indicator is the best?

Although numerous food security indicators have been developed for use in research, there is no agreement on the single ‘best’ food security indicator among scientists or practitioners for measuring, analysing, and monitoring food security [ 9 , 12 ]. The different international agencies also use their own sets of food security indicators (e.g. World Food Programme: FCS, USAID: HFIAS; FAO: POU and FIES; and EIU: GFSI). Figure  9 summarises the most applied food security indicators according to the level of analysis and the food security dimensions that they intend to reflect. The level of analysis ranges from macro (e.g. national) to micro (e.g. individual) levels, and the measured food security dimension from availability to utilisation. An ideal food security indicator should capture all the four food security dimensions at individual level to reflect the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security. However, most of the available indicators are measures of food access at the household level (Fig.  9 ). Only a few composite and anthropometry indicators can measure food utilisation (besides availability and access) at national and individual levels, respectively. On the other hand, the stability dimension can be captured by estimating food security indicators over time or as described above in ‘‘ Quantitative characterization of food security dimensions and components ’’ Sect. The three composite indicators GFSI [ 26 ], Suite of Food Security Index [ 29 ], and PCI [ 12 ] can allow to directly measure the stability dimension of food security while also capturing the other three food security dimensions at national level.

Summary of the retrieved indicators according to the level of analysis and food security dimensions

In general, there exist an inherent trade-off when choosing one indicator over another type of indicator because the various classes of food security indicators reflect different aspects of food security [ 96 ] such as dimensions, components, levels of analysis (e.g. national vs individual), and data requirement (subjective vs objective; recall period of 1 year vs 24 h). Therefore, most of the commonly used indicators can be considered as mutually complementary than substitutes for one another. The subjective experience-based indicators, for example, measure a household’s experience of anxiety/worry/hunger arising from lack of food access, whereas the objective dietary diversity-based indicators measure a household’s access to diverse food, reflecting a household’s caloric intake and diet quality. Household dietary diversity-based and caloric adequacy indicators also complement each other because sufficient calorie might be achieved with low food quality (without diversified diet), whereas a diverse diet might not be enough to meet a household’s caloric requirement. Noting this complementarity, Bolarinwa et al. [ 76 ] classified households into three categories of food insecurity (food secure, partially food insecure, and completely food insecure) by integrating two indicators: HDDS and per capita food expenditure (where the food expenditure reflects caloric adequacy).

Data requirements of food security measurement

The most critical challenge of a comprehensive food security measurement and analysis is generating reliable data consistently for estimating complementary food security indicators (at the individual level) [ 13 ]. Measuring food security with a high frequency consistently over time (e.g. quarterly instead of annually) at the individual level by applying a set of complementary indicators (e.g. calorie/nutrient adequacy and anthropometry measures) can help us better analyse and monitor food security (Fig.  10 ). A national level food security measurement at a point in time (e.g. using POU) is less informative for decision-making compared with measuring food security every year (or ideally in real-time) at the household level (e.g. using calorie adequacy). Integrating food consumption and anthropometry information in regular national household living standard surveys can also be crucial to eliminating the limitations of current measurement approaches, especially because nutrition, food consumption, health, and income are interrelated [ 13 ].

High frequency food security measurement for better food security analysis.

De Haen et al. [ 13 ] rightly remind us that to improve the reliability and accuracy of a nation’s food security measurement and analysis, ‘the focus should be on generating more timely, comprehensive, and consistent household surveys that cover food consumption and anthropometry, [which] allow much better assessment of the prevalence of food insecurity and undernutrition, as well as of trends and driving forces.’ That is, first, generating data from a nationally representative sample through comprehensive household surveys allows us to estimate a set of complementary indicators reflecting the different aspects of food security measurement (dimensions, components, outcomes, behavioural responses, coping mechanisms) (Fig.  10 ). Second, comprehensive surveys help measure both the prevalence of food insecurity and its drivers/determinants. Third, it is critical to generate these data consistently over time so that the progress towards food security can be monitored, drivers can be analysed over time, and food insecurity can be detected well in advance. This approach could address the UN Scientific Group’s criticism [ 11 ] that ‘existing early warning systems lack indicators to adequately monitor degradation of food systems.’ Fourth, the data allow us to analyse and evaluate the effects of programmes and interventions (over time) at different levels (individual, household, and national). It also opens opportunities to conduct development research in food, nutrition, health, and poverty [ 13 ].

In summary, we suggest the following points in the light of the above discussions for a comprehensive food security measurement:

Food security should be measured at the individual (or at least at household) level by applying a set of complementary food security indicators to capture the availability, access, and utilisation dimensions of food security. Combining anthropometry measures with other objective food security indicators (e.g. calorie adequacy or dietary diversity indicators) will further allow us to capture these three dimensions.

The fourth dimension of food security, i.e. the stability dimension, can be captured by producing the estimates of the complementary food security indicators over time or in real time. A repeated high frequency food security measurement (if possible by using near real-time data) is thus preferable, as it can also help to identify the onset of food insecurity in time, to evaluate interventions/programs, and to monitor food security progresses.

The behavioural aspects of food insecurity and the cultural acceptability of food can be measured by using one of the experience-based measures. For example, FAO’s FIES can be applied to estimate the prevalence and severity of food insecurity at individual level. Because the FIES has been applied in more than 100 countries, countries can compare their respective food security states with each other.

The use of experience-based indicators (e.g. FIES) allows conducting rapid food security assessments as the data collection is easier compared to the objective food security indicators (e.g. calorie adequacy).

Integrating food consumption (intake, expenditure, and diet diversity) and anthropometry information in regular national household living standard surveys enables us to collect complete and consistent data for estimating complementary food security indicators in food security analyses.

Study limitations and future research

In this study, we identified and characterized the most commonly applied food security indicators in the literature with respect to the dimensions and components covered, methods and models of measurement, level of analysis, data requirements and sources, intended purpose of application, and strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, we analysed data on food security measurement from 78 peer-reviewed articles, and suggested the estimation of complementary food security indicators consistently over time for conducting a comprehensive analysis by taking all the four food security dimensions and components into account. In order to select the set of these complementary food security indicators that would be applicable to a specific context (e.g. country or region), we recommend to conduct a Delphi study by involving food security experts, policy-makers and other relevant stakeholders. In addition, we limited the literature search to two databases (Scopus and WoS) and included only peer-reviewed articles in this study. Therefore, we suggest to extend this study by broadening the literature type by including the grey literature (e.g. reports, book chapters and conference proceedings) and by searching from other databases, which reduce the publication bias. Moreover, we followed the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security [ 5 ], which provided the foundation for the four food security dimensions ( availability , access , utilisation , and stability ). Accordingly, in this study, we organised the literature review on food security measurement over these four dimensions. However, food system researchers have recently noted the need to update the definition of food security in reference to sustainable food systems, for example, by including new food security dimensions [ 102 – 104 ]. Clapp et al. [ 103 ], for example, proposed the inclusion of two extra dimensions ( sustainability and agency ) to improve the framework of food security analyses. The inclusion of these two extra dimensions guarantees that every human being has access to healthy and nutritious food, not only now but also in the future. In this regard, sustainability can be considered as a pre-requisite for long-term food security [ 103 , 104 ]. Therefore, we recommend future research to operationalize literature reviews according to the six food security dimensions (i.e. availability , access , utilisation , stability , sustainability and agency ). Furthermore, most existing studies about food security measurement in the literature are based on the 1996 World Food Summit definition of food security [ 5 ]. Food security analyses based on this definition narrows the scope of the food security concept, and do not support system level analysis by considering other components of the food system. For example, food security is a subset (component) of the Food Systems Approach, which takes food environments, food supply chains, individual factors, external food system drivers, consumer behaviour, and food system outcomes (e.g. food security and health outcomes) into account [ 105 – 108 ]. Therefore, given the increasing attention to the Food Systems Approach and system level analyses in the literature, the Food Systems Approach can be used as a framework for operationalising future literature reviews on food security.

We critically reviewed numerous food security indicators and methodologies published in scientific articles since the last decade using the SLR methodology. We reviewed, analysed, and summarised the results of 78 articles on food security measurement. We found that the household-level calorie adequacy measure was the most frequently used indicator in the literature as a sole measure of food security. Dietary diversity indicators (HDDS, WDDS, IDDS, and FCS) and experience-based indicators (HFSSM, FIES, HFIAS, HHS, ELCSA) were almost equally in use and popular. In terms of the food security dimensions, food utilisation (13%) and stability (18%) were seldom captured. Caccavale and Giuffrida [ 12 ], Izraelov and Silber [ 7 ], and Upton et al. [ 96 ] are the only studies that measured food security by considering all four dimensions. We also found that the majority of the studies that applied calorie adequacy and dietary diversity-based indicators employed secondary data whereas most of the studies that applied experience-based indicators employed primary data, suggesting the convenience/simplicity of collecting data for experience-based indicators than dietary-based indicators. The use of experience-based indicators allows conducting rapid food security assessments whereas the use of complementary indicators is required for food security monitoring over time. We conclude that the use of complementary food security indicators, instead a single indicator, better capture the different food security dimensions and components,this approach is also beneficial for analyses at different levels. The results of this study, specifically the analysis on data requirements for food security measurement, can be used by food security stakeholders such as governments, practitioners and academics for briefs, teaching, as well as policy-related interventions and evaluations.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available within the paper.

Detailed discussion on this issue can be found in ''Which food security indicator is the best?'' Sect.

In Scopus, since the research field ‘Agricultural and Biological Sciences’ domain is very broad, we excluded studies in the areas of biology, chemistry, ecology, environment, forestry, aquaculture, and plant/crop sciences during the literature search (via “AND NOT”).

In line with this, our final food security measurement dataset does not contain articles from 2010 Additional file 1 .

The call to the special issue can be retrieved from the journal’s website: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/global-food-security/special-issue/10F642R6J6K .

This confirms the lack of due attention given to the standardization and harmonisation of food security measurement prior to 2010, and the lack of consensus among researchers, practitioners, or governments on the indicators and methodologies that should be applied for measuring and monitoring food security.

Abu B, Oldewage-Theron W. Food insecurity among college students in West Texas. Br Food J. 2019;121(3):738–54.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahn S, Norwood FB. Measuring food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2021;43(1):162–8.

Ahn S, Smith TA, Norwood FB. Can internet surveys mimic food insecurity rates published by the US government? Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2020;42(2):187–204.

FAO (2009). Declaration of the world summit on food security. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/Summit/Docs/Final_Declaration/WSFS09_Declaration.pdf Accessed 24 Feb 2021.

FAO (2006). Food Security: FAO policy brief. http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf . Accessed 25 Feb 2021.

Maxwell S. Food security: a post-modern perspective. Food Policy. 1996;21:155–70.

Izraelov M, Silber J. An assessment of the global food security index. Food Secur. 2019;11:1135–52.

Cafiero C, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Ballard TJ, Kepple AW. Validity and reliability of food security measures. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1331:230–48.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carletto C, Zezza A, Banerjee R. Towards better measurement of household food security: harmonizing indicators and the role of household surveys. Glob Food Sec. 2013;2:30–40.

Bawadi HA, Tayyem RF, Dwairy AN, Al-Akour N. Prevalence of food insecurity among women in northern Jordan. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012;30(1):49.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hertel, TW., Elouafi, I, Ewert, F. and Tanticharoen, M. (2021). Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses–action track 5. https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/5-action_track-5_scientific_group_draft_paper_8-3-2021.pdf . Assessed 20 June 2021.

Caccavale OM, Giuffrida V. The Proteus composite index: towards a better metric for global food security. World Dev. 2020;126: 104709.

Beveridge L, Whitfield S, Fraval S, van Wijk M, van Etten J, Mercado L, Hammond J, Davila Cortez L, Gabriel Suchini J, Challinor A. Experiences and drivers of food insecurity in Guatemala’s dry corridor: insights from the integration of ethnographic and household survey data. Frontiers Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3:65.

Pérez-Escamilla R, Gubert MB, Rogers B, Hromi-Fiedler A. Food security measurement and governance: assessment of the usefulness of diverse food insecurity indicators for policy makers. Glob Food Sec. 2017;14:96–104.

Pérez-Escamilla R, Vilar-Compte M, Gaitan-Rossi P. Why identifying households by degree of food insecurity matters for policymaking. Global Food Secur. 2020;26:100459.

Borch A, Kjærnes U. The prevalence and risk of food insecurity in the Nordic Region: preliminary results. J Consum Policy. 2016;39(2):261–74.

Gulliford MC, Nunes C, Rocke B. The 18 Household Food Security Survey items provide valid food security classifications for adults and children in the Caribbean. BMC Public Health 2006;6(1):1–8

FAO. Methods for estimating comparable rates of food insecurity experienced by adults throughout the world. Rome: FAO. 2016.

Burke M, Cabili C, Berman D, Forrestal S, Gleason P. A randomized controlled trial of three school meals and weekend food backpacks on food security in Virginia. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021;121(1):S34–45.

Salarkia N, Abdollahi M, Amini M, Neyestani TR. An adapted household food insecurity access scale is a valid tool as a proxy measure of food access for use in urban Iran. Food Security. 2014;6(2):275–82.

FAO. Escala Latinoamericana y Caribena de Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA): Manual de uso y aplicaciones. Santiago, Chile: FAO Regional Office, Latin America. 2012.

Deitchler M, Ballard T, Swindale A, Coates J. Introducing a simple measure of household hunger for cross-cultural use. Technical Note No. 12. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project-2. 2011.

Verpoorten M, Arora A, Stoop N, Swinnen J. Self-reported food insecurity in Africa during the food price crisis. Food Policy. 2013;39:51–63.

Headey D. Was the global food crisis really a crisis? Simulations versus self-reporting IFPRI discussion paper No 01087. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2011.

Google Scholar  

Chegere MJ, Lokina R, Mwakaje AG. The impact of hermetic storage bag supply and training on food security in Tanzania. Food Security. 2020;12(6):1299–316.

EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit). Global food security index 2020: addressing structural inequalities to build strong and sustainable food systems. London: Economist Group; 2021.

Pangaribowo EH, Gerber N, Torero M. Food and nutrition security indicators: a review. FOOD SECURE working paper 05. 2013.

Wiesmann D. A Global Hunger Index: Measurement Concept, Ranking of Countries, and Trends. FCND Discussion Paper 212, IFPRI. 2006.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2013a). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013. The multiple dimensions of food security. FAO, Rome.

FAO, 2013b. New approaches to the measurement of food security. AFCAS 23, 2013. Accessed 13 Apr 2021. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/afcas23/Presentations/AFCAS_9d_New_approaches_to_the_measurement_of_food_security.pdf .

WFP, World Food Program. Food consumption analysis: calculation and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis. Technical Guidance Sheet. WFP Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping, February 2008. 2008.

Vellema W, Desiere S, D’Haese M. Verifying validity of the household dietary diversity score: an application of rasch modeling. Food Nutr Bull. 2016;37(1):27–41.

Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for measurement of household food access: Indicator Guide (v.2). Washington, DC: FHI 360/Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project. 2006.

FAO. Guidelines for measuring household and individual dietary diversity. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2011.

Bogale A. Vulnerability of smallholder rural households to food insecurity in Eastern Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2012;4(4):581–91.

Ibok OW, Osbahr H, Srinivasan C. Advancing a new index for measuring household vulnerability to food insecurity. Food Policy. 2019;84:10–20.

Maxwell D, Caldwell R. The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual, second ed. CARE, Atlanta, GA. 2008. https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf . Accessed 29 May 2021.

Haysom G, Tawodzera G. “Measurement drives diagnosis and response”: gaps in transferring food security assessment to the urban scale. Food Policy. 2018;74:117–25.

Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol. 2009;51:7.

Fayet CM, Reilly KH, Van Ham C, Verburg PH. What is the future of abandoned agricultural lands? A systematic review of alternative trajectories in Europe. Land Use Policy. 2022;112: 105833.

Iyer P, Bozzola M, Hirsch S, Meraner M, Finger R. Measuring farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review. J Agric Econ. 2020;71(1):3–26.

Santeramo FG, Lamonaca E. The effects of non-tariff measures on agri-food trade: a review and meta-analysis of empirical evidence. J Agric Econ. 2019;70(3):595–617.

Santeramo FG, Lamonaca E. Evaluation of geographical label in consumers’ decision-making process: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Res Int. 2020;131: 108995.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):1–11.

Dávila OG. Food security and poverty in Mexico: the impact of higher global food prices. Food Secur. 2010;2(4):383–93.

Natalini D, Bravo G, Jones AW. Global food security and food riots–an agent-based modelling approach. Food Security. 2019;11(5):1153–73.

Gregory CA, Coleman-Jensen A. Do high food prices increase food insecurity in the United States? Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2013;35(4):679–707.

Koren O, Bagozzi BE. From global to local, food insecurity is associated with contemporary armed conflicts. Food Secur. 2016;8(5):999–1010.

Burchi F, De Muro P. From food availability to nutritional capabilities: advancing food security analysis. Food Policy. 2016;60:10–9.

Guo B. Household assets and food security: evidence from the survey of program dynamics. J Fam Econ Issues. 2011;32(1):98–110.

Mucioki M, Pelletier B, Johns T, Muhammad LW, Hickey GM. On developing a scale to measure chronic household seed insecurity in semi-arid Kenya and the implications for food security policy. Food Security. 2018;10(3):571–87.

Taylor SF, Roberts MJ, Milligan B, Ncwadi R. Measurement and implications of marine food security in the Western Indian Ocean: an impending crisis? Food Secur. 2019;11(6):1395–415.

Woertz E. Food security in Iraq: results from quantitative and qualitative surveys. Food Secur. 2017;9(3):511–22.

Geyik O, Hadjikakou M, Bryan BA. Spatiotemporal trends in adequacy of dietary nutrient production and food sources. Glob Food Sec. 2020;24: 100355.

Smith MD, Rabbitt MP, Coleman-Jensen A. Who are the world’s food insecure? New evidence from the food and Agriculture Organization’s food insecurity experience scale. World Dev. 2017;93:402–12.

Slimane MB, Huchet-Bourdon M, Zitouna H. The role of sectoral FDI in promoting agricultural production and improving food security. Int Econ. 2016;145:50–65.

Omidvar N, Ahmadi D, Sinclair K, Melgar-Quiñonez H. Food security in selected Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries: an inter-country comparison. Food Secur. 2019;11(3):531–40.

Smith MD, Kassa W, Winters P. Assessing food insecurity in Latin America and the Caribbean using FAO’s food insecurity experience scale. Food Policy. 2017;71:48–61.

Bertelli O. Food security measures in Sub-Saharan Africa A validation of the LSMS-ISA scale. J Afr Econom. 2020;29(1):90–120.

Bashir MK, Schilizzi S. How disaggregated should information be for a sound food security policy? Food Secur. 2013;5(4):551–63.

Bashir MK, Schilizzi S, Sadler R, Ali G. Vulnerability to food insecurity in rural Punjab Pakistan. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fawole WO, Ozkan B, Ayanrinde FA. Measuring food security status among households in Osun State Nigeria. British Food Journal. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2016.

Guha S, Chandra H. Measuring disaggregate level food insecurity via multivariate small area modelling: evidence from rural districts of Uttar Pradesh, India. Food Secur. 2021;13:1–19.

Lovon M, Mathiassen A. Are the World Food Programme’s food consumption groups a good proxy for energy deficiency? Food Security. 2014;6(4):461–70.

Marivoet W, Becquey E, Van Campenhout B. How well does the food consumption score capture diet quantity, quality and adequacy across regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)? Food Security. 2019;11(5):1029–49.

Sandoval LA, Carpio CE, Garcia M. Comparison between experience-based and household-undernourishment food security indicators: a cautionary tale. Nutrients. 2020;12(11):3307.

Wichern J, van Wijk MT, Descheemaeker K, Frelat R, van Asten PJ, Giller KE. Food availability and livelihood strategies among rural households across Uganda. Food Secur. 2017;9(6):1385–403.

Islam A, Maitra C, Pakrashi D, Smyth R. Microcredit programme participation and household food security in rural Bangladesh. J Agric Econ. 2016;67(2):448–70.

Sileshi M, Kadigi R, Mutabazi K, Sieber S. Analysis of households’ vulnerability to food insecurity and its influencing factors in east Hararghe Ethiopia. J Econom Struct. 2019;8(1):1–17.

Ogutu SO, Gödecke T, Qaim M. Agricultural commercialisation and nutrition in smallholder farm households. J Agric Econ. 2020;71(2):534–55.

Sinyolo S, Mudhara M, Wale E. Water security and rural household food security: empirical evidence from the Mzinyathi district in South Africa. Food Security. 2014;6(4):483–99.

Arsenault JE, Hijmans RJ, Brown KH. Improving nutrition security through agriculture: an analytical framework based on national food balance sheets to estimate nutritional adequacy of food supplies. Food Secur. 2015;7(3):693–707.

Tambo JA, Uzayisenga B, Mugambi I, Bundi M. Do plant clinics improve household food security? Evidence from Rwanda. J Agric Econ. 2021;72(1):97–116.

Smith LC, Frankenberger TR. Does resilience capacity reduce the negative impact of shocks on household food security? Evidence from the 2014 floods in Northern Bangladesh. World Dev. 2018;102:358–76.

Bakhtsiyarava M, Williams TG, Verdin A, Guikema SD. A nonparametric analysis of household-level food insecurity and its determinant factors: exploratory study in Ethiopia and Nigeria. Food Security. 2021;13(1):55–70.

Bolarinwa OD, Ogundari K, Aromolaran AB. Intertemporal evaluation of household food security and its determinants: evidence from Rwanda. Food Security. 2020;12(1):179–89.

Islam AHMS, von Braun J, Thorne-Lyman AL, Ahmed AU. Farm diversification and food and nutrition security in Bangladesh: empirical evidence from nationally representative household panel data. Food Secur. 2018;10(3):701–20.

Ngome PIT, Shackleton C, Degrande A, Nossi EJ, Ngome F. Assessing household food insecurity experience in the context of deforestation in Cameroon. Food Policy. 2019;84:57–65.

Bühler D, Hartje R, Grote U. Matching food security and malnutrition indicators: evidence from Southeast Asia. Agric Econ. 2018;49(4):481–95.

Hjelm L, Mathiassen A, Wadhwa A. Measuring poverty for food security analysis: consumption-versus asset-based approaches. Food Nutr Bull. 2016;37(3):275–89.

Hossain M, Mullally C, Asadullah MN. Alternatives to calorie-based indicators of food security: an application of machine learning methods. Food Policy. 2019;84:77–91.

Maxwell D, Vaitla B, Coates J. How do indicators of household food insecurity measure up? An empirical comparison from Ethiopia. Food Policy. 2014;47:107–16.

Tuholske C, Andam K, Blekking J, Evans T, Caylor K. Comparing measures of urban food security in Accra, Ghana. Food Secur. 2020;12:1–15.

D’Souza A, Jolliffe D. Food insecurity in vulnerable populations: coping with food price shocks in Afghanistan. Am J Agr Econ. 2014;96(3):790–812.

Islam MM, Al Mamun MA. Beyond the risks to food availability–linking climatic hazard vulnerability with the food access of delta-dwelling households. Food Secur. 2020;12(1):37–58.

Lokosang LB, Ramroop S, Hendriks SL. Establishing a robust technique for monitoring and early warning of food insecurity in post-conflict South Sudan using ordinal logistic regression. Agrekon. 2011;50(4):101–30.

Vaitla B, Cissé JD, Upton J, Tesfay G, Abadi N, Maxwell D. How the choice of food security indicators affects the assessment of resilience—an example from northern Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2020;12(1):137–50.

Dibba L, Zeller M, Diagne A. The impact of new Rice for Africa (NERICA) adoption on household food security and health in the Gambia. Food Secur. 2017;9(5):929–44.

Lascano Galarza MX. Resilience to food insecurity: Theory and empirical evidence from international food assistance in Malawi. J Agric Econ. 2020;71(3):936–61.

Courtemanche C, Carden A, Zhou X, Ndirangu M. Do Walmart supercenters improve food security? Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2019;41(2):177–98.

Romo-Aviles M, Ortiz-Hernández L. Energy and nutrient supply according to food insecurity severity among Mexican households. Food Security. 2018;10(5):1163–72.

Chege PM, Ndungu ZW, Gitonga BM. Food security and nutritional status of children under-five in households affected by HIV and AIDS in Kiandutu informal settlement, Kiambu County, Kenya. J Health Popul Nutr. 2016;35(1):1–8.

Hussein FM, Ahmed AY, Muhammed OS. Household food insecurity access scale and dietary diversity score as a proxy indicator of nutritional status among people living with HIV/AIDS, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 2017. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6): e0199511.

Naser IA, Jalil R, Muda WMW, Nik WSW, Shariff ZM, Abdullah MR. Association between household food insecurity and nutritional outcomes among children in Northeastern of Peninsular Malaysia. Nurs Res Pract. 2014;8(3):304.

Upton JB, Cissé JD, Barrett CB. Food security as resilience: reconciling definition and measurement. Agric Econ. 2016;47(S1):135–47.

Nicholson CF, Stephens EC, Kopainsky B, Thornton PK, Jones AD, Parsons D, Garrett J. Food security outcomes in agricultural systems models: case examples and priority information needs. Agric Syst. 2021;188: 103030.

Ambikapathi R, Rothstein JD, Yori PP, Olortegui MP, Lee G, Kosek MN, Caulfield LE. Food purchase patterns indicative of household food access insecurity, children’s dietary diversity and intake, and nutritional status using a newly developed and validated tool in the Peruvian Amazon. Food Secur. 2018;10(4):999–1011.

Barrett CB, Constas MA. Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(40):14625–30.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cissé, J.D. and Barrett, C.B. (2015). Estimating development resilience a conditional moments based approach Working Paper. Cornell University. Ithaca

Cissé JD, Barrett CB. Estimating development resilience: a conditional moments-based approach. J Dev Econ. 2018;135:272–84.

Berry EM, Dernini S, Burlingame B, Meybeck A, Conforti P. Food security and sustainability: can one exist without the other? Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2293–302.

Clapp J, Moseley WG, Burlingame B, Termine P. The case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy. 2021;106:102164.

Guiné RDPF, Pato MLDJ, Costa CAD, Costa DDVTAD, Silva PBCD, Martinho VJPD. Food security and sustainability: discussing the four pillars to encompass other dimensions. Foods. 2021;10(11):2732.

