Changing probability of experiencing food insecurity by socioeconomic and demographic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

Background Food supply concerns have featured prominently in the UK response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We assess changes in food insecurity in the UK population from April to July 2020. Method We analyze 11,095 respondents from the April through July waves of the Understanding Society COVID-19 longitudinal study survey linked with Wave 9 of the UK Understanding Society study. Food insecurity was defined as having used a food bank in the last 4 weeks; being hungry but not eating in the last week; or not able to eat healthy and nutritious food in the last week. Unadjusted estimates to examine changes in population prevalence and logistic regression were used to assess the association between employment transitions and food insecurity. Findings The prevalence of reporting at least one form of food insecurity rose from 7·1% in April to 20·2% by July 2020. Some of the largest increases were among Asian respondents (22·91 percentage points), the self-employed (15·90 percentage points), and 35-44-year-olds (17·08 percentage points). In logistic regression models, those moving from employment to unemployment had higher odds of reporting food insecurity relative to furloughed individuals (OR = 2·23; 95% CI: 1·20–4·131) and to the persistently employed (OR=2·38; 95% CI: 1·33–4·27), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Furloughed individuals did not differ significantly in their probability of experiencing food insecurity compared to the persistently employed (OR=1·07; 95% CI: 0·83 to 1·37). Interpretation Food insecurity has increased substantially in the UK. Steps are needed to provide subsidies or food support to vulnerable groups. Evidence before this study Evidence before this study We searched Google Scholar with the terms “COVID-19” and “food insecurity” and “UK”; and “food insecurity” and “UK” and “coronavirus”, published between January 1st and October 31st, 2020. One cross-sectional report was identified, which found higher levels of food insecurity in early April 2020 relative to 2018. Importantly, the report relied on items used to measure food insecurity that referred to a 12-month time span in 2018 and then a 30-day time span in April 2020, a potential source of bias for examining changes in population prevalence over time. Added value of this study Added value of this study Here we provide the first longitudinal national probability study that tracks temporal changes in population prevalence of food insecurity several months following the initial COVID-19-related lockdown measures in the UK. The prevalence of food insecurity rose for all socioeconomic and demographic and groups from April to July 2020, but did so for some more than others. Some of the largest increases in food insecurity were among Asian respondents, the self-employed, respondents aged 35-44, and those living in Scotland, London, and the North West of England. At the individual level, losing employment was associated with a higher odds of food insecurity compared to those furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the persistently employed. Importantly, furloughed individuals did not differ in their probability of food insecurity relative to the persistently employed. Implications of all the available evidence Implications of all the available evidence This study documents an alarming increase in food insecurity in the United Kingdom during the pandemic, with important implications for policy. While Coronavirus the Job Retention Scheme appeared to have conferred some protection, it is clear that not enough has been done to mitigate overall increases food insecurity in the UK. Steps are needed to provide subsidies or food support, especially since during the pandemic emergency food assistance may not be readily accessible. Taken together our results show that, while COVID is first of all a health crisis, it also has potential to become an escalating social and economic crisis if steps are not taken to protect the weak. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest