Inequity and food insecurity and effects on obesity and associated co-morbidities: meeting report and research priorities

Ruxton, C. H. S., Bateson, M., Garner, N., Harvey, K., Lambie-Mumford, H., Levy, L., McDonald, A., Parretti, H., Walker, A. W., Thies, F., Minihane, A. M., Fairweather-Tait, S., Woodside, J. V., Lovegrove, J. A. and Corfe, B. M. (2025) Inequity and food insecurity and effects on obesity and associated co-morbidities: meeting report and research priorities. British Journal of Nutrition. ISSN 0007-1145

PDF (inequity-and-food-insecurity) - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2099. Request a copy

Abstract

A Rank Forum was convened to discuss the evidence around food insecurity (FIS), its impact on health, and interventions which could make a difference both at individual and societal level, with a focus on the UK. This paper summarises the proceedings and recommendations. Speakers highlighted the growing issue of FIS due to current economic and social pressures. It was clear that the health implications of FIS varied geographically since food insecure women in higher income regions tend to be living with overweight or obesity, in contrast to those living in low-to-middle income countries. This paradox could be due to stress and/or metabolic or behavioural responses to an unpredictable food supply. The gut microbiota may play a role given the negative effects of low fibre diets on bacterial diversity, species balance and chronic disease risk. Solutions to FIS involve individual behavioural change, targeted services and societal/policy change. Obesity-related services are currently difficult to access. Whilst poverty is the root cause of FIS, it cannot be solved simply by making healthy food cheaper due to various ingrained beliefs, attitudes and behaviours in target groups. Person-centred models, such as Capability-Opportunity-Motivation Behavioural Change Techniques and Elicit-Provide-Elicit communication techniques are recommended. Societal change or improved resilience through psychological support may be more equitable ways to address FIS and can combine fiscal or food environment policies to shift purchasing towards healthier foods. However, policy implementation can be slow to enact due to the need for strong evidence, consultation and political will. Eradicating FIS must involve co-creation of interventions and policies to ensure that all stakeholders reach a consensus on solutions.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	FINANCIAL SUPPORT: The forum, including a fee to CHSR for report writing, was fully supported by an award from The Rank Prize Funds.
Uncontrolled Keywords:	sdg 2 - zero hunger,sdg 3 - good health and well-being ,/dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/zero_hunger
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
UEA Research Groups:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Nutrition and Preventive Medicine Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Metabolic Health Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Norwich Epidemiology Centre Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Norwich Epidemiology Centre Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Norwich Institute for Healthy Aging Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Public Health Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	11 Aug 2025 09:30
Last Modified:	11 Aug 2025 09:30
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/100120
DOI:	10.1017/S0007114525103930

Actions (login required)

View Item