Ericksen PJ. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob Environ Chang. 2008;18(1):234–45.

FAO. Sustainable food systems concept and framework. 2021. Accessed 10 Nov 2021. http://www.fao.org/about/what-we-do/so4 .

Ingram J. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food security. 2011;3(4):417–31.

Van Berkum S, Dengerink J, Ruben R. The food systems approach: sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food. Wageningen: Wageningen Economic Research; 2018.

Wright BN, Tooze JA, Bailey RL, Liu Y, Rivera RL, McCormack L, Stluka S, Franzen-Castle L, Henne B, Mehrle D, Remley D. Dietary quality and usual intake of underconsumed nutrients and related food groups differ by food security status for rural, midwestern food pantry clients. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(9):1457–68.

Bickel G, Nord M, Price C, Hamilton W, Cook J. Guide to measuring household food security, revised 2000 [Online]. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2000. Available: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/FSGuide.pdf . Accessed 31 Mar 2021.

Coates, Jennifer, Anne Swindale, Paula Bilinsky. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v. 3). Washington, D.C.: FHI 360/FANTA. 2007.

FAO. Measurement and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition. In: Proceedings of an International Symposium, FAO, Rome. 2003.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Maha AlDhaheri for the support at the initial stage of the literature searching and screening processes.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Education of the United Arab Emirates through the Collaborative Research Program Grant 2019, under the Resilient Agrifood Dynamism through evidence-based policies project [Grant Number: 1733833].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Knowledge Park, 20183, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Ioannis Manikas, Beshir M. Ali & Balan Sundarakani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, IM, BA and BS; methodology, IM, BA and BS; formal analysis, IM, BA and BS; investigation IM and BS; data curation, BA; writing—original draft preparation, IM, BA and BS; writing—review and editing, IM, BA and BS; visualization, BA; supervision, IM and BS; project administration, IM and BS; funding acquisition, IM and BS All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beshir M. Ali .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors provide their consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

 Data and list of articles used in the systematic literature review on food security measurement (N = 78).

Additional file 2:

Table S1 . Summary of the publications that applied dietary diversity score indicators. Table S2 . Summary of the publications that used Food Consumption Score (FCS). Table S3 . Summary of the publications that used HFIAS and HHS. Table S4 . Summary of the publications that used HFSSM and ELCSA. Table S5 . Summary of the publications that used FIES.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Manikas, I., Ali, B.M. & Sundarakani, B. A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security. Agric & Food Secur 12 , 10 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00415-7

Download citation

Received : 22 August 2022

Accepted : 01 March 2023

Published : 05 May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00415-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Food insecurity
• Measurement

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 06 August 2018

The science of food security

• Martin Barry Cole 1 ,
• Mary Ann Augustin 1 ,
• Michael John Robertson 1 &
• John Michael Manners 1  

npj Science of Food volume  2 , Article number:  14 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

64k Accesses

184 Citations

54 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Biotechnology
• Business and industry
• Developing world
• Environmental sciences

We need to feed an estimated population in excess of 9 billion by 2050 with diminishing natural resources, whilst ensuring the health of people and the planet. Herein we connect the future global food demand to the role of agricultural and food science in producing and stabilising foods to meet the global food demand. We highlight the challenges to food and agriculture systems in the face of climate change and global megatrends that are shaping the future world. We discuss the opportunities to reduce food loss and waste, and recover produce that is currently wasted to make this the new raw ingredient supply for the food industry. Our systems-based perspective links food security to agricultural productivity, food safety, health and nutrition, processing and supply chain efficiency in the face of global and industry megatrends. We call for a collaborative, transdisciplinary approach to the science of food security, with a focus on enabling technologies within a context of social, market and global trends to achieve food and nutritional security.

Similar content being viewed by others

The state of food systems worldwide in the countdown to 2030

Combined innovations in public policy, the private sector and culture can drive sustainability transitions in food systems

Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity

Framing the food security challenge against global megatrends.

Feeding the world sustainably is one of our society’s grand challenges. 1 An exponential rise in population between 1961–2000 increased the demand for food. The demand was met by a combination of scientific and technological advances, government policy, institutional intervention and business investment, innovation and delivery. However increased farm inputs and outputs were partly at the expense of detrimental effects on the environment. 2 , 3 In 2050, it is estimated there will be 9.7 billion people, and we will require about 70% more food available for human consumption than is consumed today (Fig. 1 ).

Framing the food security challenge (adapted from Keating et al. 2014; Keating and Carberry, 2010) 2 , 3

A megatrend is defined as a substantial shift in social, economic, environmental, technological or geopolitical conditions that may reshape the way a sector operates in the long-run. 4 Hajkowicz and Eady (2015) 5 identified five megatrends evident in global food and agribusiness that will have a significant impact on the sector over the next 20 years. The key megatrends are summarised in Table 1 . The potential impacts of the megatrends within the food and agribusiness sector are highlighted in Fig. 2 . 6 These and other trends including diminishing natural resources, urbanisation, growth of megacities, changing demographics and shifting dietary patterns will have a significant effect on security. FAO has recently called for a transformative change to agriculture and food systems. 7

Key drivers and potential impacts arising from global megatrends in Food and Agriculture (Adapted from Hajkowicz and Eady, 2015; CSIRO Futures, 2017) 5 , 6

Framing the food security solution

A previous framing of the food security solution suggested that taking advantage of the advances in agriculture and reducing waste whilst addressing shifting diets, enabled a doubling in agricultural production and a reduction in environmental impacts. 8 Keating et al. (2014) 2 developed a simple framework of wedges and modelled the kcal requirement for the growing world population. They suggested the likely approaches or stabilisations that might be needed to deliver food security in terms of reducing demand, filling the production gap and avoiding losses from the current production level (Fig. 3 ). In this perspective, we use the wedges concept to consider the role of science and the most promising technological approaches that will be required to deliver food security in a resource-constrained environment. We also offer a perspective on the likely impact that global megatrends will have on these endeavours, and consider the need for new ways of working to respond to these trends.

Food wedges framework linking food demand to likely stabilisations and promising technologies (Adapted from Keating et al. 2014) 2

Unlocking pathways to reduce the food production demand

Reducing food waste from farm to consumer.

Reducing food wastage, which comprises food loss and food waste, and capturing more of the food that is produced for human consumption is an obvious opportunity to increase food security without increasing the environmental burden of production. Food loss is the decrease in edible food mass, which occurs at production, postharvest and processing stages in the food supply chain, while food waste refers to what is lost at retail and by consumers. 9 Recovering food loss and waste is a huge opportunity to reduce production demand, given that about 1.6 billion tonnes of food is wasted along the chain and of this 1.3 billion is edible. 9 The relative amounts of food loss and food waste in various regions vary. Food loss is the major contributor to food wastage in developing countries. This is in contrast to developed countries where waste primarily occurs at the retail and consumer end of the food supply chain. 10

Food science and technology has a significant role to play in achieving food and nutrition security. 11 Food preservation and stabilisation technologies to extend shelf life of products (e.g. processing techniques such as drying to reduce water activity, heat treatment or high pressure processing to reduce microbial load or fermentation to reduce pH) underpin the ability of food to be made accessible and safe and are integral to the sustainability of the food supply and reducing food waste. 12 Good post-harvest handling practices from farm to retail, including supporting logistics and infrastructure, can mitigate against the loss of fresh produce. This is becoming increasingly relevant as the food produced in rural areas has to reach the growing population in urban areas and megacities. This results in increased pressure for the optimisation of the distribution of food flows, improved access to appropriate modes of transportation, infrastructure, and better management of cool chain logistics, to ensure sustainable food supply.

In terms of processing, new extraction technologies such as ultrasound can improve the recovery of oil from biomass. 13 Natural preservation through fermentation 14 and separation technologies, such as forward osmosis‚ offer the potential to create new value-added food ingredients and bioactives from food loss and food waste. The preferred option for improving food security is to recover and rescue food loss and food waste for human consumption.

Food banks have been set up in various countries to rescue and redistribute nutritious foods to vulnerable groups. These initiatives reduce food waste, whilst alleviating food insecurity. However, there may be competing interests with various players along the chain who wish to address economic, environmental and social impacts of food wastage. A holistic approach taking into consideration multi-stakeholder perspectives is required to ensure sustainable production and consumption and a win-win solution for all. 15

Consumers are likely to continue to demand more transparency about the environmental credentials and provenance of food. Digital technology is increasing the access to information about food. The internet of things will be an enabler for digital disruption, leading to leaner production and supply chains. Integration of digital platforms with real-time analytics and sensors for informed decision making could be combined to develop a future node in the food value chain (FOOD LOSS BANK TM ) to reduce food loss. 16

There are significant amounts of food loss and waste, by-products and side streams of processing (e.g. straw, leaves and stems, effluents from processing) that are currently diverted to other uses such as animal feed and for the production of chemicals, composting and energy, or being dumped as landfill. It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider these alternative uses of food loss and food waste for non-food purposes.

