research food security in india

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Contributed equally to this work with: David Reay, Peter Higgins

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Hannah Ritchie,
David Reay,
Peter Higgins

Published: March 23, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766
Reader Comments

India has been perceived as a development enigma: Recent rates of economic growth have not been matched by similar rates in health and nutritional improvements. To meet the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG2) of achieving zero hunger by 2030, India faces a substantial challenge in meeting basic nutritional needs in addition to addressing population, environmental and dietary pressures. Here we have mapped—for the first time—the Indian food system from crop production to household-level availability across three key macronutrients categories of ‘calories’, ‘digestible protein’ and ‘fat’. To better understand the potential of reduced food chain losses and improved crop yields to close future food deficits, scenario analysis was conducted to 2030 and 2050. Under India’s current self-sufficiency model, our analysis indicates severe shortfalls in availability of all macronutrients across a large proportion (>60%) of the Indian population. The extent of projected shortfalls continues to grow such that, even in ambitious waste reduction and yield scenarios, enhanced domestic production alone will be inadequate in closing the nutrition supply gap. We suggest that to meet SDG2 India will need to take a combined approach of optimising domestic production and increasing its participation in global trade.

Citation: Ritchie H, Reay D, Higgins P (2018) Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766

Editor: David A. Lightfoot, College of Agricultural Sciences, UNITED STATES

Received: September 13, 2017; Accepted: February 17, 2018; Published: March 23, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Ritchie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, or can be accessed at the UN FAO databases through the following URL: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home .

Funding: The authors received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of its E3 DTP programme.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) committed to achieving zero hunger by 2030 as the second of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An important element of this goal is to end all forms of malnutrition, including agreed targets on childhood stunting and wasting. This represents an important progression beyond the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), where food security was defined and measured solely on the basis of basic energy requirements (caloric intake), and prevalence of underweight children [ 1 ]. This new commitment has significant implications for the focus of research and policy decisions; it requires a broadening of scope beyond the traditional analysis of energy intake, and inclusion of all nutrients necessary for adequate nourishment.

India offers a potentially unique example in the development of models and mechanisms by which nutritional needs can be addressed sustainably. In 2016, India ranked 97 out of 118 on the Global Hunger Index (GHI)—this rates nations’ nutritional status based on indicators of undernourishment, child wasting, stunting and mortality [ 2 ]. Despite ranking above some of the world’s poorest nations, India’s reduction in malnourishment has been slow relative to its recent strong economic growth and puts it behind poorer neighbouring countries [ 3 ]; India has fallen from 80 th to 97 th since 2000.

India’s nutritional problems are extensive. In 2016, 38.7% of children under five were defined as ‘stunted’ (of below average height) [ 2 ], a strong indicator of chronic malnourishment in children and pregnant women, and a largely irreversible condition leading to reduced physical and mental development [ 4 ]. Malnourishment within the adult population is also severe, with approximately 15% of the total population defined as malnourished. The issue of malnutrition in India is complex, and determined by a combination of dietary intake and diversity, disease burden (intensified by poor sanitation and hygiene standards), and female empowerment and education [ 5 ]. Improvements in dietary intake alone will therefore by insufficient to eliminate malnutrition, however it forms an integral component alongside progress in other social and health indicators—particularly sanitation. Quantification of India’s micronutrient and amino acid profiles, and recommendations for addressing these deficiencies have been completed as a follow-up paper (Ritchie et al. in submission) to provide a more holistic overview of its nutritional position.

India’s nutritional and health challenges are likely to be compounded in the coming decades through population growth and resource pressures. Its current population of 1.26 billion is projected to increase to 1.6 billion by 2050, overtaking China as the world’s most populous nation [ 6 ]. India has also been highlighted as one of the most risk-prone nations for climate change impacts, water scarcity, and declining soil fertility through land degradation [ 7 ].

A number of studies have focused specifically on Indian food intake and malnutrition issues from survey assessments at the household level [ 8 ]. The emphasis within India’s agricultural policy and assessment of its success has traditionally been on energy (caloric) intake [ 9 ]. Since the Green Revolution in the 1970s, agricultural policies have been oriented towards a rapid increase in the production of high-yielding cereal crops with a focus to meet the basic calorific needs of a growing population. India has attempted to reach self-sufficiency predominantly through political and investment orientation towards wheat and rice varieties [ 10 ]. While production of staple crops has increased significantly, India’s agricultural policy focus on cereal production raises a key challenge in simultaneously meeting nutritional needs in caloric, high-quality protein and fat intakes. Few studies have addressed the system-wide balance between supply and demand of the three key macronutrients—calories, protein and fat; nor have they assessed the importance of protein quality through digestibility and amino acid scoring. This assessment is particularly significant for India as a result of its extensive and complex malnutrition issues. Whether India is capable of meeting these macronutrient needs in the future through domestic production improvements alone is of prime importance for study, as a result of its growing population and policy orientation towards self-sufficiency.

Improving the availability and access to food at the consumer level requires an understanding of how food is created and lost through its various pathways across the full agricultural supply chain. Here, for the first time, we have attempted to capture this high-level outlook from crop harvesting to residual food availability across the three macronutrient categories.

Mapping the current Indian food system

The Indian food system was mapped from crop production through to per capita food supply using FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS) from its FAOstats databases [ 11 ]. FBS provide quantitative data (by mass) on production of food items and primary commodities, and their utilisations throughout the food supply chain. Such data are available at national, regional and global levels. Food Balance Sheet data for 2011 have been used, these being from the latest full data-set available. Some aspects of FBS data are available for the years 2012 and 2013, however such data are not complete across all commodities and value chain stages at the time of writing.

Food Balance Sheets provide mass quantities across the following stages of the supply chain: crop production, exports, imports, stock variation, re-sown produce, animal feed, other non-food uses, and food supplied (as kg per capita per year). Data on all key food items and commodities across all food groups (cereals; roots and tubers; oilseeds and pulses; fruit and vegetables; fish and seafood; and meat and dairy) are included within these balances.

While there are uncertainties in FAO data (see Supplementary Information for further discussion on FAO data limitations), FBS provide the only complete dataset available for full commodity chain analysis. Therefore, while not perfect, they provide an invaluable high-level outlook of relative contribution of each stage in the food production and distribution system. As shown in this study (see Results section below), a top-down model using FAO FBS has a discrepancy of <10% with national nutrition survey results at the household level.

FBS do not provide food loss and waste figures by stage in the supply chain. To maintain consistency with FAO literature, food loss figures have therefore been calculated based on South Asian regional percentages within FAO publications [ 12 ]. These percentage figures break food losses down across seven commodity groups and five supply chain stages (agricultural production, postharvest handling and storage, processing and packaging, distribution and consumption). The applied percentage values by commodity type and supply chain stage are provided in S1 Table .

In order to calculate the total nutritional value at each supply chain stage, commodity mass quantities were multiplied by FAO macronutrient nutritional factors [ 11 ]. In this analysis, energy content (kilocalories), protein, and fat supply were analysed. Protein quality is a key concern for India in particular as a result of its largely grain-based diet, with grains tending to have poorer digestibility and amino acid (AA) profiles than animal-based products and plant-based legume alternatives [ 13 ]. To best quantify limitations in protein quality in the Indian diet, protein intakes have therefore been corrected for digestibility using FAO digestibility values [ 14 ].

For consistency, and to provide a better understanding of the food system down to the individual supply level, all metrics have been normalised to average per person per day (pppd) availability using UN population figures and prospects data [ 6 ]. Whilst this provides an average per capita availability value, it does not account for variability in actual macronutrient supply within the population. To help adjust for this, we have also estimated the assumed distribution of supply of each macronutrient using the FAO’s preferred log-normal distribution and India-specific coefficient variation (CV) factor of 0.26 [ 15 ]. Whilst we recognise that food requirements vary between demographics based on age, gender and activity levels, the normalisation of food units to average per capita supply levels is essential in providing relatable measures of food losses within the system, and its measure relative to demographically-weighted average nutritional requirements (as described below) is appropriate in providing an estimation of the risk of malnourishment.

Estimated macronutrient supply has then been compared to recommended intake values. The FAO defines the “Average Daily Energy Requirement” (ADER)—for India’s demographic specifically—as 2269kcal pppd; ADER is defined as the average caloric intake necessary to maintain a healthy weight based on the demographics, occupation, and activity levels of any given population [ 16 ]. Protein requirements can vary between similar individuals; recommended daily amounts (RDA) are therefore typically given as two standard deviations (SD) above the average requirement to provide a safety margin, which some individuals would be at risk of falling below. The World Health Organization (WHO) define a ‘safe’ (recommended) intake in adults of 0.83 grams per kilogram per day (g/kg/d) of body mass for proteins with a digestibility score of 1.0 [ 17 ]. The average vegetarian Indian diet contains lower intakes of animal-based complete proteins; the Indian Institute of Nutrition therefore recommends a higher intake of 1 g/kg/d of total protein for Indians to ensure requirements of high-quality protein are met [ 18 ]. This is equivalent to 55 and 60 grams of protein per day in average adult females and males, respectively based on mean body weight [ 19 ]. Since our analysis attempts to correct for protein digestibility, WHO’s lower safe intake of 0.83g/kg/d would reduce to an equivalent of 50 grams of high-quality protein per day for an average 60 kilogram individual. Consequently in this study we have adopted this RDA value of 50 gpppd.

Dietary fat intake plays a key dietary role in the absorption of essential micronutrients. Several vital vitamins, including vitamin A, D, E and K are fat-soluble—insufficient intake can therefore result in poor micronutrient absorption and utilisation [ 20 ]. Inadequate fat intake can therefore exacerbate the widespread ‘hidden hunger’ (micronutrient deficiency) challenge in India [ 21 ] through poor nutrient absorption. However, daily requirements for fatty acids are less straightforward to determine, relative to energy or protein—there is no widely-agreed figure for total fat requirements for adequate nutrition [ 22 ]. The resolution of food balance sheet data does not allow us to adequately quantity the availability to the level of specific fatty acids. As a result, although we have mapped pathways of total fat availability through the food system in a similar manner to energy and protein, we have not here attempted to quantity the prevalence of potential insufficiency at the household level.

Mapping potential near-term and long-term scenarios

Our initial analysis identified two mechanisms potentially crucial in increasing food availability at the household level: reduction of harvesting, postharvest and distribution losses; and improvements in crop yields. Medium-term (through to 2030) and long-term (2050) scenarios have therefore been mapped based on use of these mechanisms. It should be noted that these scenarios are focused on domestic supply-side measures to enhance food availability as opposed to demand drivers related to consumer preferences. A summary of assumptions used in each scenario in this analysis is provided in S2 Table .

A 2030 baseline scenario (assuming yields stagnate and population growth continues in line with UN projections) and three alternative scenarios to 2030 were analysed:

Scenario 1 (halving food supply chain losses): it was assumed that a significant shift in post-harvest management practices, appropriate refrigeration, and efficient distribution allowed for a halving of food loss percentages at the production, postharvest, processing and distribution stages of the supply chain. This would make its relative losses more in line with those of more developed nations [ 12 ]. In this scenario consumption (household) waste was assumed to remain constant.

Scenario 2 (achieving 50% of attainable yield (AY) across all key crops): the halving of food chain losses in scenario 1 was assumed. In addition, it was assumed that all key crops managed to achieve 50% AY through better agricultural management, irrigation and fertiliser practices. ‘Attainable yield’ is defined as the yield achieved with best management practices including pest, nutrient (i.e. nutrients are not limiting) and water management.

Scenario 3 (achieving 75% AY across all key crops): assumptions as in scenario 2 except an attainment of 75%, rather than 50% AY, has been assumed through crop yield improvements.

Long-term (through to 2050) scenarios were as follows:

Scenario 1 (halving food supply chain losses): the same assumption of halving food loss percentages at the production, postharvest, processing and distribution stages of the supply chain was applied in this scenario. This will require a significant shift in post-harvest management practices, appropriate refrigeration, and efficient distribution, hence 50% reduction represents a magnitude which is more likely to be achieved in this long-term scenario than in the near-term.

Scenario 2 (achieving 75% AY across all key crops): the same assumption of a closure of the yield gap to 75% AY across all crop types, as in the near-term scenario 3, was applied.

Scenario 3 (achieving 90% AY across all key crops): it was assumed that all crop types managed to achieve closure of the yield gap to 90% AY.

To correct for 2030 and 2050 population estimates, all metrics were re-normalised to ‘per person per day’ (pppd) based on a projected Indian population estimate from UN prospects medium fertility scenarios [ 6 ].

To best demonstrate the food production potential of current agricultural support mechanisms, such as governmental policy and subsidy (which largely determine crop choices), the relative allocation of crop production was assumed constant. It was also assumed that production increases were achieved through agricultural intensification alone; this assumption was based on FAOstats data which has shown no increase in agricultural land area over the past decade, indicating a stagnation in agricultural extensification ( http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#home ).

Crop yield increases were derived based on closure of current farm yields (FY) to reported attainable yields (AY). FY is defined as the average on-farm yield achieved by farmers within a given region, and AY is defined as the economically attainable (optimal) yield which could be achieved if best practices in water and pest management, fertiliser application and technologies are utilised in non-nutrient limiting conditions). Estimates of crop yield improvements were based on given percentage realisations of maximum attainable yields (AY) attained from published Indian crop-specific figures [ 23 ]. These data are available across all key crop types. Baseline and AY values are provided in S3 Table .

Significant improvements in yield would predominantly be achieved through improved nutrient and water management. In the present study, scenarios were mapped based on achievement of 50% and 75% AY in the near-term. Fifty percent AY should be technically feasible by 2030: many crops have already reached these values, and those which have yet to do so, typically fall short by 3–5% (see S3 Table for baseline, and AY values). Attainment of 75% AY would be highly ambitious in the near-term, representing an increase of >20% in yield. However, 75% AY and higher may be feasible in the long-term if significant investment in agricultural management and best practice were to be realised in this sector.

Our scenarios to 2050 are therefore modelled on the basis of closure of the yield gap to 75% and 90% AY. To assess whether these estimates were realistic, necessary growth rates were cross-checked based on historical yield growth rates in India. Discussion on this comparison and the suitability of attainable yield valuables utilised in this study are available in the Supplementary Discussion.

Climate change impacts on crop yields remain highly uncertain; the importance of temperature thresholds in overall crop tolerance makes yield impacts highly dependent on GHG emission scenarios. This makes it challenging to accurately quantify 2050 climate impacts. As such, we applied average percentage changes in yields of Indian staple crops based on literature review [ 24 ] of field-based observations and climate model results. The studies utilised presented results for a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 from pre-industrial levels. This approximates to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for 2050 [ 25 ]. The yield-climate factors applied in this analysis are provided in S4 Table .

It is projected that, through economic growth and shifts in dietary preferences, meat and dairy demand in India will continue to increase through to 2050. It has been assumed that per capita demand in 2050 is in line with FAO projections; this represents an increase in meat from 3.1kg per person per year (2007) to 18.3kg in 2050, and an increase in milk and dairy from 67kg to 110kg per person per year [ 26 ]. We here assume that this increase in livestock production has been met through increased production of crop-based animal feed rather than pasture. The change in macronutrient demand for animal feed was calculated based on energy and protein conversion efficiency factors for dominant livestock types (beef cattle, dairy cattle, ruminants and poultry) [ 27 ].

Our analysis assumes that the per person allocation of crops for resowing and non-food uses, and the relative allocation of land for respective crop selection, is the same as in the initial baseline (2011) analysis.

Current food system pathways

The pathways of macronutrients from crop production to residual food availability are shown for calories, digestible protein and fat in Fig 1A–1C . Across all macronutrients, the relative magnitude of exports, imports and stock variation is small, and approximately balance as inputs and outputs to the food system. This result is in line with India’s orientation towards meeting food demand through self-sufficiency agricultural policies [ 28 , 29 ]. This study’s scenarios are therefore designed to assess whether this same emphasis on self-sufficiency in food supply through to 2050 could be achieved through waste reduction and crop yield improvements alone.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

Food pathways in (a) calories; (b) digestible protein; and (c) fat from crop production to residual food availability, normalised to average per capita levels assuming equal distribution. Red bars (negative numbers) indicate food system losses; blue bars indicate system inputs; green bars indicate meat and dairy production; and grey bars indicate macronutrient availability at intermediate stages of the chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.g001

In 2011, India produced 3159kcal, 72g of digestible protein, and 86g of fat per person per day (pppd) ( Fig 1A–1C ). Across the system, this resulted in average food availability of 2039kcal, 48g digestible protein, and 49g fat pppd; this represents a loss across the food supply system of 35%, 33%, and 43% in calories, digestible protein, and fat respectively.

Our top-down supply model has been cross-checked against India’s National Sample Survey (NSS) data—this reports nutritional intakes bi-annually measured through national household surveys. In its 68 th Round (2011–12) report, the NSS reported average daily intakes of 2206kcal and 2233kcal in urban and rural areas, respectively; 60g of protein in both demographics; and 58g (urban) and 46g (rural) of fat [ 30 ]. Our top-down analysis therefore suggests slightly lower caloric availability than NSS intake figures (but with a discrepancy of <10%); and strong correlation regarding fat intake. Since NSS data reports total protein and take no account of quality or digestibility, our results of digestible protein are not directly comparable. However, with digestibility scores removed, our analysis suggests a total average protein availability of 57g pppd—within 5% of NSS intake results.

Despite the acknowledged uncertainties in FAO FBS datasets (see Supplementary discussion), the strong correlation (within 5–10%) between our top-down supply model and reported household intakes (bottom-up approach) gives confidence in the use of FBS data for high-level food chain analyses such as attempted here.

The largest sources of loss identified in the Indian food system for calories and protein lie in the agricultural production and post-harvest waste stages of the chain, with lower but significant losses in processing and distribution. Consumption-phase losses are comparatively small. Higher losses of fat occur predominantly due to the allocation of oilseed crops for non-food uses; this is in contrast to digestible protein where losses to competing non-food uses are negligible.

In contrast to the average global food supply system, the conversion of crop-based animal feed to meat and dairy produce in India appears comparatively efficient, with an input-output ratio close to one for calories and protein, and an apparent small production of fats [ 31 ]. It is one of the few agricultural systems in the world where the majority of livestock feed demand is met through crop residues, byproducts and pasture lands—its lactovegetarian preferences tend to favour pasture-fed dairy cattle over grain-fed livestock such as poultry (ibid).

Average per capita supply across all macronutrients falls below average per capita minimum requirements. The magnitude of this issue in India emerges via the population-intake distributions. With extension of average macronutrient availability to availability across the population distribution (using a log-normal distribution with CV of 0.26), 66% (826 million) and 56% (703 million) of the population are at risk of falling below recommended energy and protein requirements, respectively.

Potential future pathways

Scenario results for 2030..

Results from scenario analyses for potential food waste reduction and crop yield improvements are summarised in Table 1 . Note that we have assumed no change in income/dietary inequalities, hence the CV in distribution has remained constant.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.t001

Under all scenarios, waste or yield improvements fail to keep pace with population growth through to 2030; average per capita caloric, digestible protein and fat availability all fall below the 2011 baseline. Under current levels of dietary inequality, distribution of availability highlights even greater potential malnourishment. The majority (>75%) of the population are at risk of falling below requirements in energy and protein availability in all scenarios. This represents severe malnutrition across India in 2030, even in the case of significant and ambitious yield and efficiency improvements.

Under these scenarios, India would fall far short of reaching the SDG2 target of Zero Hunger by 2030.

Scenario results for 2050.

India’s anticipated population growth, in addition to potential impacts of climate change on crop yields, could have severe implications on household macronutrient supply by 2050. Our 2050 baseline scenario demonstrates these potential impacts, assuming gains in crop yields were to stagnate at current levels. The full supply chain pathways are shown in Fig 2A–2C . Even at the top level of the supply chain (crop production phase) mean provision per person would fall below average requirements in all macronutrients (2198kcal, 49g protein, and 60g fat per person). Although reducing food system losses plays an important role in improving availability at the household level, this result highlights the necessity of also achieving substantial crop yield improvements at the top of the supply chain.

Food pathways in (a) calories; (b) digestible protein; and (c) fat from crop production to residual food availability, normalised to average per capita levels assuming equal distribution under 2050 baseline conditions. Red bars (negative numbers) indicate food system losses; blue bars indicate system inputs; green bars indicate meat and dairy production; and grey bars indicate macronutrient availability at intermediate stages of the chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.g002

How these variables impact on availability at the household level in our 2050 baseline, and three scenarios is detailed in Table 2 , with baseline distributions provided in Supplementary Fig 1A–1C . As shown, even in the case of scenario 1 (halving of supply chain loss and waste), and scenario 2 (increase to 75% of AY), in 2050 greater than 80% of the population would potentially fall below average requirements in energy and protein. Only in the case of significant yield increases to 90% AY (scenario 3) would projected levels of malnourishment approach current levels. This would still leave 62% and 56% of the population at risk of falling below recommended caloric and protein requirements, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.t002

Our analysis utilised a framework for evaluation of the whole food system (from crop production through to residual food availability) by normalising to consistent and relatively simplistic metrics (per person per day). This holistic approach is critical for identifying levers within the food system which can be targeted for improvements in food security and efficiency of supply. The basic framework is replicable and could therefore be adapted for analysis of any dietary component (for example, micronutrients or amino acids and at a range of scales (global, regional, or national). This allows for similar analyses to be carried out for any nation, potentially allowing for improved understanding of hotspots in the food system and opportunities for improved efficiency. As such, it could then allow national food strategies to focus on components which are likely to maximise improvements.

Overall, our analyses indicate weaknesses in India’s current reliance on domestic food production. Further calculation, based on FAO FBS, make this explicit: in 2011 India’s population was 17.8% of the global total, yet produced only 10.8%, 9%, and 11.8% of the world’s total calories, digestible protein and fat respectively. Based on calculations using FAOstats global crop production data and nutritional composition factors, in 2011 world crop production totalled 1.34x10 16 kcal; 3.62x10 14 g digestible protein; and 3.33x10 14 g fat. 2011 Indian production amounted to 1.44x10 15 kcal; 3.27x10 13 g digestible protein; and 3.93x10 13 g fat. Even in a highly efficient food system, self-sufficiency is impossible to achieve based on such production levels and the need to provide sufficient nourishment for all. Likewise, even if Indian population figures were to plateau, it is unlikely that domestic production alone would be sufficient to close the current food gap.

Current malnutrition levels—defined here as insufficient macronutrient availability—in India are already high. Sufficient nutrition requires adequate availability and intake of all three macronutrients. Impacts of insufficient protein and energy intake can often be difficult to decouple, and are often termed protein-energy malnourishment (PEM)—PEM has a number of negative consequences including reduced physical and mental development [ 32 ]; increased susceptibility to disease and infection; poorer recovery and increased mortality from disease; and lower productivity [ 33 ]. Our results indicate that India’s self-sufficiency model—a reliance on domestic crop yield increases and waste reduction strategies—will be insufficient to meet requirements across all three macronutrients. Levels of undersupply and consequent malnutrition would show a significant increase in both 2030 and 2050 scenarios.

This has important implications for forward planning to effectively address malnutrition. Policy incentives in Indian agriculture since the Green Revolution have predominantly been focused on achieving caloric food security through increased production of cereals (wheat and rice) [ 9 ]. This has resulted in a heavily carbohydrate-based diet (> 65–70% total energy intake [ 34 ]) which may be significantly lacking in adequate diversity for provision of other important nutrients [ 35 ]. Widespread lactovegetarian preferences have further reduced the scope for dietary diversity [ 36 ].

If trying to address caloric inadequacy alone, efforts to increase output of energy-dense crops (i.e. cereals, roots and tubers) may seem appropriate, and has largely been India’s focus to date [ 8 ]. Our analysis, however, strongly suggests the need to shift dietary composition away from reliance on carbohydrates towards a more diversified intake of protein and fats (with diversification also contributing to a reduction in micronutrient deficiency) [ 37 ]. Forward planning therefore needs to simultaneously address caloric inadequacy and malnourishment through balanced, increased supply and intake of high-quality proteins and fats.

Our examination of macronutrient supply in India indicates large inequalities in availability across the population. This is likely to be closely coupled to the high levels of income inequality and poverty which remain in India today [ 8 ]. Large inequalities in food supply and dietary intake will make it increasingly difficult for India to address its malnutrition challenges; our assessment of potential improvement scenarios highlight that, even in cases where average macronutrient supplies meet requirements, the high CV in distribution still leaves a large proportion of the total population at risk of malnourishment. Whilst the RDA values used in this analysis account for distribution in nutritional requirements of individuals, they do not account for the distribution in intake. To meet SDG2 (whereby all individuals’ requirements are met) at current levels of inequality, the national mean intake would therefore have to increase to 3600kcal pppd; 82g pppd digestible protein; and 105g pppd fat. This is well above current national pppd supply values, even if crop production-phase level were to be at the top of the food system.

It should be emphasised that this work is a largely computational, supply-driven analysis exploring the domestic capacity of India’s food. Our results are not intended to imply actual future scenarios of Indian malnutrition. Projections of acute food shortage implied within this analysis would be likely to drive market and policy interventions including enhanced trade, in addition to changes in consumer and producer responses. The interaction between supply and demand-side measures, commodity prices, trade, and governmental policy creates an important feedback loop for food pricing, affordability and production [ 38 ]. For example, the estimated reduction in per capita food supply and domestic food shortage would be expected to drive an increase in food prices [ 39 , 40 ]. Rising food prices (as are expected across a number of countries where food demand continues to grow [ 41 ]) create a number of producer and consumer impacts, including per capita food expenditure, reduced purchasing power for expensive commodities such as meat and dairy products [ 42 ], farmer incentives and agricultural investment. Analysis of the drivers of historical food price volatility and inflation in India suggests that both supply and demand-side factors (and the interaction between) play an important role [ 40 ].

The impact of feedbacks such as reduced meat and dairy demand (thereby reducing demands for feed, with further feedbacks on food supply and commodity prices) are not reflected within these scenarios, but will play an important role in determining food system dynamics. The impact of domestic food shortages, agricultural prices and balance within international markets is particularly pronounced in India where the agricultural sector accounts for the employment and income of a large percentage of the population [ 43 ]. Literature on the interactions between poverty, agriculture and food prices is extensive; many studies indicate that, since a large share of the world’s poor are rural, high food prices have a positive long-term impact on poverty reduction. However they have negative impacts on poverty and malnutrition in the short-term [ 39 , 44 – 48 ]. The lack of domestic capacity in India to meet the full nutritional needs (balancing caloric, protein and micronutrient requirements) of its population is likely to increase the demand for commodity imports. This in turn creates further feedbacks on domestic prices, farmer income and inevitably poverty reduction [ 46 ]. Further work on the economic dimension to Indian food security—within the context of value chain potential and efficiency evaluations in this study—is therefore crucial to develop better understanding of their interactions and policy responses.

Overall, our results highlighted several key points:

production quantities at the farm level are very low relative to global average production;
low import and export values produce an approximately balanced trade model; this correlates with India’s self-sufficiency focused agricultural and food policies;
harvesting, post-harvest and distribution losses in the supply chain form a large proportion of total food system inefficiencies;
a moderate amount of energy and fat (but not protein) is allocated to non-food uses, although this is significantly less than global average non-food allocation;
India’s caloric and protein losses in the conversion of edible crops to livestock are small due to the dominance of pasture-fed livestock such as dairy cattle. The large nutritional gains achieved through increased milk consumption in India suggest this may be a beneficial trade-off in agricultural land for provision of high-quality protein.

Our examination of the food supply chain in India identified harvesting, handling and storage losses, and top-level crop production to be the key intervention phases for improving food security. The approach not only adds value in the identification of ‘hotspots’ of wastage and inefficiency, but also allows for an understanding of the magnitude of change required to produce a certain food supply chain-wide result. Our analysis highlighted that, despite being an important mechanism for improving food security, even a 50% reduction in food loss/waste (a challenge that is achievable but would take significant economic, infrastructural and educational investment) alone would be largely insufficient in ensuring food security in India.

Increased production at the agricultural level must therefore be a focus for both near and long-term food security. The viability of achieving yields close to 75% AY in the near-term (to 2030), across the range of available crops, needs to be more closely considered. For several staple crops, a yield increase upwards of 30% and 50% would be required for attainment of 75% and 90% AY, respectively (see S2 Table ). The challenge in reaching close to 90% AY (i.e. almost maximum yield) is substantial; many developed countries have not yet reached such levels [ 23 ].

The potential resource limits and environmental implications needed to achieve such yields also need to be given consideration in order to optimise crop selection and mitigate negative impacts. The yield gap could predominantly be closed through improved water and nutrient management [ 23 ]. Depleting groundwater resources through agricultural irrigation in India raises key concerns over long-term water security [ 49 ][ 50 ], and whether water availability is likely to impose a resource limit on yield attainment. Improved yields through increased fertiliser application raise similar sustainability concerns; nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is a key source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major source being microbially-mediated emissions as a result of nitrogen fertiliser application to agricultural soils [ 51 ]. There may therefore be a significant GHG penalty in closing the current yield gap.

It should be noted that this study has considered only yield improvements through traditional crop varieties. Genetic variation and modification of crop strains may offer further potential for yield increases, in addition to increased resilience to pests, disease and climatic impacts [ 52 ]. However, with the exception of Bt Cotton, genetically modified (GM) crop varieties are banned from commercial crop production [ 53 ]. Despite the introduction of GM field trials in recent years, they continue to face significant resistance across a range of stakeholder groups [ 54 ].

Our analyses for 2050 highlight severe food security challenges for India, even in scenarios which assume attainment of 90% AY for all crops. In addition to the hotspots identified for further focus to achieve near-term improvements, long-term strategies require increased consideration of the impact of potential climatic changes. India’s staple crops–wheat and rice—show particular vulnerability; in the near-term, CO 2 fertilisation may offer some positive yield impacts, however, simulated climate models suggest this effect is likely to be cancelled out if global mean temperature increase reaches a 3°C threshold in wheat (2°C for rice) [ 55 ]. This suggests negative climate impacts may only begin to arise from mid-century onwards. Failure to build capacity and agricultural resilience in the interim could result in severe food deficits should a 2°C or 3°C warming threshold be breached. Planning strategies should therefore not only aim to adapt to gradual near-term impacts of a changing climate, but importantly focus on capacity-building for a resilient food system in a warmer post-2050 world.

Our 2050 scenarios are based on assumptions which are sensitive to change; we have assumed BAU climatic-yield factors, and increased meat and dairy intakes in line with FAO projections. Both of these assumptions could change based on global GHG mitigation progress, and governmental or social interventions on meat consumption. In addition, it is recognised that some potential climatic impacts could be reduced through shifts in crop production regions and seasonal cropping patterns [ 24 ]. While such changes may marginally change the scale of the food supply and malnutrition challenge, the overall conclusions remain the same. Climatic and livestock impacts may serve to exacerbate the issue, however, India would continue to face a severe risk of domestic food shortages regardless of these additional pressures.

To deliver effective recommendations for addressing macronutrient undersupply and malnutrition, two key components need to be further explored. Firstly, there needs to be better understanding of optimal crop selections to maximise production and consumer supply of energy, digestible protein and fats alike. This has to be analysed with key resource and environmental constraints in mind to deliver a more optimal and sustainable domestic food system. This should include consideration of options outwith traditional domestic agricultural practice, such as genetic modification, industrial biotechnology and biofortification [ 56 , 57 ].

Secondly, India’s role within global food markets needs to be more closely assessed. To successfully address malnutrition, India will likely have to fill the gap between domestic production and food demand through increased imports. Food imports can have a significant impact on domestic prices, and the dominance of agriculture as a primary source of employment in India may be a negative influence on farmer livelihoods [ 9 ]; and further, a large increase in food imports could potentially reduce energy-protein intake for the poorest 30% of the population [ 46 ]. This means appropriate economic and social analysis must be carried out to try to optimise import quantities and products which will have minimal domestic impacts. The importance of reducing economic and dietary inequalities makes this even more crucial.

In order to ensure a resilient food system, such analyses and recommendations should be made alongside consideration of potential climatic impacts in the medium- and long-term. This would allow for appropriate choices to be made in the near-term that are also sustainable in a changing climate. The implications of our analysis for health, social, and environmental policy is discussed in detail in our Supplementary Discussion.

Closing its current food supply and nutrition gap while meeting increasing population demand will require a combination of domestic measures to improve agricultural practice and subsequent yields, in addition to a well-planned increase in food imports.

Supporting information

S1 file. supplementary discussion..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s001

S1 Table. Loss and waste percentages by food chain stage and commodity group for South and Southeast Asia.

Due to poor data availability on India-specific food loss figures, regional average figures from the FAO were applied to derive estimates of macronutrient losses at each stage in the Indian commodity chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s002

S2 Table. Assumptions and sources for figures used within all scenarios from 2011 baseline to 2050 scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s003

S3 Table. Indian baseline and attainable yield (AY) values for key crop types.

Year 2000 and all attainable yield values have been derived from Mueller et al. (2012)[ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ](23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(22)(21)(21)(21), and 2011 yield data derived from the FAOstats database ( http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#home ). The necessary percentage increase in yield from 2011 levels to reach each of the AY values has also been shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s004

S4 Table. Average estimated climatic impacts on Indian crop yields in 2050.

Average values have been assumed based on the range of historic studies on yield sensitivities and climatic models within literature review [ 24 ]. These models are projected on the basis of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial (which is approximately equivalent to a business-as-usual scenario).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s005

1. United Nations. Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: 2001.
2. Klaus von Grebmer, Jill Bernstein, Nilam Prasai, Shazia Amin YY. Global Hunger Index: Getting to Zero Hunger. Washington, DC: 2016.
View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
6. United Nations. UN Population Prospects 2015. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ (accessed February 6, 2016).
11. FAO. Food Balance Sheets Handbook. Rome: 2001.
12. FAO. Global food losses and food waste–Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: 2011.
14. World Health Organization. Energy and protein requirements. Geneva: 1991.
15. FAO. Refinements To the FAO Methodology for Estimating the Prevalence of Undernourishment Indicator. Rome: 2014.
16. FAO, IFAD, WFP. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. 2015. I4646E/1/05.15.
17. WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. Geneva: 2007. ISBN 92 4 120935 6.
18. National Institute of Nutrition. Nutrient Requirements and Recommended Dietary Allowances for Indians. 2009.
22. FAO/WHO. Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition, Report of an expert consultation. vol. 91. Rome: 2008. 978-92-5-106733-8.
25. IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary Chapter for Policymakers. IPCC Fifth Assess Rep 2014. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
29. Subramaniam GS, Subramaniam SR. Does India attain self sufficiency in food production? 2009.
30. National Sample Survey Office. Nutritional Intake in India, 2011–12. vol. 471. New Delhi: 2014.
38. Evans A. Rising Food Prices: Drivers and Implications for Development. London: 2008.
40. Sekhar CS., Roy D, Bhatt Y. Food Inflation and Food Price Volatility in India: Trends and Determinants. New Delhi: 2017.
43. World Bank. World Development Indicators 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed June 6, 2017).
44. Polaski S. Rising Food Prices, Poverty, and the Doha Round. Washington D.C.: 2008.
45. Headey D. Food Prices and Poverty Reduction in the Long Run. Washington D.C.: 2014.
46. Panda M, Ganesh-Kumar A. Trade liberalization, poverty, and food security in India. New Delhi: 2009.

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Measuring Food Insecurity in India: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence

Affiliations.

1 School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. [email protected].
2 Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. [email protected].
3 School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
4 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
PMID: 37022635
PMCID: PMC10264273
DOI: 10.1007/s13668-023-00470-3

Purpose of review: India is home to an estimated 200 million malnourished people, suggesting widespread food insecurity. However, variations in the methods used for determining food insecurity status mean there is uncertainty in the data and severity of food insecurity across the country. This systematic review investigated the peer-reviewed literature examining food insecurity in India to identify both the breadth of research being conducted as well as the instruments used and the populations under study.

Recent findings: Nine databases were searched in March 2020. After excluding articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 53 articles were reviewed. The most common tool for measuring food insecurity was the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), followed by the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). Reported food insecurity ranged from 8.7 to 99% depending on the measurement tool and population under investigation. This study found variations in methods for the assessment of food insecurity in India and the reliance on cross-sectional studies. Based on the findings of this review and the size and diversity of the Indian population, there is an opportunity for the development and implementation of an Indian-specific food security measure to allow researchers to collect better data on food insecurity. Considering India's widespread malnutrition and high prevalence of food insecurity, the development of such a tool will go part of way in addressing nutrition-related public health in India.

Keywords: Food insecurity; Health; India; Measurement; Nutrition; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have worked in paid and unpaid roles with not-for-profit food security organizations or with organizations that focus on pregnancy and/or nutrition outcomes. No other COI to declare.

Flow chart of articles meeting…

Flow chart of articles meeting search criteria, number of articles excluded, and final…

Distribution of studies exploring food…

Distribution of studies exploring food insecurity in India

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central
MedlinePlus Health Information

Research Materials

NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Open access
Published: 09 January 2023

Food insecurity and its determinants among adults in North and South India

Anjali Ganpule ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0821-0673 1 ,
Kerry Ann Brown ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-5336 2 ,
Manisha Dubey ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2879-903X 1 ,
Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4037-6371 1 , 3 ,
Prashant Jarhyan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5020-3995 3 ,
Avinav Prasad Maddury ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0099-4370 3 ,
Rajesh Khatkar ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1004-6702 3 ,
Himanshi Pandey ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7076-049X 1 ,
Dorairaj Prabhakaran ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-834X 1 , 3 , 4 &
Sailesh Mohan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1853-3596 1 , 3 , 5

Nutrition Journal volume 22 , Article number: 2 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

9407 Accesses

9 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Food insecurity is a major public health problem worldwide. In India, there are limited food insecurity assessment studies using a conventionally accepted method like the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), developed by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). This study aims to measure food insecurity using the FIES and explore its determinants and association with body mass index (BMI) among Indian adults.

In a cross-sectional study, we used FIES to measure food security in a sample of 9005 adults residing in North and South India. Using questionnaires, socio-demographic factors, dietary intake and food security data were collected. The dietary diversity scores (FAO-IDDS) and food insecurity scores (FAO-FIES) were calculated. Body size was measured and BMI was calculated.

The mean age of the study participants was 52.4 years (± 11.7); half were women and half resided in rural areas. Around 10% of the participants reported having experienced (mild or moderate or severe) food insecurity between October 2018 and February 2019. Dietary diversity (measured by FAO’s Individual Dietary Diversity Scores, IDDS) was low and half of the participants consumed ≤ 3 food groups/day. The mean BMI was 24.7 kg/m 2 . In the multivariate analysis, a lower IDDS and BMI were associated with a higher FIES. The place of residence, gender and wealth index were important determinants of FIES, with those residing in South India, women and those belonging to the poorest wealth index reporting higher food insecurity.

Food security is understudied in India. Our study adds important evidence to the literature. Despite having marginal food insecurity, high prevalence of low diet quality, especially among women, is disconcerting. Similar studies at the national level are warranted to determine the food insecurity situation comprehensively in India and plan appropriate policy actions to address it effectively, to attain the key Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Food security entails access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets people’s dietary needs and food preferences, for leading an active and healthy life [ 1 ]. Despite India being among the fastest growing economies in the world and ranking second worldwide in farm output [ 2 ], the country still faces hunger and diet quality-related issues. Not surprisingly, India is ranked 101 out of 116 countries in the most recent Global Hunger Index report [ 3 ]. It shows that India is still lagging behind when it comes to meeting hunger-related United Nations Global Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., zero hunger (Goal 2), good health and well-being (Goal 3) and in supply of sufficient quantities of food to ensure adequate availability [ 4 ]. An examination of the food insecurity dynamics based on the National Sample Survey data on household consumer expenditure in India since year 2000 revealed that the overall rate of food insecurity has declined, but at a very slow pace [ 5 ]. Thus, monitoring the food insecurity situation and taking immediate policy actions is a public health priority for India.

In the past, multiple proxy measures like anthropometry [ 6 ], wealth index and literacy [ 7 ] have been used to assess food insecurity, mainly as food adequacy. However, food insecurity in the Indian context requires measurement of both food inadequacy [ 4 ] and micro-nutrient deficiency, considering that both are highly prevalent [ 8 ]. Studies around the world also demonstrate the need for this as food insecurity is closely linked to the quality of diets and malnutrition in all its forms [ 9 , 10 ]. Thus, measuring food insecurity using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ 11 ], which captures both hunger and micronutrient deficiencies, is appropriate in the Indian context. The FAO developed the FIES tool in 2016 [ 11 ], which is globally accepted as a robust and cost-effective indicator or measure of food insecurity [ 11 , 12 ]. It allows the measurement of mild, moderate and severe food insecurity. Mild food insecurity is experienced when hunger is addressed through the intake of cereal-based foods but there is a lack of dietary diversity and variety of food, while severe food insecurity is experienced when people are hungry as they do not get enough food to eat. Validation studies of FIES in India were conducted in 2012 and 2014 among 3,000 individuals and published in the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (SOFI) [ 13 ]. However, very few studies have used FIES to assess food insecurity in India [ 14 ]. Understanding the country-specific context, drivers, and determinants of food insecurity is important [ 15 ]. This can support the planning of targeted interventions as well as effective policies and programs.

Multiple studies show an association of under-and overnutrition with food insecurity [ 16 , 17 ]. Thus, there is a need to study its association with a nutritional outcome like BMI through country-specific studies [ 18 ], particularly in low-middle income countries (LMICs) [ 19 ]. The current study addressed these gaps in the evidence base by measuring the prevalence of food insecurity using FIES, studying its association with socio-demographic factors, economic factors, dietary diversity and BMI among residents of rural and urban households in north and south India.

Materials and methods

Study design.

The analysis presented in this paper is based on data from the UDAY cohort study’s baseline follow-up survey, conducted during October 2018-February 2019, among adult members of urban and rural households in Sonipat (north India) and Vizag (south India) (Fig. 1 ). The methodology of the surveys in the UDAY cohort has been published previously [ 20 ]. Briefly, the study enrolled 12,000 individuals aged ≥ 30 years and was established to improve the prevention, detection and management of diabetes and hypertension.

Flowchart of the study participants. Note: For the present study, cross-sectional data from a larger longitudinal study UDAY are presented. A flow diagram of participants in this longitudinal study has been published elsewhere (Mohan, Set al. 2018). There was no exclusion of the participants. All 9005 participants responded and were included in the study. Socio-demographic, dietary and food security data are available for all the participants based on which the results are presented. BMI data was available for 8718 participants

Measurements

Trained research staff carried out the measurements, which were closely monitored for quality assurance.

Demographics

Information on age, sex, residence (urban or rural), state (Haryana or Andhra Pradesh), household assets were collected through a questionnaire.

Food insecurity

Food insecurity was measured using the FAO’s FIES eight-item scale, which asks participants to self-report food-related behaviours and experiences associated with increasing difficulties in accessing food due to resource constraints [ 11 ]. As per the standard protocol, participants who responded with a “yes” to 1) being worried about not having enough food or 2) were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food or 3) eating only a few kinds of food, were scored as having mild food insecurity. Those who responded with a “yes” to 4) to skip a meal or 5) ate less or 6) ran out of food, were scored as having moderate food insecurity, while those who responded with a “yes” to 7) were hungry but did not eat or 8) went without eating for a whole day, were scored as having severe food insecurity. The validity of FIES scores as a continuous variable was checked using the Rasch model, as suggested by the FAO (2016). Infit for all questions was within the limit (< 1.3), as recommended by FAO, except for an item (Whole day without eating. Infit:1.35). The outfit was within the limit (< 2.0) for all items except for one item (Whole day without eating. Outfit: 3.54). We dropped this item for further analysis as recommended. For the question “You went without eating for a whole day?” there were only 102/9005 responses and the Rasch model infit was > 1.3. Thus, as per the FAO protocol, after removing these responses, we calculated the proportion of participants experiencing total FIES scores (ranging from 1 to 7), which was used as a continuous variable for the multiple regression analysis.

Dietary diversity

We conducted an individual food consumption survey using the food frequency questionnaire. Using these data, the individual dietary diversity score (IDDS) was calculated to assess the quality of diet [ 21 ]. Foods were grouped according to the characteristics and nutrient profile predetermined by the FAO for the IDDS as 1) All starchy staples 2) Legumes 3) Milk and milk products 4) Meat and fish 5) Eggs 6) Dark green leafy vegetables, and 7) Other fruits and vegetables. For a food group to be counted in the dietary diversity analysis, the minimum average quantity was set at ≥ 15 g/d. The maximum score of the IDDS was 7 instead of 9 as we did not separately recall for two groups: vitamin A-rich fruits vegetables and organ meats.

Body Mass Index (BMI)

Body weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg and height to the nearest 0.1 cm, following the standard procedure [ 22 ] and BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared.

Wealth index

Wealth index was calculated separately for participants from rural and urban areas [ 23 ] using principal component analysis (PCA), which was based on the ownership of 12 household assets (radio, TV, computer, phone, fridge, bike, scooter, car, washing machine, sewing machine, house, and land), and 5 key housing characteristics (water supply, type of toilet and whether it is shared, cooking fuel, housing material, and source of lighting). The first component in the PCA was extracted and divided into quintiles- the first quintile being the poorest and the fifth being the richest.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as means (standard deviation [SD]) and categorical variables as frequencies (%). Two sample t-test or Mann Whitney U tests were used based on the distribution of the data for examining the differences in the FIES by wealth index, IDDS and BMI. Multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and place of residence (rural/urban) was done to study the association of various factors such as IDDS, BMI and wealth index with FIES. We performed mediation analysis using the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) test to estimate the effect of IDDS on FIES through BMI. The statistical analysis was done using Stata version 16.1 (Stata Corp).

The STROBE-Nut checklist is provided as an additional file .

The study included 9005 participants with a mean age of 52.4 (± SD 11.7) years (Table 1 ). Around half the participants were women and resided in rural areas. Participants from Sonipat were richer compared to those residing in Vizag, as indicated by the wealth index.

Prevalence of food insecurity

About 10% of the participants experienced food insecurity. A higher proportion of participants reported mild FIES than moderate or severe FIES (Fig. 2 ). Women were more likely to report food insecurity than men (Table 1 ). Rural residents had higher food insecurity compared to their urban counterparts. Participants from Vizag reported significantly higher food insecurity compared to those in Sonipat.

Distribution of the study participants by levels of food insecurity. Legend: The figure describes distribution of participants by the levels of food security as mild, moderate and severe. It shows the food insecurity among men and women in Sonipat and Vizag

Dietary diversity was low (mean 3.5 ± SD 0.8). Overall dietary diversity was higher ( p < 0.05) in Vizag (3.7 ± SD 0.9) compared to Sonipat (3.3 ± 0.8). Dietary diversity was lower in rural compared to urban areas (Table 1 ). About 90% of participants from Sonipat consumed vegetarian diets, while in Vizag > 80% consumed nonvegetarian diets consisting of eggs and fish, while meat was consumed less frequently. The IDDS food groups consumed daily were calorie-rich food groups, i.e., starchy staples, other fruits and vegetables. Protein-rich foods such as dairy were consumed daily (Fig. 3 ). Consumption of nutrient-rich food groups, i.e., green leafy vegetables, vitamin A and C-rich fruits and vegetables and non-vegetarian foods was low. A higher proportion of women consumed green leafy vegetables and legumes than men. In Vizag, men consumed nonvegetarian foods in higher proportions than women.

Distribution of the study participants by IDDS food groups. Legend: The figure reports the proportion of participants consuming various dietary diversity food groups in Sonipat and Vizag by gender and place of residence

Body mass index (BMI)

The mean BMI was 24.8 ± SD 5.7 kg/m 2 ( p < 0.001 for all differences). Mean BMI was higher in women, participants from urban areas and in Sonipat ( p -value < 0.001) (Table 1 ).

Mediation and regression analysis

We studied the association between IDDS, BMI and FIES using mediation analysis. BMI and IDDS were directly and significantly associated with each other, while both were inversely associated with FIES. Thus, those who had higher IDDS and BMI reported less food insecurity. The indirect effect of IDDS on FIES (via BMI) was found to be around 35% ( p < 0.01), indicating that the association between IDDS and FIES was indirectly mediated through BMI (Fig. 4 ). In multivariate linear regression analysis (adjusted for state, residence, age, sex and wealth index), IDDS and BMI were inversely associated with FIES. The age of the participants and urban/rural residence were not significant in the multivariate model, while the state of residence, sex, and wealth index were important determinants of FIES. Women reported experiencing significantly higher food insecurity than men. Further, those residing in Vizag and those belonging to the poorest wealth index had higher food insecurity (Table 2 ).

Mediation analysis between dietary diversity, body mass index and food insecurity scores. Legend: The figure shows the results of mediation analysis between BMI, IDDS and FIES. p -value for B1 is 0.113 (insignificant) and for B2 and B3, it is < 0.001 (significant). This indicates that IDDS is associated with food insecurity through BMI

The overall prevalence of food insecurity was low at about 10%. A relatively lower proportion (3%) of the participants reported moderate or severe food insecurity, while mild food insecurity was the highest, being reported by 6.4% of the participants. Dietary diversity was low with lesser consumption of nutrient-rich food groups like vegetables, fruits and protein-rich foods. Most of the participants met their daily calorific requirements through the consumption of starchy staples and starchy vegetables. The mean BMI was 24.7 kg/m 2 , which was directly associated with diet diversity scores. Both diet diversity and BMI were inversely associated with FIES. Further, we found gender and economic status to be significant determinants of FIES among the participants.

Compared to the levels reported in the SOFI report (2020), which shows a high prevalence (24%) of severe food insecurity, the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity was low in our study population. One likely reason for this difference could be that the participants in this study resided in economically stable states. Haryana ranks 12 th , while Andhra Pradesh ranks 27 th among 36 Indian states in the Human Development Index (HDI) of the Government of India 2021 [ 24 ]. Our finding of mild food insecurity even in economically stable states is disconcerting. Levels of food insecurity may be much higher in less economically stable states of India. It is thus necessary to establish a baseline and monitor the levels of food insecurity at regular intervals through periodic surveys in all states of India. This is required to plan rigorous and continuous remedial measures to address food insecurity effectively. Present-day threats like COVID-19 pandemic, which results in both health and economic downturns and shocks like climate change induced global warming, that affect all aspects of the food systems, underline the need for such a strategy, as populations can rapidly move between states of being food insecure or food secure.

We found that at the individual level, FIES appropriately measured both hunger and micronutrient deficiencies, and thus is applicable to the Indian context. The tool is globally accepted and recommended for monitoring achievements related the SDG goals [ 25 ]. It applies to both developed and developing countries as it is pre-tested and validated using data from 147 countries [ 26 ]. The findings of mild food insecurity also likely indicate limited access and availability of diverse healthy and nutritious foods. The association of FIES with economic status additionally hints at the affordability issues. Earlier studies have also reported that affordability and accessibility of healthy foods [ 27 , 28 ] can affect food insecurity.

There are efforts at the national level being undertaken to address these issues. For example, the Government of India has undertaken many reforms of the country’s social safety net programs to improve delivery on nutrition and food security targets [ 29 ]. The EAT right campaign of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI 2021), has brought sustainability into the national nutrition agenda. Additionally, studies suggest the need to expand the food subsidy programs under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) [ 30 ], and the need to include the nutrient-rich food groups in these programs [ 31 ]. To improve consumer practices and awareness related to fruit and vegetable consumption, specific interventions [ 32 ] and nutrition education campaigns [ 33 , 34 ] have also been found to be effective to a certain extent. Overall, a comprehensive holistic approach with targeted interventions will be helpful for improving the consumption of nutrient-rich foods and attaining food security over time.

In the past, studies have reported inconsistent associations of food insecurity with undernutrition and overnutrition. For example, a meta-analysis from 12 countries reported that food insecurity increases the risk of underweight and stunting in children and adolescents [ 16 ]. A longitudinal mixed-method study among adults in the United States reported that food insecurity was associated with an increase in BMI [ 35 ]. In a review of 13 studies, which explored the relationship between food insecurity and overweight/obesity in LMICs, four found a positive association between food insecurity and obesity/overweight; five found no association; and the remaining study found a negative association [ 19 ]. Our study showed that those who had higher food insecurity had higher BMI. This was irrespective of the socio-demographic and economic factors.

One of the key findings is the effect of gender on the food insecurity experience. Women reported higher food insecurity than men. A systematic review and meta-analysis of gender differences in food security revealed that women-headed households reported higher food insecurity [ 36 ]. Even though women contribute to one-half of the world’s food production, they face many inequities, such as access to a lower amount of food and a lower proportion of nutrient-rich food. A few studies have reported gender differences in food and calorie allocation at the household level [ 37 , 38 ]. We found that women, especially from rural area, had lower consumption of nutrient-rich foods such as dairy, fruits-vegetables and nonvegetarian foods. These findings warrant gender-sensitive policies to ensure that all have equal access to nutrient-rich diets.

At present, food systems are facing challenges due to disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 39 ], which has resulted in decreased economic activity, widespread unemployment, and widening health inequalities [ 40 ]. To address such shocks that disrupt food systems, effective policies are necessary both at the local and global levels [ 41 ]. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goal of Zero Hunger by 2030 and to tackle food insecurity, a more responsive food system that meets people’s needs is warranted. This should be aligned with contextually relevant research and targeted policy efforts to make the food system more climate-resilient, nutrition-sensitive and sustainable [ 42 ]. Further, the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition [ 43 ] suggests enhancing and repurposing food-based dietary guidelines and new measures of successes to guide policy decisions, and a new set of incentives to rebalance food prices, to simultaneously address challenges of affordability, availability, consumer demand, and sustainability, which have a direct and significant impact on food security.

Our study reports mild food insecurity in adults from relatively well-developed states in India. It underlines the need for regular monitoring of the food insecurity situation in India along with the measurement of diet quality and malnutrition, using robust methods. Policies to reduce gender inequalities and increase public awareness about healthy and nutritious diets are warranted.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Body Mass Index

Food and Agricultural Organization

Food Insecurity Experience Scale

Individual Dietary Diversity Scores

FAO. The state of food insecurity in the world: Economic crises-impacts and lessons learned. Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization; 2009.

Jaswal S. Challenges of food security in India. IOSR-JHSS. 2014; Volume 19, Issue 4, Ver. II, PP 93-100 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.

GHI. Global Hunger Index Scores by 2022 GHI Rank: Global Hunger Index.

Von Grebmer K, Bernstein J, Alders R, Dar O, Kock R, Rampa F, et al. Global Hunger Index: One decade to zero hunger: Linking health and sustainable food systems. Bonn: Welthungerhilfe; and Dublin: Concern Worldwide. 2020.

Bhuyan B, Sahoo BK, Suar D. Food insecurity dynamics in India: A synthetic panel approach. Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2020;2(1):100029.

Google Scholar

Jones AD, Ngure FM, Pelto G, Young SL. What are we assessing when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(5):481–505.

Article Google Scholar

Harris-Fry H, Azad K, Kuddus A, Shaha S, Nahar B, Hossen M, et al. Socio-economic determinants of household food security and women’s dietary diversity in rural Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. J Heal Popul Nutr. 2015;33(1):1–12.

Venkatesh U, Sharma A, Ananthan VA, Subbiah P, Durga R. Micronutrient’s deficiency in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nutr Sci. 2021;10:e110.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Nyakundi FN, Mutua M, Lung’Aho MG, Chege CK, Ndung’u J, Nungo R, et al. Survey data on income, food security, and dietary behavior among women and children from households of differing socio-economic status in urban and peri-urban areas of Nairobi, Kenya. Data Br. 2020;33:106542.

Frongillo EA, Bernal J. Understanding the coexistence of food insecurity and obesity. Curr Pediatr Rep. 2014;2(4):284–90.

FAO. Implementing the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) in surveys. Food and Agricultural Organization. 2016.

Ghattas H. Food Security and Nutrition in the context of the Global Nutrition Transition. Rome: Food Agric Organ; 2014.

The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome: Food & Agricultural Organization; 2020.

Sethi V, Maitra C, Avula R, Unisa S, Bhalla S. Internal validity and reliability of experience-based household food insecurity scales in Indian settings. Agric Food Secur. 2017;6(1):1–17.

Frongillo EA, Nguyen HT, Smith MD, Coleman-Jensen A. Food insecurity is more strongly associated with poor subjective well-being in more-developed countries than in less-developed countries. J Nutr. 2019;149(2):330–5.

Moradi S, Mirzababaei A, Mohammadi H, Moosavian SP, Arab A, Jannat B, et al. Food insecurity and the risk of undernutrition complications among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition. 2019;62:52–60.

Hartline-Grafton H. Understanding the connections: Food insecurity and obesity. Food Res Action Cent. 2015.

Brown AGM, Esposito LE, Fisher RA, Nicastro HL, Tabor DC, Walker JR. Food insecurity and obesity: research gaps, opportunities, and challenges. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(5):980–7.

Farrell P, Thow AM, Abimbola S, Faruqui N, Negin J. How food insecurity could lead to obesity in LMICs: when not enough is too much: a realist review of how food insecurity could lead to obesity in low-and middle-income countries. Health Promot Int. 2018;33(5):812–26.

Mohan S, Jarhyan P, Ghosh S, Venkateshmurthy NS, Gupta R, Rana R, et al. UDAY: A comprehensive diabetes and hypertension prevention and management program in India. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e015919.

Kennedy G, Ballard T, Dop MC. Guidelines for measuring household and individual dietary diversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011.

Organization WH. Physical status: The use of and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee: World Health Organization; 1995.

Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography. 2001;38(1):115–32.

CAS Google Scholar

List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index. 2018. Accessed 16 March 2022. https://www.hmoob.in/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories_by_Human_Development_Index

UNFP. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. New York: United Nations Food Program; 2020. https://doi.org/10.18356/2282dd98-en .

Nord M, Cafiero C, Viviani S. Methods for estimating comparable prevalence rates of food insecurity experienced by adults in 147 countries and areas. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2016;7722:12060.

Lukwa AT, Siya A, Zablon KN, Azam JM, Alaba OA. Socioeconomic inequalities in food insecurity and malnutrition among under-five children: within and between-group inequalities in Zimbabwe. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–11.

Murrell A, Jones R. Measuring Food Insecurity Using the Food Abundance Index: Implications for Economic, Health and Social Well-Being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2434.

World Food Program India country strategic plan (2019–2023). Rome, Italy. 2018. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/1e975c5f928a46ccb53f712e7f336f25/download/?_ga=2.14528759.1190922823.1631509903-1545026273.1631509903 . Accessed 30 Nov 2021.

Chakraborty S, Sarmah SP. India 2025: The public distribution system and national food security act 2013. Dev Pract. 2019;29(2):230–49.

Raghunathan K, Headey D, Herforth A. Affordability of nutritious diets in rural India. Food Policy. 2021;99:101982.

Ganann R, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Peirson L. Community-based interventions for enhancing access to or consumption of fruit and vegetables among five to 18-year olds: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–16.

Patel N, Lakshminarayanan S, Olickal JJ. Effectiveness of nutrition education in improving fruit and vegetable consumption among selected college students in urban Puducherry, South India. A pre-post intervention study. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2020;34(4):243–8.

Sachdeva S, Sachdev TR, Sachdeva R. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption: challenges and opportunities. Indian J community Med. 2013;38(4):192–7.

Cheung HC, Shen A, Oo S, Tilahun H, Cohen MJ, Berkowitz SA. Peer reviewed: Food insecurity and body mass index: A longitudinal mixed methods study, Chelsea, Massachusetts, 2009–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E125.

Jung NM, de Bairros FS, Pattussi MP, Pauli S, Neutzling MB. Gender differences in the prevalence of household food insecurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(5):902–16.

Harris-Fry H, Shrestha N, Costello A, Saville NM. Determinants of intra-household food allocation between adults in South Asia–a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):1–21.

Aurino E. Do boys eat better than girls in India? Longitudinal evidence on dietary diversity and food consumption disparities among children and adolescents. Econ Hum Biol. 2017;25:99–111.

UNICEF. Global Report on Food Crises. 2020. https://www.unicef.org/rosa/documents/2020-global-report-food-crises . Accessed 28 Nov 2021.

Dev SM. Addressing COVID-19 impacts on agriculture, food security, and livelihoods in India. IFPRI B chapters. 2020;33–5.

Savary S, Akter S, Almekinders C, Harris J, Korsten L, Rötter R, et al. Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems. Food Secur. 2020;12(4):695–717.

Uccello E, Kauffmann D, Calo M, Streissel M. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems in practice: options for intervention. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization; 2017.

Scott P. Global panel on agriculture and food systems for nutrition: food systems and diets: facing the challenges of the 21st century. Springer. 2017;9(3):653–54.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of the field data collectors and the study participants from Sonipat and Vizag for their cooperation and support.

This study was supported by The Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) project, funded by the Wellcome Trust, UK (Grant number 205200/Z/16/Z) under the “Our Planet Our Health” programme. The UDAY cohort study was supported by Eli Lilly through an unrestricted grant under the Lilly NCD Partnership programme. The funders had no role in the design, conduct of the study, or in the analysis and reporting of the study findings. The researchers who developed this manuscript were supported by the SHEFS project and did not receive any support from the Lilly NCD Partnership programme. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Chronic Disease Control, New Delhi, India

Anjali Ganpule, Manisha Dubey, Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy, Himanshi Pandey, Dorairaj Prabhakaran & Sailesh Mohan

University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Kerry Ann Brown

Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy, Prashant Jarhyan, Avinav Prasad Maddury, Rajesh Khatkar, Dorairaj Prabhakaran & Sailesh Mohan

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Dorairaj Prabhakaran

Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

Sailesh Mohan

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AG and KB wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors reviewed the paper, provided comments on subsequent iterations, and approved the final version. NSV, PJ, AVM, RK, DP and SM designed and conducted the research. MD analysed the data and performed the statistical analysis. HP assisted in the data analysis and paper writing. DP and SM obtained the funding. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sailesh Mohan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) of the Public Health Foundation of India and Centre for Chronic Disease Control, New Delhi (IRB No: IRB00006330). Participants willing to participate and who provided informed written consent were included in the study. All the study procedures followed were in accordance with the standards of the institutional ethics committee.

Consent for publication

Participants provided written informed consent. Study participants were informed that the data will be used only for research purposes, including dissemination.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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..

STROBE checklist.

Additional file 2:

Supplementary Table 1. Rasch infit and outfit for FIES scale.

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.

Ganpule, A., Brown, K.A., Dubey, M. et al. Food insecurity and its determinants among adults in North and South India. Nutr J 22 , 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-022-00831-8

Download citation

Received : 13 January 2022

Accepted : 12 December 2022

Published : 09 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-022-00831-8

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

Indian adults

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

General enquiries: [email protected]

Measuring Food Insecurity in India: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence

Open access
Published: 06 April 2023
Volume 12 , pages 358–367, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Fiona H. McKay ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0498-3572 1 , 2 ,
Alice Sims 1 &
Paige van der Pligt 3

7315 Accesses

9 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

India is home to an estimated 200 million malnourished people, suggesting widespread food insecurity. However, variations in the methods used for determining food insecurity status mean there is uncertainty in the data and severity of food insecurity across the country. This systematic review investigated the peer-reviewed literature examining food insecurity in India to identify both the breadth of research being conducted as well as the instruments used and the populations under study.

Recent Findings

Nine databases were searched in March 2020. After excluding articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 53 articles were reviewed. The most common tool for measuring food insecurity was the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), followed by the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). Reported food insecurity ranged from 8.7 to 99% depending on the measurement tool and population under investigation. This study found variations in methods for the assessment of food insecurity in India and the reliance on cross-sectional studies.

Based on the findings of this review and the size and diversity of the Indian population, there is an opportunity for the development and implementation of an Indian-specific food security measure to allow researchers to collect better data on food insecurity. Considering India’s widespread malnutrition and high prevalence of food insecurity, the development of such a tool will go part of way in addressing nutrition-related public health in India.

The Experience of Food Insecurity Among Immigrants: a Scoping Review

A 5-year review of prevalence, temporal trends and characteristics of individuals experiencing moderate and severe food insecurity in 34 high income countries

A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Food insecurity has been identified as a “pressing public health concern” in India [ 1 •]. At the household level, food security exists when all members, at all times, have access to enough food for an active, healthy life [ 2 ••]. Individuals who are food secure do not live with hunger or fear starvation. Across urban settings, the prevalence of food insecurity has been found to range from 51 to 77%, yet over 70% of India’s population resides rurally, where data concerning food insecurity is limited [ 3 ].