Reducing over consumption in human diets

The food wedge framework considered the future food demand in terms of calories in order to simplify and communicate the likely stabilisations that would be required. In practice though, we also need to consider food demand in terms of providing the diet that will support our future nutritional and health requirements. 17 , 18 New metrics based on 'nutritional yield' have been proposed to replace 'tonne/hectare yield' to take into account the importance of demand for nutritious food for sustainable agricultural intensification. 19 Ironically, small farms that offer more nutritional diversity 20 may not be in position to afford the new technologies, such as hybrid seeds and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), needed to support intensification.

Nutritional food security is complicated by the fact that we need to increase the amount of available food; but at the same time there are over 2 billion people who are obese or overweight. Reducing over consumption in this population represents a significant opportunity to increase food security without having a negative impact on the environment, and at the same time reducing the impacts of the global health burden due to poor diets. There are recommended dietary guidelines available, but these may not be adhered to. A change in consumer behaviour through education combined with the increased availability of healthier processed foods that meet personal needs is required. 21 The opportunity will be to use a systems approach to nutrition 22 to tailor the food supply chain to enhance the nutritional content of food matched to personalised nutritional needs whilst also taking into account environmental impacts (Fig. 4 ). There are exciting new developments in our understanding of the molecular basis of nutrition and obesity, which will lead to new biomarkers for health and wellness. For example, we have a new appreciation for the role of epigenetics in obesity. 23 Advances in data analytics offer the potential to link new biomarkers based on epigenetics, nutrigenomics, nutritional proteomics, and nutritional metabolomics to agricultural genomics in a more integrated approach to personised nutrition. 24

Research strategies for improving public health through better dietary choices and a systems nutrition approach (Adapted from Lewis and Burton-Freeman, 2010 and Kaput et al. 2015) 21 , 22

However, whilst healthy foods and information may be made available to consumers to make informed choices about food, they may not always make healthy food choices. What consumers eat is governed by a complex interplay of other factors including appetitive behaviours controlled by neural circuits and hormones, 25 cognitive factors, sensory properties and the feelings of satiety and satiation that the food offers. 26 An integrated transdisciplinary approach is required to design culturally acceptable foods and optimise healthy food choices for various ethnic populations and religious groups (e.g. Halal and Kosher foods).

Rebalancing the livestock component of future diet

Sustainable diets need to protect biodiversity and the environment, optimise natural resources, be culturally acceptable, accessible and affordable to various populations, whilst being safe and nutritious. 27 The changing dietary patterns and the rise of the middle class have increased the demand for animal products. However, the carrying capacity of land for different diets varies, with it being generally higher for diets with less meat. 17 The shifting consumption patterns towards lower meat consumption, observed in some developed countries, is a strategy to reduce loss of biodiversity and to offset the effects of climate change. 28 However, while there is a sustainability driver to move away from meat protein, most consumers are not willing to reduce meat consumption because of ecological reasons alone. 29 In-vitro cultured meat may be technically feasible to produce but production is currently cost-prohibitive. In addition, the technology faces challenges in overcoming consumers’ willingness to try.

With the increasing population, new sustainable sources of protein from non-animal sources need to be developed. Cereals have, and are expected to continue to be a major source of plant-based protein. Pulses are an emerging source and becoming more prominent with improvements in production practices. Pulses are attractive alternatives from a health perspective as they are rich in proteins, fibre and micronutrients. Algal biomass offers promise as a renewable source of protein, but the economics of production currently limits the growth of the industry. 30 Improved sea-borne production systems may enable the future growth of plant-based foods.

Insects are sustainable sources for food and feed protein. Improved production systems for edible insects are required to ensure long term sustainability. 31 Insects have been consumed by some populations (e.g. in South America and Asia), but there has been resistance by Western populations who have a cultural aversion to consumption of insect-based food. Education about social impact may help motivate some to try, but this needs to be accompanied by new product development to improve consumer appeal and sensory quality for different cultures. 32

Developing ‘smart’ biofuel policies and /or technologies

Moving away from first generation biofuels that use highly arable land (i.e., feedstocks such as corn, sugarcane) to second generation biofuels from marginal land or waste (i.e. cellulosic material) may alleviate some of the tension between food or fuel use. 33 The issues between land, food and energy and the multiple end-use of crops make it greater than just the food versus fuel debate, as their interdependencies should be taken into account when framing land use change policies. 34 New technologies may offer the potential to produce biofuels from the non-edible parts of plants. Plants do not usually produce oils to any significant levels in their leaf tissues. New technology 35 allows plants to produce significant levels of oil in their leaves, which may offer a new high yielding source of sustainable biofuel. Levels of >30% oil in tobacco leaf has been achieved using metabolic engineering. 36

Unlocking pathways to increase food production

Expanding the land resources used for agricultural production.

Given that options for unlocking new arable land are limited it is critical that when opening up new land there must be the accompanying infrastructure (e.g. for capturing and storing the rainfall) to avoid its loss through transpiration from the soil. It is also necessary to take into account the significant drop in the water table over the years which results in degradation of the productive environment. Both the removal of forest due to urbanisation and climate change affect land surface evapotranspiration, with climate change having the greater effect than change in land cover usage. 37

Expanding the water resources used for agricultural irrigation

Water security is becoming a global issue. Better forecasting of soil moisture and requirement of crops for water and efficient use of irrigation water may be achieved by combining weather predictions and hydrological modelling, supported by data using new technologies for environmental monitoring and Earth observations from space. 38 Real-time irrigation smartphone apps and soil-water sensors are also becoming more available to provide advice for optimal irrigation scheduling. 39 These developments are a step towards precision irrigation to conserve water and maximise water use efficiency.

Expanding aquaculture

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing animal food producing sector in the world. The global growth of aquaculture is expected to continue to meet the estimated demand for an additional 40 million tonnes of aquatic food by 2030 to maintain the current per capita consumption. 40 Sustainable production practices including moving away from fish-based feeds towards those based on plant products, and environmentally-sensitive development that minimises impacts on coastal ecosystems are required. Intensive aquaculture needs technologies that reduce the risk of mass mortalities due to disease. These include rapid, high throughput disease screening of hatchlings, enhanced selection for disease tolerance, production and distribution of better diets using more sustainable ingredients and improved environmental management of production ponds and adjacent environments. 41

Whilst aquaculture in coastal areas are cost-effective operations, there are undesirable consequences for the environment, biodiversity (e.g. species loss, risk of mangrove extinction) and coastal communities. 42 Indoor aquaculture with intensive recirculating aquaculture systems mitigate some of risks associated with outdoor aquaculture. Whilst more expensive, there are commercial land-based operations, such as for production of salmon and Rainbow trout. In addition, advances in technology and the use of aquaponic systems enable the culture of exotic species for target customers. 43

Closing yield gaps in existing crop and livestock production systems

Substantial 'yield gaps', the gap between farm and attainable yields, exist in all production systems. 44 Production advances will be about improving the adoption of existing technology as well as promoting the development of new technology. Advances in digital technologies are enabling precision agriculture that will integrate controlled release fertilisers, pest and weed management, new crop and animal genotypes, soil amelioration techniques and weather and climate forecasting. Modelling to obtain more reliable estimates of magnitude, spatial and temporal variability of yields will help to identify the exploitable yield gap and is a step towards reducing yield gaps. 45

Crop and/or livestock improvement to lift genetic potential

Advances in production per hectare will be underpinned by new genetics tailored to management technologies. The increase in genetic potential will be achieved by selecting genotypes for traits with greater resource use efficiency and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress through access to novel genetic diversity, deployment of targeted biotechnology and tools to improve confidence in phenotyping and environmental characterisation. Novel technology packages such as more timely sowing systems in crops will be enabled by improvements in pest management, seasonal climate forecasting, information and communication, technologies, and weather monitoring and soil sensing. 46 , 47 As yield gaps are closed by better management there is a great imperative to lift genetically programmed yield potential for further gains. In crops, there is a focus on lifting radiation use efficiency to break photosynthetic ceilings. One ambitious approach is to build the highly efficient C4 photosynthetic pathway that operates in crops, such as maize and sugarcane into less efficient C3 plants, such as rice and wheat.

Developing new farming systems that intensify land use/water use

Improved agricultural water practices will lead to gains in global crop production. This may be achieved by expanding irrigation by reducing non-productive water consumption, through improved crop water management. 48 This includes use of techniques to reduce soil evaporation, capture surface run-off, and to improve soil infiltration capacity and efficiency of irrigation systems.

Urban agricultural systems such as urban orchards, roof-top gardens and vertical farming on facades of building and peri-urban agriculture contribute to intensified land use and raises awareness of food production systems in cities. Well-managed urban agriculture reduce greenhouse gases and urban heat. 49

Unlocking pathways to avoid losses or future production potential

Maintaining pest and disease resistance and biosecurity/food safety.

Weeds, pests and diseases cause major losses to current agricultural production systems. Pests and pathogens of crops and livestock are continually evolving and ongoing protection programs are necessary to both maintain current productivity as well as securing further gains. There is pressure to reduce the use of chemical herbicides, pesticides and antimicrobials in agriculture and alternative technologies are needed. The use of genetic approaches such as selective breeding, hybrid seeds and the addition of exogenous genes via genetic modification has been extremely important in increasing yields and reducing chemical inputs in a number of farming systems (e.g. Bt cotton and maize crops). Similarly, novel disease resistance strategies include the cloning and introduction of durable genes 50 , 51 and their transfer into other crops to obtain broad resistance, and gene editing to alter susceptibility genes. 52 There are likely to be many opportunities and challenges that cannot be addressed without GMO technology as climate change harshens farming conditions and global biosecurity threats evolve. However, largely because of consumer acceptance issues, and the high costs of deregulation, the commercial use of GMO technology in a number of countries is limited. Due to these trends there is renewed commercial interest in new non-GMO breeding techniques, such as gene editing, which provides more precision than GMO technology. Another alternative technology is the exogenous application of RNA interference (RNAi) molecules to specifically silence genes in plants and animals. Exogenous RNAi may be used to control viral 53 and fungal diseases in plants. 54 Co-application of RNAi with a herbicide can target weed resistance mechanisms and make pesticides more durable. Maintaining pest and disease resistance in crop varieties will need enabling technologies and ecosystem actions to be applied in an integrated manner.

The global food supply chain is extremely complex and many biosecurity issues are also food safety issues. With a large proportion of emerging human infectious diseases originating from animal sources there is an increasing need to consider both animal and human health as a ‘one health’ issue. 55 Biosecurity and food safety issues may cause a disruption to the food supply chain through direct public health impacts, through recalls or even market ‘avoidance’ of particular trading areas due to real or perceived public health concerns.

In an environment of global interdependence in food safety, countries cannot solely rely upon their own food safety managements systems and it is therefore essential that food safety standards are universally based on sound scientific principles and focus regulatory efforts on genuine public health risks. The global increase in the number of incidents related to food safety in recent years has led to a paradigm shift in the way that food safety is managed. Regulatory efforts have become focused on the use of risk assessment tools to drive food safety policy and standards away from prescriptive to outcome-based control measures. New risk management approaches have been developed that are based on concepts such as of Food Safety Objectives and Performance Objectives. 56 These approaches enable the food industry to meet specific objectives through the application of the principles of Good Hygienic Practice (GHP) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). This modern approach to assuring the safety of the food supply provides a scientific basis that allows industry to select and implement control measures specific to its operations, and also leads to a better understanding of the role of microbiological criteria in testing. 57

Despite the availability of food safety protocols and the stated intent of companies to implement food safety measures, there are incidences of food recalls and foodborne outbreaks. These may be linked to the lack a good food safety culture. Improving food safety culture requires a high level of senior management commitment to food safety and a shared purpose in maintaining food safety standards amongst employees. 58 The role of government and food safety audits for compliance are ingredients for reducing risks for foodborne illness. 59 Promoting good food safety culture through the supply chain should also be supported by Government initiatives at national and international levels.

Global trends including climate change, a growing and aging population, and urbanisation place new demands on producers, manufacturers, marketers, retailers and regulators to ensure food safety. The internationalisation of the food chain has improved food accessibility but this increases the risk of foodborne disease burden. 60 The spread of microbial resistance due to the use of antibiotics in production and antimicrobials for feed and food preservation is a concern in the food industry. Foods can be carriers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and enter into the food chain. 61 Climate change will also present particular challenges to maintaining food safety. There are increased risks due to changes in temperature and in contaminants’ transport pathways. 62 Advances in science and technology such as whole genome sequencing, active food packaging (e.g. with embedded natural anti-oxidants or anti-microbials), developments in tracing and tracking technologies, information computing technology and big data analysis have the potential to help mitigate the challenges and meet demands. 63

Avoiding soil and water degradation

Technologies and farm practices that maintain groundcover to minimise erosion and nutrient runoff will be important. Precision agriculture techniques will enable reduced use of inputs of agri-chemicals and water that match supply with demand and limit losses. Technologies that can predict and adapt to volatility such as climate fluctuations will be needed.

Soil degradation decreases nutrient potential of soils. Even with tillage practices there is a decrease in fertility. An emerging approach to reducing fertiliser requirements is by reconstituting the nitrogen fixing function in plant cells. This approach relies on using synthetic biology for direct engineering of nitrogenase into the mitochondrial matrix of plants. 64 While this technology needs to be further developed, it is one that holds promise for the future.

Minimising climate change through mitigation that maintains food security

There is currently no global target for greenhouse gas emission mitigation from agriculture. A recent analysis, 65 for the first time, calculated that in order to limit global warning in 2100 to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, annual emissions from the agricultural sector must be reduced by 1 gigatonne of carbon dioxide equivalents per year by 2030. Currently available interventions, such as sustainable intensification of dairy production and alternate wetting and drying in irrigated rice, to achieve emission efficiencies will be necessary. Yet these are insufficient, to achieve these targets. There is a need to develop and implement transformative technical options, such as methane inhibitors in the livestock sector, nitrogen inhibitors in annual crops, and innovative policies to promote sequestering soil carbon.

Adapting to unavoidable climate change

Given that climate change is now unavoidable and farmers are already living with its impacts, adaptation to the on-going effects will be inevitable. 66 A number of studies have highlighted that simple changes to management and adoption of existing technology (e.g. change of sowing date, crop mix on farm, irrigation) can negate the modest short-term to medium-term negative impacts of climate change. 67 However, beyond this time frame more transformative changes to farming systems will be required such as changes to business structure, portfolio management, off-farm investments and geographical diversification. 68 Breakthrough innovation for increasing photosynthetic potential, 69 radiation use efficiency or modifying canopy architecture 70 will be some approaches that may be applied to increase yield potential.

Perspectives on social challenges

Even when science provides the technical solutions, the adoption of the technologies by stakeholders is not possible without attention to social, consumer and market challenges. The social relevance of research strategies should embed new approaches for evaluating research and innovation, which connect with broader societal values. 71 The public dialogue around global food security should include consideration of the ethical trade-offs between societal decisions around choice of food for adequate nutrition and environmental sustainability. 72 Influencing consumer behaviour to choose foods with low environmental footprints, eat appropriate foods in line with nutritional requirement and not to waste food consumption has potential to improve global food security and the sustainability of the food supply. 73

Transdisciplinary practice to address food and nutrition security

Agricultural, food, nutritional, economics and social sciences all need to come to bear on the solution for food and nutrition security, because of their multi-faceted interdependencies in the global system and their collective impact on nutritional security. 74 It is also essential to explore how innovation from other disciplines (e.g. data science, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology) may impact on food security. Success in achieving food and nutrition security requires an integrated transdisciplinary approach across diverse lines of enquiry. 75 Addressing food and nutrition security requires consideration of the food ecosystem in its entirety. Ecological and social-institutional approaches are needed because agricultural systems are complex adaptive systems across multiple scales. 76 This whole of systems initiative for food and nutrition security has to involve a collaborative and transdisciplinary approach 77 against an evolving future of social, market and global megatrends.

Conclusions and recommendations

It is clear that the food security challenge is complex‚ requiring a focus on both human and planetary health. An integrated system of interventions underpinned by transdisciplinary research and technological innovation will be required. These endeavours will be impacted by global megatrends. The food wedges framework provides a simple but useful construct to begin to understand the likely contribution that different innovations might provide. It will be useful to further refine the food wedges framework. For example, the Food Security Committee of the International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST) has been considering a version of the wedges framework that might be more reflective of the food value chain. It might also be useful to refine the framework in terms of the demand for a balance of nutrients for human health.

Nevertheless, it is hoped that this perspective and approach might facilitate dialogue between disciplines as well as providing a means to express the relative contribution or impact of a given research effort in food security to policy makers and other stakeholders.

FAO, IFAD and WFP. The state of food Insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome: FAO publication (2015).

Keating, B. A., Herrero, M., Carberry, P. S., Gardner, J. & Cole, M. B. Food wedges: framing the global food demand and supply towards 2050. Glob. Food Sec. 3 , 125–132 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Keating, B. A. & Carberry, P. S. Sustainable production, food security and supply chain implications. Asp. Appl. Biol. 102 , 7–20 (2010).

Google Scholar  

Hajkowicz, S. Global Megatrends – Seven Patterns of Change Shaping Our Future . (CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, 2015).

Hajkowicz, S. & Eady, S. Rural Industry Futures—Megatrends impacting Australian agriculture over the coming twenty years. Australia: CSIRO and RIRDC (2015).

CSIRO Futures. Food and Agribusiness—A Roadmap for unlocking value-adding growth opportunities for Australia, Australia: CSIRO (2017).

FAO The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges. Rome: FAO (2017).

Foley, J. C. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Study conducted for the International Congress. Rome: FAO (2011).