The concept of food security consists of six main dimensions: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency, and sustainability. The first three dimensions are interlinked and hierarchical. Food availability is concerned with ensuring that sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality are supplied through domestic production or imports (including food aid). Access to food is necessary but not sufficient for access. Access is concerned with ensuring adequate resources, or entitlements, are available for the acquisition of appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Access is necessary but not sufficient for utilization. Utilization is concerned with the ability of an individual to access an adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being. The three other concepts have become increasingly accepted as important, as risks such as climatic fluctuations, conflict, job loss, and epidemic disease can disrupt any one of the first three factors. Stability refers to the constancy of the first three dimensions. Agency is recognized as the capacity of individuals or groups to make their own food decisions, including about what they eat, what and how they produce food, and how that food is distributed within food systems and governance. Finally, sustainability refers to the long-term ability of food systems to provide food security and nutrition in a way that does not compromise the economic, social, and environmental bases that generate food security and nutrition for future generations [ 4 ••].

Two hundred million people living in India are estimated to be malnourished [ 5 •]. Poverty, a lack of clean drinking water, and poor sanitation have been identified as common factors contributing to malnutrition in India [ 1 •]. Yet to date, despite high rates of malnutrition pointing toward widespread food insecurity [ 6 ], the link between food insecurity and malnutrition in India has seldom been explored. Of the limited data available, associations have been found between household food insecurity and child stunting, wasting, and being underweight [ 7 ], highlighting the urgency of food insecurity as a public health priority.

Considering the high rates of child stunting, wasting, and overall malnutrition in India, exploring past and emerging research which has both assessed and addressed food insecurity is a crucial step in better understanding nutrition-related health at the population level. Currently, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published systematic review which has explored household food insecurity in India. To understand the factors that contribute to food insecurity at the household level, the related health and nutrition outcomes, and to conceptualize potential strategies which target food insecurity in India, a systematic review of published research undertaken to date which has focused on food insecurity in India is urgently needed. This review seeks to (1) systematically investigate the peer-reviewed literature that purports to investigate food insecurity in India, (2) identify the breadth of research being conducted in India, including the instruments used and the populations under study, and (3) provide an overview of the severity of food insecurity in India as presented by these studies.

A systematic search was undertaken to identify all food security research conducted at the household level in India. The search was conducted in March 2020. Key search terms were based on the FAO [ 8 ] definition of food security: “food access*,” OR “food afford*,” OR “food insecur*,” OR “food poverty*,” OR “food secur*,” OR “food suppl*,” OR “food sufficien*,” OR “food insufficien*,” OR “hung*” AND “household*” OR “house*” AND “India.” Searched databases included Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Global Health, MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, ProQuest, PsychInfo, and Web of Science. To gain a full collection of articles that reported on research investigating household food security in India, no limits were placed on publication dates. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English were considered; unpublished articles, books, theses, dissertations, and non-peer-reviewed articles were excluded. This review adheres to the PRISMA statement [ 9 , 10 ], see Fig. 1 for a flowchart describing the process of screened included and excluded articles.

Flow chart of articles meeting search criteria, number of articles excluded, and final number of articles meeting inclusion criteria for review

Two authors (FHM and AS) and a research assistant reviewed all articles to identify relevant studies. Articles underwent a three-step review process (see Fig. 1 ). All articles were downloaded into EndNote X7, duplicates were identified and removed, and the article titles, journal titles, year, and author names were then exported to Microsoft Excel 365 to facilitate reviewing. Articles were first screened by title and abstract based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria described above by two authors independently. Any article that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria was removed at this stage, any that did, or possibly could meet the inclusion criteria on further inspection, were retained. The full text of the remaining articles was obtained, and at least two authors (FHM and AS) or a research assistant independently read all 161 articles that remained at this stage to determine if the article met the inclusion criteria. Any articles at this stage that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria were removed. Any disagreements on those that were retained were discussed and settled by consensus between the authors.

Articles that discussed food insecurity in general but collected no new data (for example, Gopalan [ 11 ] and Gustafson [ 12 ]) were excluded, as were previously conducted reviews in the region (for example, del Ninno, Dorosh [ 13 ], Harris-Fry, Shrestha [ 14 ]). As this review was primarily interested in studies that purported to measure food insecurity in India, studies that discussed food insecurity, either as the standard measured construct or as a construct created by the authors but termed food insecurity, were included. While there are many non-government organizations and inter-government organizations that work to measure food or nutritional insecurity, the construct of “hunger,” the associated conditions of malnutrition (either with overweight or obesity) or conditions that might indicate malnutrition (including anemia or under-5 mortality), these reports generally do not include a complete description of the method used to collect data if data were collected at the household level and often use the sale or production of crops as a proxy; as such, these reports have been excluded from this review.

Data were extracted from each article by the three authors. Data were extracted into a Microsoft Excel 365 spreadsheet that allowed for the capture of specific information across all included articles. Data extracted at this stage included the following: location; population group; findings; measured food security (Y/N); method for determining food insecurity; and prevalence of food insecurity.

The search identified 1018 articles, of which 395 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 616 articles were read, with 518 articles excluded as they did not refer, either directly or indirectly, to food insecurity research in India, leaving 161 articles for further investigation. The full text of the 161 articles was reviewed; 108 articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 53 articles were included in this review.

Most articles ( n = 48, 90%) were cross-sectional studies; three were longitudinal, with data covering 27 years [ 15 ], 11 years [ 16 ], and 4 years [ 17 ], and one was a randomized controlled trial [ 18 ]. Eight studies employed a mixed methods approach, seven were qualitative, and the remaining 38 were quantitative studies. Participant numbers ranged in size from the smallest study with 10 participants [ 19 ] to population-level studies with over 100,000 participants [ 15 , 20 ]. See the supplementary material for an overview of the studies included.

Most food insecurity research was conducted in the state of West Bengal, where 9 studies were conducted, followed by 6 studies each in Maharashtra and the union territory of Delhi (see Fig. 2 ). India consists of 28 states and 8 union territories; this review found research from 17 states and five union territories, as well as four nationwide studies showing good coverage across the country.

Distribution of studies exploring food insecurity in India

Measuring Food Insecurity

All studies included in this review purported to measure food insecurity directly, with the main aim of the majority ( n = 45, 85%) of articles to determine the prevalence of food insecurity. These articles employed a range of measurement tools to achieve this aim. The most common way to measure food insecurity was via the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) which was employed in 17 studies. The second most common method employed to measure food insecurity was via the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), employed in 13 studies. Other measures of food insecurity include the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), used in three studies, the Comprehensive Nutrition Survey in Maharashtra used in two studies, and the Radimer/Cornell used in one study. The remaining 17 studies used a proxy measure, either one devised by the authors or by using data from the India National Sample Survey (NSS). See Table 1 for an overview of these measurement tools.

The prevalence of food insecurity in these studies ranged from 8.7 to 99%; 13 studies stated that they measured food insecurity but did not report food insecurity results. The most common way for food insecurity to be measured in India was through employing Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS). This experiential scale was designed to be used cross-culturally and consists of nine questions, with frequency questions asked if participants experience the condition. Responses to these questions are scored so that “never” receives a score of 0, “rarely” is scored 1, “sometimes” is scored 2, and “often” is scored 3, so that when summed, the lowest possible score is 0 and the highest is 27. A higher score represents greater food insecurity, with continuous scores typically divided into four categories, representing food-secure and mildly, moderately, and severely food-insecure households according to the scheme recommended by the HFIAS Indicator Guide [ 21 ]. The scale is based on a household’s experience of problems regarding access to food and represents three aspects of food insecurity found to be universal across cultures [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. This scale measures feelings of uncertainty or anxiety about household food supplies, perceptions that household food is of insufficient quality, and insufficient food intake [ 21 ]. The questions asked in the HFIAS allow households to assign a score along a continuum of severity, from food secure to food insecure. Food insecurity measured via the HFIAS ranged from 77.2% in a population of 250 women who resided in an urban area in South Delhi [ 25 ] to 8.7% in Indian children [ 26 ].

The second most common measurement tool identified in this search is the US Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM). This tool was developed to measure whether households have enough food or money to meet basic food needs and what their behavioral and subjective responses to that condition were [ 27 ]. The HFSSM module consists of a set of 18 items, 8 of which are specific to households with children. It captures four types of household food insecurity experiences: (1) uncertainty and worry, (2) inadequate food quality, and insufficient food quantity for (3) adults and (4) children [ 28 ]. It is available in an 18-item and 6-item forms and allows households to be assigned a category of food insecurity: high food security, marginal food insecurity, low food insecurity, and very low food insecurity. In accordance with the method proposed by Coleman-Jensen et al. [ 29 ], food security scores are combined to create one measure for the level of food security for a household. Food security status is determined by the number of food-insecure conditions and behaviors that the household reports. Households are classified as food secure if they report fewer than two food-insecure conditions. They are classified as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions, or two or more food-insecure conditions if they have children. Food-insecure households are further classified as having either low food security if they report between three and five food-insecure conditions (or three and seven if they have children), or very low food security if they have six or more food-insecurity conditions (eight if they have children). Studies that employed the HFSSM reported food insecurity ranging from 15.4 [ 30 , 31 , 32 ] to over 80% of study participants [ 33 ]. The HFSSM is a commonly used measure of food insecurity and can be used in several valid forms. Studies included in this review used the 4-, 6-, and 18-item versions of the HFSSM.

The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) module was used by three studies included in this review. The FIES questions refer to the experiences of the individual or household. This scale was created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and has been tested for use globally [ 28 ]. The questions focus on self-reported food-related behaviors and experiences associated with increasing difficulties in accessing food due to resource constraints. The FIES allows for the calibration of other measures, including the HFIAS and the HSSM with the FIES against a standard reference scale allowing for comparability of the estimated prevalence rates of food insecurity [ 34 ], as well as a raw score that can be used by authors as a way to create discrete categories of food insecurity severity [ 35 ]. The three studies that employed the FIES all reported food insecurity within a range of 66–77%, despite different population groups, locations, and sample sizes.

One study employed the Radimer/Cornell scale, a widely used and validated scale [ 36 ]. The scale includes ten items that relate to food anxiety and the quantity and quality of food available. The instrument allows for the categorization of households into four categories of food insecurity: food security, household food insecurity, individual food insecurity, and child hunger.

The Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey (CNNS) was used in two studies. It is a state-specific (Maharashtra) nutrition survey with a focus on infants and children under two and their mothers. The CNSM measured household food security using nine questions [ 37 ]. The questions capture experiences of uncertainty or anxiety over food, insufficient quality, insufficient quantity, and reductions in food intake [ 38 ]. Households are categorized as food secure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure, or severely food insecure.

The National Sample Survey (NSS) organization conducts nationwide household consumer expenditure surveys at regular intervals in “rounds,” typically 1 year. These surveys are conducted through interviews with a representative sample of households [ 20 ]. This survey includes only one question about household daily access to food [ 39 ], and while it does provide a method for estimating food insecurity in India, it assumes that financial access equates to physical access to available food; as such, this survey is unlikely to be able to comprehensively capture the intensity of household food insecurity in India [ 40 ]. Four studies employed the NSS. Given that these studies did not specifically collect food insecurity data, the use of the NSS has been considered a proxy indicator here as it generally reflects the measurement of food availability or acquisition rather than food insecurity per se.

Other proxy measures were commonly used. The variety of proxy measures included information on calorie intake, purchasing power, the quantity of food consumed, and agricultural productivity. These proxy measures provide only a partial, usually indirect, measure of food insecurity [ 41 ]. There are also challenges with these measures, as the relationship between food and caloric quantity and household food security is unpredictable [ 42 ]. For example, in a study of households in Gujarat, Sujoy [ 43 ] found that around 85% of households are food insecure at some point in a typical year. This study employed a range of measures to explore the experiences of hunger and food insecurity and the strategies employed by these population groups to mitigate hunger. Exploring the food insecurity experiences of farmers in Bihar, Sajjad and Nasreen [ 44 ] found that 75% of households had very low food security. While not using a standard measure, Sajjad and Nasreen [ 44 ] interviewed households alongside interviews with government officials, food production, food costs, and food acquisition to form an index of food security that could be applied at the household level. A study by George and Daga [ 45 ] using calorie consumption as a proxy for food security identified 57% of participants were food insecure, with the suggestion that income and family size play a role in food security among children. Of the 17 studies that employed a proxy measure of food insecurity, 10 provided no indication of the level of food security in their results.

Population Groups Under Investigation

Studies identified in this review included a variety of population groups. Most studies ( n = 30) focused on food insecurity at the household level; half of these studies employed one of the standard food insecurity measurement tools, while the other half relied on proxy measures.

Fourteen studies focused specifically on young children, and one on teenagers. These studies used a variety of methods to determine food insecurity among this population, with rates of food insecurity shown to range from 8.7 [ 26 ] to 80.3% [ 33 ]; within this range, most studies reported that food insecurity among children was in the range of 40 to 60%. Interestingly, while the study conducted by Humphries [ 26 ] reported lower levels of child food insecurity (8.7%) than the other studies included in this review, other findings of this study were consistent with other research reviewed. Across all studies that explored food insecurity among children and teenagers, findings suggest problematic infant and young child feeding practices, caregiving, and hygiene practices, with many studies reporting impaired growth in children and teenagers due to these practices.

Seven studies focused specifically on the experiences of women or used the experiences of women as an indicator of food insecurity in their households. All of these studies employed one of the standard measures of food insecurity, with food insecurity in these studies ranging from 32 [ 3 ] to 77.9% [ 46 ]. These studies identified a range of health outcomes related to food insecurity and hunger. For example, in a study of mothers of children under the age of 5, Das and Krishna [ 47 ] found that two-thirds of households were food insecure and that younger mothers were more likely to be food insecure, with the children of these mothers more likely to be underweight and stunted. Among mothers in a study by Chyne et al. [ 48 ], those who had low literacy levels, low income, and large family size were more likely to be food insecure, with many of the children of these mothers being vitamin A deficient, anemic, stunted, and/or wasted. This is consistent with the work of Chatterjee et al. [ 49 ] who found that food insecurity among women was associated with low income and a range of socioeconomic measures including education, employment, and relationship status.

Thirteen studies were conducted in slums. Four of these studies were conducted in slums in Delhi, finding that food insecurity among slum populations ranges between 12% among children aged 1–2 years [ 50 ] and 77% in households more broadly [ 25 ]. Three studies were located in slums in Kolkata, all conducted by Maitra and colleagues [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. These studies found food insecurity to be 15.4%, finding that low income, household composition, and education are all predictors of household food insecurity. The remaining studies were conducted in slums in Jaipur [ 51 ], Mumbai [ 49 ], Varanasi [ 52 ], Vellore [ 53 ], and West Bengal [ 33 , 54 ]. Slums are an important setting for an exploration of food insecurity, especially in India, where 25% of the urban population resides in slums or slum-like settings. People living in slums have been found to have poorer quality of life, are generally lower income, and have lower educational attainment than non-slum-dwelling populations—all factors that are known to contribute to food insecurity [ 49 ].

Five studies explored food insecurity among people with an underlying health condition. Four of these explored food insecurity among people living with HIV/AIDS [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ]. These studies found that food insecurity ranged from 16 to 99% with people who are food insecure and also living with HIV/AIDS more likely to experience depression and a lower quality of life [ 57 ] and that low income [ 58 ] and low education [ 55 ] are contributing factors to food insecurity, while ownership of a pressure cooker was found to be protective against food insecurity [ 56 ]. Finally, one study explored the experiences of food insecurity among people with tuberculosis [ 59 ]. This study found that around 34% of study participants were food insecure, with low income and employment being associated with food insecurity status.

India has seen massive growth and economic change over the past 2 decades; however, this increase in financial wealth has had little impact on food insecurity and population nutrition [ 60 ]. While India has increased production and, overall, the availability of food has increased [ 61 ], these increases have not yet translated into gains for the general population. Overall, India is seeing increasing income inequality which is having a negative impact on health [ 62 ]. As a result of the disconnect between economic growth and positive health outcomes, there has been an increased interest in food insecurity and nutrition in India over the past two decades, resulting in research that seeks to measure food insecurity.

The main finding of this study is the variation in the methods for the assessment of food insecurity prevalence in India and the reliance on cross-sectional studies to elicit food insecurity data. This may be explained by the fact that food security is notoriously difficult to measure. Initial descriptions of food insecurity were conceptualized through the lens of famine [ 63 ], meaning that solutions were often confined to domestic agriculture [ 41 ]. However, in an increasingly globalized world where countries easily sell and buy goods from each other, it is now important to consider food security in a holistic manner, incorporating the whole definition of food insecurity. By considering the six main dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency, and sustainability, we can better understand the experiences and drivers of food security. However, as this review has found, few studies measure more than one dimension.

Studies included in this review utilized scales that focused on household food access or availability and were assessed through experience-based scales. Experiential food insecurity scales have been used since the 1990s [ 64 ], first used in the USA and later adopted for use in low- and middle-income countries [ 21 , 65 ]. Experiential measures are based on the notion that food insecurity is associated with a set of knowable and predictable characteristics that can be assessed and quantified [ 17 , 21 ]. This assumes that households will attempt to mitigate food insecurity through a generalizable or standard pattern of responses [ 17 , 22 ]. Strategies include reducing expenditure on education expenses [ 66 ], selling assets or seeking increased employment [ 67 ], and skipping meals or limiting the sizes of meals [ 68 ]. Measures of food insecurity that are based on experience seek to capture some of these strategies and actions, and compared to other metrics, such as agriculture production, caloric intake, or anthropometric measures, they enable direct measurement of the prevalence and severity of the extent of household food insecurity, as well as the perception of the quality of their diets [ 31 ].

Given the wide variety of measurement tools used, it is difficult to present a comprehensive understanding of food insecurity in India. What is clear is that some households are experiencing food insecurity but are not hungry, while others are both hungry and food insecure. Finding a way to identify and measure at-risk households and intervene to reduce hunger is essential to closing the economic-income gap in India. However, without a measure that can be used consistently across the country that takes into consideration each of the dimensions of food security and the diversity within the Indian population, this will not be possible.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this review that should also be acknowledged. While every attempt was made to ensure this review was comprehensive, additional articles may have been missed, particularly if articles were written in a language other than English. However, given that this is the first review of its kind, with the inclusion of several databases and broad key terms, the authors are confident that there is little information that is not presented here. The articles presented in this review are largely cross-sectional, and as such, the quality of the studies means that the conclusions drawn by their authors are limited to the study population and are not widely generalizable. The cross-sectional nature of many of the studies limited the potential impact of quality assessment; as such, no quality assessment was conducted. This is a limitation of both this review and the studies included, and in general, a reflection on the rigor with which food security research has been conducted in these settings. Given the variety of approaches taken to measure food insecurity as found in this review, there are challenges in comparing the outcomes of different studies; as such, this review has not sought to present a meta-analysis. If, in the future, there can be some consistency in the use of measurement tools by researchers and agencies, a meta-analysis may be appropriate. The authors do not feel this should invalidate these findings at this time.

An Indian-specific food security measure needs to be urgently developed and implemented so that food insecurity data can more accurately and consistently be collected and contrasted for the purpose of developing suitable responses to food insecurity. Considering India’s widespread malnutrition and high prevalence of food insecurity, future work should prioritize the development of such a tool in addressing nutrition-related public health in India.

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

• Dhamija G, Ojha M, Roychowdhury P. Hunger and health: the impact of household food insecurity on child malnutrition in India. J Dev Stud. 2021;58(6):1181–210. This article provides some insights into the relationship between food insecurity and malnourishment in India.

Article Google Scholar

•• FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. The state of food security and nutrition in the world: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome: FAO; 2020. This report provides an update on the state of food insecurity across the world and provides trend analysis enabling researchers and policy makers to explore how the situation of food insecurity has changed over time.

Mastiholi SC, Somannavar MS, Vernekar SS, Kumar SY, Dhaded SM, Herekar VR, et al. Food insecurity and nutritional status of preconception women in a rural population of North Karnataka. India Reproductive health. 2018;15(1):101–7.

Google Scholar

•• HLPE. Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee …; 2020. This report provides an update on the state of food insecurity and an update for researchers and policy makers on where the United Nations hopes the situation will be in 2030 and how it intends on getting there.

• Rautela G, Ali MK, Prabhakaran D, Narayan KV, Tandon N, Mohan V, et al. Prevalence and correlates of household food insecurity in Delhi and Chennai. India Food security. 2020;12(2):391–404. This article provides important analysis on household food insecurity in two main cities in India.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Saxena A, Amin A, Mohan SB, Mohan P. Food insecurity in tribal high migration communities in Rajasthan. India Food Nutr Bull. 2020;41(4):513–8.

Pathak J, Mahanta TG, Arora P, Kalita D, Kaur G. Malnutrition and household food insecurity in children attending anganwadi centres in a district of North East India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine. 2020;45(4):405.

FAO. Rome declaration on the world food security and world food summit plan of action. World Food Summit 1996; Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1996. p. 1.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339: b2700.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

Gopalan C. Achieving household nutrition security in societies in transition: an overview. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2001;10(Suppl.):S4-S12.

Gustafson DJ. Rising food costs & global food security: key issues & relevance for India. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2013;138(SEP):398–410.

del Ninno C, Dorosh PA, Subbarao K. Food aid, domestic policy and food security: contrasting experiences from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy. 2007;32(4):413–35.

Harris-Fry H, Shrestha N, Costello A, Saville NM. Determinants of intra-household food allocation between adults in South Asia - a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16:1–21.

Kumar A, Bantilan MCS, Kumar P, Kumar S, Jee S. Food security in India: trends, patterns and determinants. Indian J Agric Econ. 2012;67(3):445–63.

Aurino EF, Jasmine. Vellakkal, Sukumar. Inequalities in adolescent learning: does the timing and persistence of food insecurity at home matter? Econ Educ Rev. 2019;70:94–108.

Aurino E, Morrow V. Food prices were high, and the dal became watery. Mixed-method evidence on household food insecurity and children’s diets in India. World Dev. 2018;111:211–24.

Shubhashis G, Lensink R, Bhupesh Y. Cash or in-kind transfers? Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Delhi. India J Dev Stud. 2015;51(6):660–73.

Diehl JA, Oviatt K, Chandra AJ, Kaur H. Household food consumption patterns and food security among low-income migrant urban farmers in Delhi, Jakarta, and Quito. Sustainability. 2019;11(5).

Mahajan SS-P A. Datta, K. K. Differential effects of rising food prices on Indian households differing in income. Food Secur. 2015;7(5):1043–53.

Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide: version 3. 2007.

Coates J, Frongillo EA, Rogers BL, Webb P, Wilde PE, Houser R. Commonalities in the experience of household food insecurity across cultures: what are measures missing? J Nutr. 2006;136(5):1438S-S1448.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Frongillo EA, Nanama S. Development and validation of an experience-based measure of household food insecurity within and across seasons in northern Burkina Faso. J Nutr. 2006;136(5):1409S-S1419.

Knueppel D, Demment M, Kaiser L. Validation of the household food insecurity access scale in rural Tanzania. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(3):360–7.

Chinnakali P, Upadhyay RP, Shokeen D, Singh K, Kaur M, Singh AK, et al. Prevalence of household-level food insecurity and its determinants in an urban resettlement colony in north India. J Health Popul Nutr. 2014;32(2):227.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Humphries DLD, Kirk A.: Crookston, Benjamin T.: Fernald, Lia C.: Stein, Aryeh D.: Woldehanna, Tassew: Penny, Mary E.: Behrman, Jere R.: Young lives, determinants: consequences of child growth project, team. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between household food security and child anthropometry at ages 5 and 8 years in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. J Nutr. 2015;145(8):1924–33.

Leroy JL, Ruel M, Frongillo EA, Harris J, Ballard TJ. Measuring the food access dimension of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators. Food Nutr Bull. 2015;36(2):167–95.

Sethi V, Maitra C, Avula R, Unisa S, Bhalla S. Internal validity and reliability of experience-based household food insecurity scales in Indian settings. Agric Food Secur. 2017;6(1):1–17.

Coleman-Jensen A, Gregory C, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2013. USDA-ERS Econ Res Rep. 2014;(173).

Maitra C. Adapting an experiential scale to measure food insecurity in urban slum households of India. Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment. 2017;15:53–64.

Maitra C, Rao DSP. Poverty-Food security nexus: evidence from a survey of urban slum dwellers in Kolkata. World Dev. 2015;72:308–25.

Maitra C, Rao DSP. An empirical investigation into measurement and determinants of food security. J Dev Stud. 2018;54(6):1060–81.

Mukhopadhyay DKS, Apurba: Saren, Asit B.: Biswas, Akhil B. Association of child feeding practices with nutritional status of under-two slum dwelling children: a community-based study from West Bengal, India. Indian J Public Health. 2013;57(3):169–72.

Cafiero C, Viviani S, Nord M. Food security measurement in a global context: the food insecurity experience scale. Measurement. 2018;116:146–52.

Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: FAO; 2013.

Kendall A, Olson CM, Frongillo EA Jr. Validation of the Radimer/Cornell measures of hunger and food insecurity. J Nutr. 1995;125(11):2793.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Unicef. Comprehensive nutrition survey in Maharashtra. eSocialSciences; 2014.

Chandrasekhar S, Aguayo VM, Krishna V, Nair R. Household food insecurity and children’s dietary diversity and nutrition in India. Evidence from the comprehensive nutrition survey in Maharashtra. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13:n/a-n/a.

National Sample Survey Office. Nutritional intake in India 2011–12. NSS 68th Round. Report No 560. 2014.

Tandon S, Landes MR. Estimating the range of food-insecure households in India. 2012.

Webb P, Coates J, Frongillo EA, Rogers BL, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Measuring household food insecurity: why it’s so important and yet so difficult to do. J Nutr. 2006;136(5):1404S-S1408.

Coates J, Webb P, Houser R. Measuring food insecurity: going beyond indicators of income and anthropometry: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for Educational Development; 2003.

Sujoy CD, S. A. Food insecurity in Gujarat - a study of two rural populations. Econ Polit Wkly. 2006;41(22):2248–58.

Sajjad H, Nasreen I. Food security in rural areas of Vaishali District, India: a household level analysis. Eur J Sustain Dev. 2014;3(3):235–49.

George E, Daga A. Food security among preschool children. Indian J Pediatr. 2000;67(7):483–5.

Reshmi RSD, Konsam Bhanot, Arti Sayeed, Unisa Menon, Gopinath T, Agrawal Neeraj, Bhatia Vikas, Ruikar, Manisha, Abner Daniel, Bhattacharjee Sourav, Parhi Rabi N, Sachdev HPS, Gope Raj Kumar, De Wagt Arjan, Vani Sethi. Context for layering women’s nutrition interventions on a large scale poverty alleviation program: evidence from three eastern Indian states. PLoS One. 2019;14(1).

Das S, Krishna C. Household food insecurity and malnutrition in an urban field practice area of a medical college. National Journal of Community Medicine. 2018;9(12):869–74.

Chyne DAL, Meshram II, Rajendran A, Kodali V, Getti N, Roy P, et al. Nutritional status, food insecurity, and biodiversity among the Khasi in Meghalaya, North-East India. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13.

Chatterjee N, Fernandes G, Hernandez M. Food insecurity in urban poor households in Mumbai. India Food Secur. 2012;4(4):619–32.

• Houghton L, McIntosh D, Trilok-Kumar G, Haszard J, Gibson R. Suboptimal feeding and caring practices among young Indian children ages 12 to 24 mo living in the slums of New Delhi. Nutr. 2020;69. This article provides data on the experiences of feeding practices and malnourishments among young children living in slums in India.

Maxfield A. Testing the theoretical similarities between food and water insecurity: buffering hypothesis and effects on mental wellbeing. Soc Sci Med. 2020;244:N.PAG-N.PAG.

Rani D, Singh JK, Acharya D, Paudel R, Lee K, Singh SP. Household food insecurity and mental health among teenage girls living in urban slums in Varanasi, India: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8).

Dharmaraju NM, Sonam S, Arulappan N, Thomas B, Marconi D, Sam P, Sherin S, Mohan VR. Household food security in an urban slum: determinants and trends. J Fam Med Primary Care. 2018;7(4):819–22.

Satabdi MMDK, Sarkar AP, Indrajit S. Are household food security, nutrient adequacy, and childhood nutrition clustered together? A cross-sectional study in Bankura, West Bengal. Indian J Public Health. 2019;63(3):203–8.

Dasgupta PB, Sharmistha D, Dilip K. Food security in households of people living with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: a cross-sectional study in a subdivision of Darjeeling District, West Bengal. J Prev Med Public Health. 2016;49(4):240–8.

Van Elsland SL, Van der Hoeven M, Joshi S, Doak CM, Ponce MC. Pressure cooker ownership and food security in Aurangabad, India. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(5):818–26.

Heylen EP, Siju T, Chandy S, Steward W, Ekstrand T, Maria L. Food insecurity and its relation to psychological well-being among South Indian people living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior. 2015;19(8):1548–58.

Patil S, Kadam D, Mehtani N, Sangle S, Marbaniang I, Kulkarni V, Shere D, Deshpande P, Dhumal G, Suryavanshi N, Gupte N. Elevated highly sensitive C-reactive protein and d-dimer levels are associated with food insecurity among people living with HIV in Pune, India. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(11):2022–9.

Ayiraveetil R, Sarkar S, Chinnakali P, Jeyashree K, Vijayageetha M, Thekkur P, Lakshminarayanan S, Knudsen S, Hochberg NS, Horsburgh CR, Ellner J. Household food insecurity among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and its associated factors in South India: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2).

Saxena NC. Hunger, under-nutrition and food security in India. Poverty, chronic poverty and poverty dynamics: Springer; 2018. p. 55–92.

Ritchie H, Reay D, Higgins P. Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3): e0193766.

Narain JP. Public health challenges in India: seizing the opportunities. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine. 2016;41(2):85.

Sen A. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation: Oxford university press; 1981.

Bickel G, Nord M, Price C, Hamilton W, Cook J. Guide to measuring household food security. Alexandria Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. 2000.

Ballard T, Coates J, Swindale A, Deitchler M. Household hunger scale: indicator definition and measurement guide. Washington, DC: Food and nutrition technical assistance II project, FHI. 2011;360:23.

Shariff ZM, Khor GL. Household food insecurity and coping strategies in a poor rural community in Malaysia. Nurs Res Pract. 2008;2(1):26–34.

Khatri-Chhetri A, Maharjan KL. Food insecurity and coping strategies in rural areas of Nepal. Journal of International Development and Cooperation. 2006;12(2):25–45.

Oldewage-Theron WH, Dicks EG, Napier CE. Poverty, household food insecurity and nutrition: coping strategies in an informal settlement in the Vaal Triangle. South Africa Public health. 2006;120(9):795–804.

PubMed Google Scholar

Castell GS, Rodrigo CP, de la Cruz JN, Bartrina JA. Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS). Nutr Hosp. 2015;31(3):272–8.

Radimer KL, Olson CM, Campbell CC. Development of indicators to assess hunger. J Nutr. 1990;120(suppl_11):1544–8.

Frongillo EA. Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger. J Nutr. 1999;129(2):506S-S509.

Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C, Schmidhuber J. Better measurement of food insecurity in the context of enhancing nutrition. Ernahrungs Umschau. 2014;61(2):38–41.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia

Fiona H. McKay & Alice Sims

Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia

Fiona H. McKay

Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Paige van der Pligt

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona H. McKay .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All authors have worked in paid and unpaid roles with not-for-profit food security organizations or with organizations that focus on pregnancy and/or nutrition outcomes. No other COI to declare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 35 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

McKay, F.H., Sims, A. & van der Pligt, P. Measuring Food Insecurity in India: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence. Curr Nutr Rep 12 , 358–367 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-023-00470-3

Download citation

Accepted : 09 March 2023

Published : 06 April 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-023-00470-3

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
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Interview for the U.S. Senate India Caucus

Feeding a billion agriculture and food security in india.

Suresh Babu (International Food Policy Research Institute) examines the key challenges and opportunities facing India’s agriculture as the country seeks to meet its food security need while moving more of its workforce to the industrial and services sectors.

Today, five decades after the start of the “Green Revolution,” India’s food grain production has increased fivefold and the country is one of the world’s largest producers of staples like rice and wheat. However, its hunger and malnutrition levels are still extremely high, and great inefficiencies remain within the agricultural sector, which employs about half of the population, including 70% in rural areas.

In this NBR interview, Suresh Babu (International Food Policy Research Institute) examines the dynamics facing Indian agriculture as the country seeks to meet its food security needs while moving more of its workforce to the industrial and services sectors. Dr. Babu argues that the foremost challenge is improving productivity within the agriculture system and recommends that India adopt new technologies in agricultural mechanization, increase food processing, develop better supply chains, and increase investment in agriculture research, among other solutions.

India’s Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s introduced significant reforms that were intended to drastically increase the country’s agricultural output. How has India’s agricultural sector changed since this period?