Institution of Mechanical Engineers (London). Global Food, Waste Not Want Not. (2013).

Augustin, M. A. et al. Role of food processing in food and nutrition security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 56 , 115–125 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Martindale, W. The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76 , 28–33 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Augustin, M., Juliano, P., Mawson, R. Swiergon, R. & Knoerzer, K. Vegetable Oil Extraction. Patent WO2012167315-A1 (2012).

Hugenholtz, J. Traditional biotechnology for new foods and beverages. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24 , 155–159 (2013).

Mourad, M., Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126 , 461–477 (2016).

Petkovic, K. et al. The food loss bank - A concept that could transform the food supply chain. Food Aust. 69 , 42–44 (2017).

Peters, C. J. et al. Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: ten diet scenarios. Elem. Sci. Anth. 4 , 116 (2016).

Ridoutt, et al. Australia’s nutritional food balance: situation, outlook and policy implications. Food Sec. 9 , 211–226 (2017).

DeFries, R. et al. Global nutrition metrics for land-scarce agriculture. Science 349 (6245), 238–240 (2015).

Herraro, M. et al. Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet Health 1 , e33–e42 (2017).

Lewis, K. D. & Burton-Freeman, B. M. The role of innovation and technology in meeting individual nutritional needs. J. Nutr. 140 , 426S–436S (2010).

Kaput, J., Kussmann, M., Radonjic, M., Virgili, F. & Perozzi, G. Human nutrition, environment, and health. Genes Nutr. 10 (Issue 5), Article36 (2015).

Van Dijk, S., Tellam, R. L., Morrison, J. L., Muhlhausler, B. S. & Molloy, P. L. Recent developments on the role of epigenetics in obesity and metabolic disease. Clin. Epigenetics 7 , Article 66 (2015).

Ozdemir, V. & Kolker, E. Precision Nutrition 4.0: a big data and ethics foresight analysis-convergence of agrigenomics, nutrigenomics, nutriproteomics, and nutrimetabolomics. Omics: A J. Integr. Biol. 20 , 69–75 (2016).

Schneider, J. E., Wise, J. D., Benton, N. A., Brozek, J. M. & Keen-Rhinehart, E. When do we eat? Ingestive behavior, survival, and reproductive success. Horm. Behav. 64 , 702–728 (2013).

Chambers, L., McCrickerda, K. & Yeomans, M. R. Optimising foods for satiety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 41 , 149–160 (2015).

Johnston, J. L., Fanzo, J. C. & Cogill, B. Understanding sustainable diets: a descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impacts on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Adv. Nutr. 5 , 418–429 (2014).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stoll-Kleemann, S. & Schmidt, U. J. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: a review of influence factors. Reg. Environ. Change 17 , 1261–1277 (2017).

Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 61 , 11–25 (2017).

Henchion, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenlon, M. & Tiwari, B. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 6 (7), Article Number. 53 (2017).

van Huis, A. & Oonincx, D. G. A. B. The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37 (5), Article 43 (2017).

Tan, H. S. G., Verbaan, Y. T. & Stieger, M. How will better products improve the sensory-liking and willingness to buy insect-based foods? Food Res. Int. 92 , 95–105 (2017).

Chen, M. & Smith, P. M. The US cellulosic biofuels industry: expert views on commercialization drivers and barriers. Biomass-. Bioenergy 102 , 52–61 (2017).

Tomei, J. & Helliwell, R. Food versus fuel? Going beyond biofuels. Land Use Policy 56 , 320–326 (2016).

Vanhercke, T. et al. Metabolic engineering of biomass for high energy density: oilseed-like triacylglycerol yields from plant leaves. Plant Biotech. J. 12 , 231–239 (2014).

Vanhercke, T. et al. Step changes in leaf oil accumulation via iterative metabolic engineering. Metab. Eng. 39 , 237–246 (2017).

Li, G. et al. Response of evapotranspiration to changes in land use and land cover and climate in China during 2001-2013. Sci. Total Environ. 596 , 256–265 (2017).

Ravazzani, G. et al. From (cyber)space to ground: new technologies for smart farming. Hydrol. Res. 48 , 656–672 (2017).

Migliaccio, K. W., Morgan, K. T., Fraisse, C., Vellidis, G. & Andreis, J. H. Performance evaluation of urban turf irrigation smartphone app. Comp. Electron. Agric. 118 , 136–142 (2015).

FAO 2014. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges. Rome: FAO (2014).

Diana, J. S. 2009. Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59 , 27–38 (2009).

Polidoro, B. A. et al. The loss of species: mangrove extinction risk and geographic areas of global concern. Plos One 5 (4), Article Number: e10095 (2010).

Dalsgaard, J. et al. Farming different species in RAS in Nordic countries: current status and future perspectives. Aquac. Eng. 53 , 2–13 (2013).

Robertson M. J., Preston, N. P. & Bonnett, G. D. New technologies: costs and benefits for food production in contrasting agro ecological production systems. in Food Production and Nature Conservation: Conflicts and Solutions. Earthscan Food and Agriculture (eds Gordon I., Prins, H. & Squire, G.) (Routledge, London, UK 2017).

Hochman, Z. et al. Reprint of “quantifying yield gaps in rainfed cropping systems: a case study of wheat in Australia”. Field Crop Res. 143 , 65–75 (2013).

Kirkegaard, A. J. & Hunt, J. R. Increasing productivity by matching farming system management and genotype in water-limited environments. J. Exp. Bot. 61 , 4129–4143 (2010).

Robertson, M., Kirkegaard, J., Rebetzke, G., Llewellyn, R. & Wark, T. Prospects for yield improvement in the Australian wheat industry: a perspective. Food Energy Sec. 5 , 107–122 (2016).

MacDonald, G. K., D’Odorico, P. & Seekell, D. A. Pathways to sustainable intensification through crop water management. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 ((9)), Article Number: 091001 (2016).

Goldstein, B., Hauschild, M., Fernandez, J. & Birkved, M. Urban versus conventional agriculture, taxonomy of resource profiles: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36 (1), Article Number: 9 (2016).

Krattinger et al. The wheat durable, multipathogen resistance gene Lr34 confers partial blast resistance in rice. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14 (5), 1261–1268 (2016).

Chen, M. et al. Durable field resistance to wheat yellow mosaic virus in transgenic wheat containing the antisense virus polymerase gene. Plant Biotech. J. 12 , 447–456 (2014).

Nekrasov, et al. Rapid generation of a transgene-free powdery mildew resistant tomato by genome deletion. Sci. Rep. 7 , Article No. 482 (2017).

Mitter, N. et al. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 3 (2), Article No. 16207 (2017).

Majumdar, R., Rajasekaran, K. & Cary, J. W. RNA Interfernece (RNAi) as a potential tool for control of mycotoxin contamination in crop plants: concepts and considerations. Fron. Plant Sci. 8 , 14, Article 200 (2017).

Mi, E., Mi, E. & Jeggo, M. Where to now for one health and ecohealth? EcoHealth 13 , 12–17 (2016).

International Commission for the Microbiological Specifications of Foods (ICMSF). Microorganisms in Foods 7: Microbiological Testing in Food Safety Management: By. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York (2002).

International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) Use of Data for Assessing Process Control and Product Acceptance: By. Springer, New York (2011).

Nayak, R. & Waterson, P. The assessment of food safety culture: an investigation of current challenges, barriers and future opportunities within the food industry. Food Control 73 (Part B), 1114–1123 (2017).

Taylor, J., Garat, J. P., Simreen, S. & Sarieddine, G. An industry perspective: a new model of food safety culture excellence and the impact of audit on food safety standards. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 7 (1), 78–89 (2015).

Quested, T. E., Cook, P. E., Gorris, L. G. M. & Cole, M. B. Trends in technology, trade and consumption likely to impact on microbial food safety. Int. J. Microbiol. 139 , S29–S42 (2010).

Capita, R. & Alonso-Calleja, C. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria: a challenge for the food industry. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 53 , 11–48 (2013).

Tirado, M. C. et al. Climate change and food safety: a review. Food Res. Int. 43 , 1745–1765 (2010).

King, T. et al. Food safety for food security: relationship between global megatrends and developments in food safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 68 , 160–175 (2017).

Allen, R. S. et al. Expression of 16 nitrogenase proteins within the plant mitochondrial matrix. Front. Plant Sci. 8 , 1–14 (2017).

Wollenberg, E. et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target. Glob. Change Biol. 22 , 3859–3864 (2016).

Stokes, C., Howden, S. M. (eds). Agricultural Productivity in Australia and New Zealand: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities. (CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 2010).

Smit, B., McNabb, D. & Smithers, J. Agricultural adaptation to climatic variation. Climate Change 33, 7–29 (1996).

Robertson, M. & Murray-Prior, R. Ten reasons why it is difficult to talk to farmers about the impacts of, and their adaptation to, climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 16 , 189–198 (2016).