India’s production of food grain has increased fivefold since the Green Revolution. The agricultural sector has also made good strides in the production of high-value commodities such as milk, livestock, aquaculture, and fruits and vegetables, although productivity in some cases is still less than optimal. The sector has benefitted from high levels of government support for farmers in the form of fertilizer subsidies and other subsidies for technology adoption. In addition, private-sector participation has increased in the input markets, such as those for fertilizer, seeds, and animal feed, and in output markets for crops produced, such as basmati rice and wheat.

Today, there is tremendous opportunity for developing joint ventures between India and the United States in mechanizing agriculture. As India looks to increase its agricultural output, there is great need—and a growing market—for sophisticated mechanized tools and equipment from the United States. There is great potential to collaborate more in this area to arrive at a win-win situation. India needs this agricultural technology and is now increasingly capable of paying for it, which should be an interesting proposition for U.S. industry. While Indian companies are successful at producing tractors, for example, there is room for them to upgrade their technologies in collaboration with U.S. companies. Perhaps surprising to many outside of India is that there is a great shortage of labor within India’s agricultural sector. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, with its aim to guarantee the “right to work,” increased the safety net within rural India, which has had the effect of taking away some low-end labor from agriculture and thus has increased the need for machinery.

The key question for India in the next stage of developing agriculture productivity is how to organize its farmers to connect with those in other parts of Asia. The country is a bit disorganized right now. This is partly because agricultural supply is primarily led by local demand and prices are low overall. However, for the agricultural sector to contribute in larger part to the economy, this cannot continue much longer, and India must find ways for its farmers to engage in regional markets by opening up markets both in South Asia and throughout Asia more broadly, including Central and Southeast Asia.

Although India’s food supply is now largely self-sufficient, the country’s hunger and malnutrition levels are still extremely high. Restrictions such as banning the movement of food grains from one state to another and from one district to another within the same state have hindered further growth of the sector. To meet the increasing demand for high-value commodities, several private companies are developing various models for working with farmers to enhance production and improve integration with local, regional, and international markets. However, further efforts are needed to streamline the contractual procedures so that both producers and aggregators benefit from these arrangements. In addition, the public agriculture extension system has declined since the 1990s, and there have been efforts recently to revive it in order to more effectively deliver information to farmers based on agricultural research. Finally, although input markets are well-developed to meet the needs of farming communities in most places, the timely availability of fertilizers and varieties of seeds suitable for certain agro-ecological zones remains a challenge.

What are the top agricultural issues India should focus on to meet its food security needs?

The top issue by far for Indian agriculture is increasing productivity. This is due to a need for more effective integration of smallholder farmers in markets by providing necessary rural marketing infrastructure, strengthening the capacity of farmers to access and use information for problem solving, and increasing the quality of agricultural research and education. In addition, productivity is low in part because smallholder farmers produce less than their potential due to the poor adoption of best practices. The need for technology varies among farmers according to their natural resource base, land quality, water availability, and connections to local and regional markets. Developing best practices in crop cultivation based on scientific methods, including applying fertilizers based on soil testing and optimizing water use with micro-irrigation systems, can help increase productivity. This is something the federal government is starting to understand, and India’s twelfth five-year plan, covering 2012–17, emphasizes food security and also discusses ways to increase agriculture productivity. There is a huge potential for small farmers to increase sustainable productivity. The United States has much to offer here, and there is a successful history of similar collaboration during the Green Revolution.

Another key issue for productivity enhancement is the development of high-value commodity supply chains. While this has been happening in the India in the last ten to fifteen years, it has been driven largely by the private sector. A much greater role for the public sector could help facilitate the process of engagement between farmers and the private sector.

In addition, agricultural research must become more relevant to address the emerging challenges faced by farmers, such as the impact of climate change on smallholder agriculture and the high risk that farmers face in the event of droughts and floods. To improve the quality of the research system, there is an urgent need for the government of India to invest in agricultural education, which has been deteriorating over the last 30 years. Increasing the accountability of the researchers and rewarding them based on performance, through salary increases, benefits, and promotions, are important means to improve the productivity of the national agricultural research and education systems.

To increase agriculture growth, what is fundamentally required is to increase productivity and the efficiency of the agricultural research system. There are many ways the United States can assist with this, and there is great need to build long-term sustainable partnerships. During the George W. Bush administration, for example, the United States and India launched an initiative aimed at strengthening India’s agricultural knowledge system, but such initiatives require continued commitment. In 2010 Washington and New Delhi launched the U.S.-India Agriculture Dialogue to look at these issues at a higher level and this should be further developed into joint programs. Above all, what will build long-term sustainable collaboration and growth is if U.S. researchers can find opportunities to work in India, and, if U.S. professors can work with or more Indian students. Indian universities should also host students from U.S. universities to work on joint research projects. These types of researcher exchanges would benefit the next generation of Indian scientists, who could then increasingly do research of global quality. It would also benefit U.S agricultural scientist’ understanding of global agricultural challenges.

Over half of India’s workforce is engaged in farming-related activities. Yet agriculture accounts for only about 14% of India’s GDP. Why is this?

Agriculture contributes to the livelihoods of over 70% of India’s rural population. The share of agriculture in GDP, however, has been declining due to the growth of the industrial and service sectors. This is a normal structural change for emerging economies and is a good sign. What is worrisome, however, is the low productivity of the rural sector, and in particular of smallholder farms. It should be possible, for example, to increase the rice harvest from 2.5 tons to 5 tons per hectare, and yet due to poor adoption of best practices, farmers continue to harvest less than the potential yields. In addition to improving food security, increasing productivity would help reduce the area of land under crop production and make it possible to preserve more land for forests and tree cover. Heightened engagement with farmers through rural advisory services is needed to encourage the adoption of new technology.

In September 2012, India opened its retail trade market to FDI. How does this move affect Indian agriculture and help address the country’s food security challenges?

Opening up the retail trade market to FDI will affect the agriculture sector positively. This allows for technology transfers from international firms to Indian firms and will facilitate the integration of Indian agriculture into international markets, as well as the development of better supply chains. The quality of the processed products could improve, and in the long run this will help India compete in the global markets. However, the experiences of local output aggregators that are also local retailers have not been rosy, in part due to contract disputes between smallholder farmers and companies that are difficult to enforce on both sides.

Because of a strong preference for fresh produce and the existence of local market chains that supply fresh produce to rural and urban markets, the retail revolution in India’s agriculture sector may not occur as quickly as expected. Take, for example, the local pushcart vendor or vegetable stand. He gets his produce every morning, so it is very, very fresh. Retailers make organized purchases that require refrigeration; they cannot compete with the vegetable stands or pushcart vendors on freshness. However, pushcart vendors’ children will not be pushing carts in another fifteen years. They will have moved on to another profession as India’s economy grows. It is a purely a process of development. While some of these bigger retailers are struggling right now—both Indian and Western companies—eventually they will succeed. India is not fully ready for big retail markets in rural and semi-rural areas. The retailers who are there are only cater to a small percentage of consumers, even in big urban areas like Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, and Mumbai.

There needs to be a middle ground where the pushcart suppliers and the highly franchised retailers meet. This has not been explored yet. Why should we only have a refrigerated store with vegetables that go bad after one day? There is an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of each. For example, one could pay a little extra to the pushcart operator for fruits and vegetables that are washed and kept clean. We are trying to jump from street markets to highly sophisticated Western grocery stores and that takes time.

However, in the long run, increasing the productivity of cereal and legumes will release land and allow for development of the high-value chains I noted above that will increase the income levels of smallholder farmers, thereby potentially enhancing food security as well. Greater processing also means that there is room for better storage and handling, providing additional opportunities to farmers and rural households.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for moving many Indian workers out of agriculture and in other sectors such as manufacturing and services. What changes within India’s agriculture sector are needed for this to take place, and how might this shift affect India’s food security?

As discussed earlier, increasing labor productivity is the key factor in enabling the movement of surplus labor to other sectors. This requires improving the quality of research available to smallholder farmers. For example, new technologies could release laborers from tedious practices such as the transplanting and harvesting of rice. Agricultural labor is already in short supply due to the out-migration of rural labor to urban areas to perform non-agricultural operations. Mechanization has been increasing in areas with labor shortages. Movement from one rural area to another is also becoming increasingly common. Agricultural processing promises to be an important outlet for this excess labor in some rural areas. Placing processing units in rural areas could, for example, absorb some of the labor and add value in terms of processing and packaging.

Yet the processing sector in India lags significantly behind that of several other developing countries, such as Thailand, because of poor rural infrastructure characterized by low-quality feeder roads, the erratic availability of electricity, and a lack of cold-storage facilities. For example, Thailand processes almost 90% of its agriculture products, either for export or domestic consumption. India processes less than 10% of its agriculture products. There is thus huge potential for rural, agro-based industries to operate in a more mechanized and organized way to process commodities from various parts of the country. This will be next big area to absorb rural employment and take advantage of India’s demographic dividend. Policies and strategies at the central, regional, and local levels that can help farmers to add value by using the local labor force will also assist in this process. India can learn an important lesson from the United States on this. For example, from watching the recent debates on the new farm bill, India can learn how national policies on agriculture are implemented at the state and local levels. There could also be an exchange of policymakers and farmers to help facilitate this.

India’s federal government has passed a National Food Security Bill to improve food access. How does this legislation address the country’s core food needs? Can the requirements of the bill be met with India’s current agricultural policies and output?

The food security bill is part of a larger program that the government of India has put in place to provide the poor and vulnerable with a safety net and should be seen in conjunction with the 150 other rural policies to help poor and vulnerable families. Yet a major challenge is in the local implementation of these programs. This includes ensuring proper governance and accountability that goods are delivered without leakages (meaning that the food did not reach targeted populations). Supervision is often minimal at the local levels.

Current policies in agriculture also complement the National Food Security Bill. For example, the national food security mission addresses the problem of food security from the supply side by increasing food production. However, the coordination and harmonization of these seemingly disparate programs and policies need serious scrutiny in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving food security goals. There are many ways to improve. For example, much more should be done in the way of monitoring and evaluating information on leakages, how people are using the program, and other key data, and this information should be transmitted back to program managers. The Indian government could create a mobile app to assist in this, with tools to reduce the burden of local supervision, mapping, and getting the local level involved. The key is to be innovative.

Over the last few years, food prices in India have risen dramatically, as evidenced most recently by the tremendous increase in the price of onions during the fall. Why has this been the case? Are there any policies or practices you recommend to reverse this trend?

Price increases are due to both supply and demand factors. On the supply side, production shortages have been caused by low rainfall and poor management of food stocks. On the demand side, consumption of high-value commodities such as meat, milk, and produce has been growing. The increase in onion prices is a special case that involves poor functioning of the markets and to some extent speculative pricing by middlemen who tend to create artificial scarcity to take advantage of the higher prices. Farmers, however, have responded to this trend by reallocating land to increase the supply of onions to the market, which has brought prices down recently. Onions are a big business in India and are s storable crop, which allows middlemen to manipulate market prices by creating scarcity. To reduce market pricing pressures, technology and information play a role. Looking out over both the next five to ten and ten to twenty years, increasing productivity and organizing farmers better through supply chain efficiency is critical to help ameliorate this problem. It is particularly important as there may likely be a decline in onion supply due to environmental degradation.

India seeks to play a larger role in the global economy and return to 7%–8% GDP growth. How does the agricultural sector contribute to this goal?

There has been a set target of 4% growth in the agricultural sector to meet the target of 7%–8% overall GDP growth. Again, increasing productivity is the key to achieving this target. Although the growth rate of agriculture is on the rise, this trend does not seem to be robust. The main reason is India’s dependence on monsoon rains for the major share of agricultural production. In addition, the sector is largely managed at the state level. States that have invested in agriculture research and extension policies that are focused on outcomes at the farm level have done well at increasing their productivity growth rate. Still there remains a need to invest more in both the agriculture systems and in people to enhance productivity. Yet several states are struggling to do so.

Gujarat and Bihar provide examples of successful models. In Gujarat, for example, mobilizing the implementing organizations and institutions to meet farmers’ needs for quality inputs at the right time has helped achieve higher yields. In Bihar, the effective use of resources in strategic areas such as agricultural extension systems has increased returns for farmers. By contrast, states such as Orissa and Madhya Pradesh are still behind in making notable strides to improve productivity.

Looking at this year’s general elections, in many ways it is a debate between Gujarat-style and Bihar-style agricultural productivity. In Gujarat, Chief Minister Narendra Modi mobilized his state at all levels. He did not change any agriculture policies dramatically, but he made existing ones work through coordination, harmonization, and synergy among the players involved. He brought both the private and public sectors into play to help the farmers. Should Modi become prime minister with the Bharatiya Janata Party, a key question is whether he will try to replicate this Gujarat-style model throughout the country, and if so, whether it will work. Many states lack strong governance, which was key to Gujarat’s success. The Bihar-style model, alternatively, is more hands-on and places a greater emphasis on subsidies and helping with resources. It creates a different environment for farmers. The Congress party is running on a “right to food” platform as part of its “five rights,” which has an emphasis on uplifting the poor through subsidies. We will see in the coming months which ideas are more persuasive and in the months after how new agriculture policies will be implemented, if any.

Do you have anything final to add?

The agriculture sector will continue to be crucial for reducing poverty and eliminating hunger in India for several decades to come. Yet the challenges of water scarcity, inadequate irrigation systems, land deterioration, and nutrient depletion have to be addressed in a holistic manner as well. For example, continued support to the fertilizer industry from the government based on the quantity of fertilizer sold has drained valuable resources without providing any incentive for manufacturers to increase the efficiency of their production units. India should take a look at the way it supports this industry, but the political will must be there. This would be a bold step and an issue that should be raised continually.

Emerging challenges such as climate change will only complicate efforts to improve the resilience of the agricultural sector. Strengthening the capacity of agricultural professionals and organizations, as well as the delivery process of intervention programs, is key to increasing the productivity and sustainability of Indian agriculture. For example, efforts to revamp the extension system that are currently underway through the district-level agricultural technology management agencies need further evaluation to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, cost-effective micro-irrigation systems are required to sustain groundwater systems and could benefit from technologies developed by foreign collaboration. Finally, there is continued need to strengthen professionals working in the agriculture sector to ensure they have the necessary skills to innovate and interact on a global scale.

Suresh Babu is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). For the past 23 years at IFPRI, he has been involved in institutional and human capacity strengthening for higher education and research in many countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, including Ghana, Nigeria, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. Dr. Babu has an MS and PhD in Economic from Iowa State University.

This interview was conducted by Sonia Luthra, Assistant Director for Outreach at NBR.

agriculture

COVID-19 Hub

FROM FOOD SECURITY TO NUTRITION SECURITY IN INDIA: A FOOD SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

A seller in Okhla Mandi wholesale market, Delhi, India. Photo: J.Hodur/A4NH

Despite historically high levels of food production in India, undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies persist. At present, 22.5 percent of adults are underweight, and 38 percent are still stunted. While undernutrition persists, based on the latest data from the National Family Health Survey-4, more than 20 percent of Indians are overweight or obese. India joins many other countries in grappling with the double burden of malnutrition. Overweight and obesity rates have doubled over the past decade in all Indian states, registering rapid growth in both rural and urban areas. Women are more likely to be overweight or obese than men, especially those living in urban areas.

To understand the causes of this problem, we need to look at people’s diets, where they are eating, and how this has evolved over time. Diets in India are traditionally cereal-based and usually lack diversity. This kind of dietary practices coupled with food insecurity in the past led to high levels of under-nutrition and widespread micronutrient deficiencies. As production of food increased and access improved, the issue transitioned from being one of food security to that of nutrition security. Now, there is a need to improve the diversity of Indian diets as reliance primarily on cereals for energy may lead to macro nutrient over-nutrition coupled with micro-nutrient deficiencies arising from the lack of diversity in the diet which is reflected in the rising levels of obesity. Another factor that contributes to the multiple burdens of malnutrition, that is, high levels of under-nutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and rising obesity is the increased availability and higher consumption of highly processed and packaged food rich in carbohydrates, fats, sugar and salt, increased levels of eating out and snacking. Considering Sustainable Development Goal 2: End Hunger and Achieve Food Security and Improved Nutrition , it is imperative to support the production and availability of, and accessibility to, a nutritious diet for the Indian population. The following are salient in India’s dietary transition, according to the 68 th and other rounds of the National Sample Survey:

Decline in consumption of coarse cereals
Rising consumption of meat, salt, and fat
Rising rates of eating out, or away from the home
Sharp increases in consumption of snacks

These dietary changes are occurring alongside increases in wealth and sedentary lifestyles. If left unchecked, these trends will result in an increased disease burden for the country. India has a high burden of undernutrition and infectious diseases, and now with rising levels of overweight and obesity and DR-NCDs, it becomes critical to pay attention to the entire spectrum of malnutrition. Policies and programs are needed to address the underlying determinants of anaemia, stunting, wasting, and underweight, but to also face the challenge of overweight and obesity in both children and adults.