Parry, et al. Raising yield potential of wheat. II. Increasing Photosynth. Capacit. Effic. J. Exp. Bot. 62 , 453–467 (2011).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Rebetzke, G. J. et al. Genomic regions for canopy temperature and their genetic association with stomatal conductance and grain yield in wheat. Funct. Plant Biol. 40 , 14–33 (2013).

Feldt U. et al. Science in society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. Science Policy Briefing, European Science Foundation , (June 2013).

Fanzo, J. Ethical issues for human nutrition in the context of global food security and sustainable development. Glob. Food Sec. 7 , 15–23 (2015).

Alexander, P. et al. Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric. Syst. 153 , 190–200 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Qaim, M. Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76 , 12–21 (2017).

Horton, P. et al. An agenda for integrated system-wide interdisciplinary agri-food research. Food Sec. 9 , 195–210 (2017).

Wittman, H., Chappell, M. J., Abson, D. J., Kerr, R. B., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., Perfecto, I. & Fischer, J. A social–ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1291–1301 (2017).

Augustin, M. A. & McInnes, S. Food security: global challenge, transdisciplinary approach. Focus , Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 195 , March/April Issue, 14–15 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the input and knowledge from many collaborators and colleagues within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), The International Commission for the Microbiological Specifications of Foods (ICMSF) and the International Union of Food Science and Technology (IUFoST).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Australia, 11, Julius Avenue, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2113, Australia

Martin Barry Cole, Mary Ann Augustin, Michael John Robertson & John Michael Manners

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Martin Cole developed the framework for the perspective. All four authors contributed to the development and the preparation of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Barry Cole .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cole, M.B., Augustin, M.A., Robertson, M.J. et al. The science of food security. npj Sci Food 2 , 14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0021-9

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2017

Revised : 15 March 2018

Accepted : 28 June 2018

Published : 06 August 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0021-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Yeast mannan rich fraction positively influences microbiome uniformity, productivity associated taxa, and lay performance.

• Robert J. Leigh
• Aoife Corrigan
• Fiona Walsh

Animal Microbiome (2024)

Winter Wheat Yield Estimation Based on Sparrow Search Algorithm Combined with Random Forest: A Case Study in Henan Province, China

• Xiaoliang Shi
• Jiajun Chen

Chinese Geographical Science (2024)

A rapid field crop data collection method for complexity cropping patterns using UAV and YOLOv3

• Huifang Zhang
• Binyao Wang

Frontiers of Earth Science (2024)

Intermittent circulation of simplified deep flow technique hydroponic system increases yield efficiency and allows application of systems without electricity in Haiti

• Isabella Vega
• Dunerose Bien-Amié
• Nathaniel Heiden

Agriculture & Food Security (2023)

The nutritional profile, mineral content and heavy metal uptake of yellow mealworm reared with supplementation of agricultural sidestreams

• Isabelle Noyens
• Floris Schoeters
• Sabine Van Miert

Scientific Reports (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food

Aims and scope

Aims and Scope

Food Security is a wide audience, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to the procurement, access (economic and physical), and quality of food, in all its dimensions. Scales range from the individual to communities, and to the world food system. We strive to publish high-quality scientific articles, where quality includes, but is not limited to, the quality and clarity of text, and the validity of methods and approaches.

Food Security is the initiative of a distinguished international group of scientists from different disciplines who hold a deep concern for the challenge of global food security, together with a vision of the power of shared knowledge as a means of meeting that challenge. To address the challenge of global food security, the journal seeks to address the constraints - physical, biological and socio-economic - which not only limit food production but also the ability of people to access a healthy diet.

Food Security publishes a diversity of refereed research papers, together with review articles, case studies and letters to the editor. The journal covers the principles and practice of food security per se , taking an overview of the subject or analysing it with a broad perspective over its many component disciplines. All the dimensions of food security are covered by the Journal, from production, to stability, to access (physical and economic), stocks, markets and trade (local to global), as well as the nutritional value of food. We particularly value submissions that take a synthetic view of the science, sociology and economics of food production, agricultural development, access to food, and nutrition.

Food Security does not seek to duplicate the coverage of the many publications that focus specifically on those component disciplines.

From this perspective, the journal covers the following areas:

• Global food needs: the mismatch between population and the ability to provide adequate nutrition
• Global food potential and global food production
• Natural constraints to satisfying global food needs: § Climate, climate variability, and climate change § Desertification and flooding § Natural disasters § Soils, soil quality and threats to soils, edaphic and other abiotic constraints to production § Biotic constraints to production, pathogens, pests, and weeds in their effects on sustainable production
• The sociological contexts of food production, access, quality, and consumption.
• Nutrition, food quality and food safety.
• Socio-political factors that impinge on the ability to satisfy global food needs: § Land, agricultural and food policy § International relations and trade § Access to food § Financial policy § Wars and ethnic unrest
• Research policies and priorities to ensure food security in its various dimensions.
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Research Interests
• Research Papers
• Policy Work
• PhD Students
• School of Economics
• Email this Page

CREDIT 24/04: Climate shocks, household food security and welfare in Afghanistan

Abstract .

The increasing impact of natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, landslides, and avalanches) in Afghanistan, notably flooding and similar climate shocks, poses a growing concern as vulnerability to climate change intensifies the potential severity of these impacts in future.  This paper uses two household surveys (2011/12 and 2013/14) combined with other data to assess the effects of climate shocks (especially floods) on the welfare of agricultural households, allowing also for conflict and price shocks. We evaluate the impacts of shocks on several measures of food security, dietary diversity, household food consumption spending, farm revenue and income comparing affected to non-affected households. The analysis is based on endogenous switching regressions (ESR) and propensity score matching (PSM) allowing for selection bias and addressing endogeneity. Floods are the main shock and have significant adverse effects on food security and welfare indicators. For example, the estimated average treatment effect in 2013-14 implies a decrease of about a third in food consumption expenditures, with similar reductions in household income and farm revenue.  The findings highlight the need for better disaster risk reduction and planing strategies to support affected populations to respond to and recover from climate shocks.

Download the paper in PDF format

Hayatullah Ahmadzai and Oliver Morrissey

View all CREDIT discussion papers  

Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade

Sir Clive Granger Building University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Enquiries: [email protected]

Legal information

• Terms and conditions
• Posting rules
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Charity gateway
• Cookie policy

Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs .

Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy, Research, Capacity and Influence

Effect of Pesticide Use on Crop Production and Food Security in Uganda

May 14, 2024 - Linda Nakato, Umar Kabanda, Pauline Nakitende, Tess Lallemant & Milu Muyanga

The increasing pest proliferation has continued to cause a serious threat to food security in Uganda. This study explores the impact of pesticide adoption on food security in Uganda. Specifically, it seeks to assess whether the use of pesticides ensures food security, with crop productivity serving as an intervening variable. Employing the control function approach with fixed effects estimation on a dataset comprising 1,656 households spanning the periods 2013/2014, 2016/2015, and 2018/19 to 2019/20 obtained from the Uganda National Panel Survey, the study reveals several determinants influencing pesticide use in Uganda. The findings also highlight that the adoption of pesticides demonstrates a positive influence on crop productivity. However, when assessed through indicators such as Food Consumption Score (FCS), Minimum Acceptable Household Food Consumption (MAHFP), and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) at the pre-harvest stage, the results do not indicate a statistically significant correlation of pesticide use and food security outcomes. Consequently, beyond enhanced crop productivity and the pre-harvest activities focused on in the study, it is imperative to consider the post-harvest application of pesticides to comprehensively explain how pesticide use effects food security in Uganda. Based on the positive link between pesticides and crop productivity, its recommended that government should increase awareness on and access of insecticides among farmers. Given that insects are the main pests damaging crops in Uganda. It is also important for Uganda to reform and reactive a regulatory framework having a licensing system to regulate private local market dealers’ sale of pesticides. Given that the majority of the households purchase their pesticides from private traders in the local/village market. This approach might improve the quality of pesticide purchased by farmers and, increase pesticide use to diversify produce of more nutritious foods, to ultimately enhance access and nutrient intake per meal in Uganda.

 Pesticide use, crop productivity, food security.

DOWNLOAD FILE

Tags: prci research paper

new - method size: 1 - Random key: 0, method: personalized - key: 0

You Might Also Be Interested In

STAAARS+ RFP webinar Sept 14 2022

Published on September 15, 2022

PRCI STAAARS+ Teams Presentation Video 2022

Published on July 26, 2022

Scoping Study of Agriculture Development Strategy of Nepal (ADS) (Five-year achievements)

Published on February 1, 2023

Sugarcane Production and Food Security in Uganda

Published on September 1, 2023

Institutional Arrangements Between Sugarcane Growers and Millers in Uganda and Implications for Grower Productivity and Profitability

Rwanda Natural Forest Cover Dynamics between 2015 and 2020

Published on June 19, 2023

Accessibility Questions:

For questions about accessibility and/or if you need additional accommodations for a specific document, please send an email to ANR Communications & Marketing at [email protected] .

• prci research paper,
• innovation lab for food security policy research capacity & influence