The centrality of nutrition for better health outcomes is well recognized. The nutritional status of individuals, families, and communities depends on the food they consume. This is in turn determined by the availability, acceptability, and affordability of food. Thus, improving the health of the people requires improving their nutrition through better and more nutritious food. This is where agriculture plays an important role not only as a means of producing diverse, nutritious, safer food that is affordable but also through pathways like improved household access to nutritious food, improved income, women's empowerment (see Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia for more information on these pathways in India).

Efforts to improve nutritional outcomes should be placed in the larger context of a food system, that is, the full set of actors, processes, and activities involved in getting food from where it is grown to those who will eat it. Interaction between elements of the food system, including production, processing, marketing, consumption, and policy that affect these elements, can results in increasing levels of malnutrition if the food system actors are not mindful of the health and nutrition impacts.

Packaged snacks for sale in Pusa, India. Photo: M.Cooperman/IFPRI

Long characterized by food deserts owing to persistent food scarcity, such as insufficient cereals to meet calorific needs, the situation in several regions in India is fast turning into one of nutrient deserts. In India, obesogenic foods such as snack foods are getting to places that fresh and nutrient-rich foods are not. The interdependence of geographic access to food and the consumption of adequate and healthier diet is not well understood generally, but particularly in India. Unhealthy diets are crowding out healthy ones, yet without access to healthy choices, consumers sometimes have no alternatives. How can farmers, transporters, regulators and market actors work together to widen the reach of nutritious and healthier foods?

Strengthening the agriculture-nutrition pathway when considering food system development in India will be key to addressing these challenges. Critical components include:

Ensuring agriculture is represented in national nutrition policy,
Creating market-based solutions for producers by creating the incentives that are aligned with choices of nutrition-dense products,
Creating incentives for consumers through price and non-price mechanisms, and
Addressing safety and other issues along the value chains for healthy, fresh foods.

It is thus important to adopt a systems approach while determining the interventions to improve the nutrition and health outcomes of the population. Implementing this food system approach to ensure availability of more nutritious, safer, and affordable diets presents challenges. The sheer expanse of the food system that includes farmers (who are overwhelmingly smallholders); their choice of crops; post-production issues; supply chain management; unorganized food processing systems; informal food value chains; and social, economic, and cultural aspects of dietary habits requires a deep micro- and macro-level understanding of the Indian food system to make policy decisions.

Devesh Roy is a Senior Research Fellow with A4NH, based in New Delhi, India.

Can Institutional Catering Help Transform Food Systems for Improved Outcomes?

Society ›

Demographics

Food security in India - statistics & facts

Food insecurity despite surplus, pathways to food security, key insights.

Detailed statistics

Prevalence of chronic hunger, moderate and severe food insecurity in India 2015 -2021

Share of NFSA beneficiaries India 2022, by states

Estimated production volume of food grains India FY 2023, by type

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Global Hunger Index 2023: countries most affected by hunger

Prevalence of undernourishment worldwide 2005-2022

Food & Nutrition

Overall food security environment index in India 2022, by category

Further recommended statistics

Key figures.

Basic Statistic Global Hunger Index 2023: countries most affected by hunger
Basic Statistic Prevalence of undernourishment worldwide 2005-2022
Premium Statistic Prevalence of severe food insecurity South Asia 2014-2023
Premium Statistic Global Hunger Index score India 2000-2023
Premium Statistic SDG index on hunger India 2024, by state

Countries that are most affected by hunger and malnutrition according to the Global Hunger Index 2023

Share of undernourished people in the world population from 2005 to 2022

Prevalence of severe food insecurity South Asia 2014-2023

Prevalence of severe food insecurity in South Asia from 2014 to 2023

Global Hunger Index score India 2000-2023

Global Hunger Index score trend of India from 2000 to 2023

SDG index on hunger India 2024, by state

Sustainable Development Goal index on hunger in India as of 2024, by state and union territory

Food availability

Basic Statistic Estimated production volume of food grains India FY 2023, by type
Premium Statistic Estimated production volume of vegetables FY 2023, by type
Premium Statistic Estimated production volume of fruits India FY 2023, by type
Premium Statistic Net availability of food grains India FY 2015-2022
Premium Statistic Net availability of pulses India FY 2015-2022
Premium Statistic Per capita availability of meat in India FY 2015-2022
Premium Statistic Share of food and allied products in major imports across India FY 2015-2024

Estimated volume of food grains produced in India in financial year 2023, by type (in million metric tons)

Estimated production volume of vegetables FY 2023, by type

Estimated production volume of vegetables in India in financial year 2023, by type (in 1,000 metric tons)

Estimated production volume of fruits India FY 2023, by type

Estimated production volume of fruits across India in financial year 2023, by type (in 1,000 metric tons)

Net availability of food grains India FY 2015-2022

Net availability of food grains across India from financial year 2015 to 2021, with an estimate for 2022 (in million metric tons)

Net availability of pulses India FY 2015-2022

Net availability of pulses across India from financial year 2015 to 2021, with an estimate for 2022 (in million metric tons)

Per capita availability of meat in India FY 2015-2022

Per capita availability of meat in India from financial year 2015 to 2022 (in kilogram per annum)

Share of food and allied products in major imports across India FY 2015-2024

Share of food and allied products* in major imports across India from financial year 2015 to 2024

Food access

Premium Statistic Cost of a healthy diet in India 2017-2021
Premium Statistic Share of people unable to afford a healthy diet in India 2017-2021
Premium Statistic Food inflation rate per month India 2021-2024
Premium Statistic Food grain distribution under PMGKAY India 2023
Premium Statistic Food grains allocation under PMGKAY India FY 2023, by states
Premium Statistic Preferred retail channel for shopping fresh groceries in India 2023

Cost of a healthy diet in India 2017-2021

Cost of a healthy diet in India from 2017 to 2021 (in U.S. dollars per person per day)

Share of people unable to afford a healthy diet in India 2017-2021

Share of people unable to afford a healthy diet in India from 2017 to 2021

Food inflation rate per month India 2021-2024

Food inflation rate in India from April 2021 to February 2024

Food grain distribution under PMGKAY India 2023

Food grain distribution under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyana Yojana in India in 2023 (in million metric tons)

Food grains allocation under PMGKAY India FY 2023, by states

Food grains allocation under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Ann Yojana in India in the financial year 2023, by states and union territories (in million metric tons)

Preferred retail channel for shopping fresh groceries in India 2023

Preferred retail channel for shopping fresh groceries in India as of November 2023

Food utilization

Premium Statistic Multidimensionally poor and deprived population in nutrition in India 2006-2021
Premium Statistic Prevalence of undernourishment India between 2004-2022
Premium Statistic Prevalence of stunting in children under the age of five India 2012-2022
Premium Statistic Protein meal consumption in India FY 2016-2023
Premium Statistic Share of households using clean cooking fuel in India 2016-2023

Multidimensionally poor and deprived population in nutrition in India 2006-2021

Share of multidimensionally poor and deprived population in the nutrition indicator in India between 2006 and 2021

Prevalence of undernourishment India between 2004-2022

Prevalence of undernourishment in India from 2004 to 2006 and from 2020 to 2022

Prevalence of stunting in children under the age of five India 2012-2022

Prevalence of stunting among children in India under the age of five in between 2012 and 2022

Protein meal consumption in India FY 2016-2023

Consumption of protein meal in India from financial year* 2016 to 2023 (in million metric tons)

Share of households using clean cooking fuel in India 2016-2023

Share of households using clean cooking fuel in India from FY 2016 to FY 2023

Premium Statistic Food subsidy released by government in India FY 2022, by state
Premium Statistic Minimum support price India FY 2019-2023, by crop type
Premium Statistic Items leading to inflation in India 2023, by type
Premium Statistic Post harvest storage loss of pool stocks of wheat and rice India FY 2016-2023
Basic Statistic Stocks of wheat in India FY 2012-2022
Premium Statistic Distribution loss share of pool stocks of wheat and rice India FY 2016-2023
Premium Statistic Damaged crop area due to natural disasters in India FY 2008-2023

Food subsidy released by government in India FY 2022, by state

Food subsidy provided by government of India in financial year 2022, by state (in billion Indian rupees)

Minimum support price India FY 2019-2023, by crop type

Minimum support price in India from financial year 2019 to 2023, by crop type (in Indian rupees per quintal)

Items leading to inflation in India 2023, by type

Change in prices of items in India in December 2023

Post harvest storage loss of pool stocks of wheat and rice India FY 2016-2023

Share of post harvest storage loss of central or state pool stocks of wheat and rice in India from financial year 2016 to 2023

Stocks of wheat in India FY 2012-2022

Stock volume of wheat across India in financial year 2012 to 2022 (in million metric tons)

Distribution loss share of pool stocks of wheat and rice India FY 2016-2023

Share of distribution loss of central or state pool stocks of wheat and rice in India from financial year 2016 to 2023

Damaged crop area due to natural disasters in India FY 2008-2023

Total crop area damaged due to natural disasters in India from FY 2008 to FY 2023 (in million hectares)

Further reports

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

Child health and nutrition
Diet and nutrition in Australia
Diet and nutrition in the Asia-Pacific region
Food Security in the GCC

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

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
Int J Environ Res Public Health

Documenting the Food Insecurity Experiences and Nutritional Status of Women in India: Study Protocol

Fiona h mckay.

1 School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3125, Australia; ua.ude.nikaed@smisaa

Preethi John

2 Chitkara School of Health Sciences, Chitkara University, Punjab Rajpura, Distt 140401, India; ni.ude.araktihc@ihteerp

Gaganjot Kaur

3 Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University Punjab, Rajpura, Distt 140401, India; [email protected]

Jyotsna Kaushal

4 Centre of Water Sciences, Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, Rajpura, Distt 140401, India; [email protected]

Associated Data

Background: Despite significant growth and change in India over the past two decades, some public health indicators have failed to keep pace. One such indicator is food insecurity. India is home to the largest number of people experiencing hunger and food insecurity. Food security is described as “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”. While there has been considerable research investigating the role of crop yields, policy interventions, and food production in alleviating food insecurity in India, there is insufficient research investigating the social and cultural influences of food insecurity, including the role of women. The primary aim of this research is to investigate the experience of food insecurity among women in India. The objectives of this research are (1) to determine the role of women in food production and its contribution to household food security; (2) to examine the gender roles within households and the decision-making processes that influence food security, and (3) to investigate household nutritional status and food insecurity experience. Methods: Participants will include women who live in a village in Punjab, India. Interviews with 100 households, drawn from a convenience sample will be conducted. Interviews will be conducted in Punjabi with simultaneous English translation, and will include: food related experiences, anthropometric measurements (weight, height, waist, and hip) and dietary assessment (24-h diet recall, two non-consecutive days), dwelling facilities, agriculture related information, including household agriculture activities undertaken, food security status (via the United States Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Scale Measurement), and demographic information. Discussion: This study aims to investigate a range of determinants of food insecurity among a rural population. It will allow for the identification of some of the components of household food insecurity among women in India and will go part of the way to understanding how and why India continues to experience food and nutritional insecurity despite growth and progress in a range of other indicators.

1. Background

Over the last two decades, India has undergone significant economic growth and change, including a substantial increase in gross domestic product and per capita income. In this time, over 60 million people have benefited from improved living conditions and have been lifted out of poverty [ 1 ]. When considering the statistics for India as a whole, there have been vast improvements in access to water and sanitation, education, health care, and workforce participation, however, some public health indicators have failed to keep pace with this change. For example, life expectancy at birth, and infant and maternal mortality rates are below the global average and the average for the South East Asian region, and over one quarter of India’s population continues to live below the poverty line, or on less than US $1.25 per day [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. While there has been an improvement in the mortality rate for children under five years, declining to 39 per 1000 live births, a rate that matches the global rate, it is still much higher than comparable countries, including China which has an under five mortality rate of 9 per 1000. Furthermore, the level of stunting (height for age) and wasting (weight for height) continues to be very high, with 37.9% of children under five stunted in India—compared with 21.9% globally and 31.9% in the South Asian Region [ 4 , 5 ]. The situation for women is also slow to improve; over one third of women of reproductive age have been found to be anaemic [ 6 ], malnutrition remains high [ 7 ], and few women have control over their family or personal finances [ 8 ], all of which are contributors to food and nutritional insecurity.

The concept of food security has evolved significantly over the past few decades. The right to food can be found in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), accepted by 58 Member States of the United Nations (UN) in 1948. Article 25 proclaims the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food. The right to food is also included in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). While the inclusion of the right to food within these documents is important, neither, now ratified by almost all Member States of the UN, define what the right to food is, or how food security can be achieved.

A more practical application of the right to food has been addressed through a series of World Food Summits, convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN. In 1974, the first World Food Summit proclaimed food security as the “availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices” [ 9 ]. Since this time, hundreds of definitions of food security have been developed [ 10 ]. The most common definition of food security describes food security as “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” [ 11 ]. This definition recognises the importance of the “four pillars” of food security: availability, access, utilization, and sustainability. Availability refers to the volume of food available from one’s own production, the market, or from aid, and can be impacted by a lack or problems with storage, the negative impacts of climate change, and harvest manpower. According to Barrett [ 12 ], while food availability is insufficient to ensure access to and utilization of food to achieve food security, aggregate availability is a necessary condition for food security. The second pillar, access, refers to the resources and purchasing power of a household as well as the policy environment that dictates trade, subsidies, and conflict. Access is said to reflect the demand side of food security, as well as emphasising problems relating to unexpected shocks, including natural disasters, unemployment, poor health, or price hikes [ 12 ]. Utilization, the third pillar, refers to an individual’s biological ability to use the food consumed, and considers the absence of parasites, disease, and the ability to absorb micronutrients, as well as the presence of appropriate cooking facilities and cooking skill. Finally, sustainability refers to market stability, both local and global. These pillars are hierarchical, where availability is necessary, but does not ensure access, which in turn is necessary but not sufficient to ensure utilisation, which is necessary but cannot guarantee sustainability [ 12 , 13 ].

Much of the research that has investigated food security in India has focused on the availability pillar of food security, largely through investigations of crop yields [ 14 ], policy interventions [ 15 ], and food production [ 16 ]. Research that has investigated the experience of food insecurity at the household level has mostly occurred through data collected via the National Sample Survey, consumer expenditure data, and national grain and rice production estimates [ 17 , 18 ]. This focus on availability, particularly the focus on purchasing power, is problematic as it emphasises the role of the distribution of government aid as a means to alleviate food insecurity, ignoring the other pillars of food insecurity. This focus on re-distribution also removes the role of any local customs, individual strategies, and social factors that contribute to food insecurity, including poverty, resulting from low and irregular incomes [ 19 ], inadequate housing and basic infrastructure [ 20 ], overcrowding and a lack of basic sanitary services resulting in the promotion of infectious diseases [ 21 ], unequal distribution of wealth and access and entitlement to land, and limited access to services [ 22 ]. This has meant that much of the formal response to chronic and acute hunger in India to date has been through activities directed at the availability pillar of food security; through food supply activities, including the implementation of the National Food Security Act of 2013 [ 23 ] and the Public Distribution System [ 24 ]. These are positive steps in responding to a problem of food shortage that has impacted many millions of people, but there is a potential that these strategies have met their capacity to make positive change; additional approaches are now required that move beyond food availability.

There are approximately 800 million hungry people unevenly distributed across the world; two thirds live in South Asia and Africa south of the Sahara [ 25 ]. With more than 200 million food insecure people, India alone is home to the largest number of hungry people, where poor nutrition causes nearly half of all deaths in children under five [ 25 ]. India ranks 102nd of 117 countries included in the Global Hunger Index, the tool used to measure and compare hunger across developing nations [ 26 ]. While the number of hungry and malnourished in India has remained relatively stable over the past two decades [ 26 ], the emerging problem of overweight and obesity is becoming more of a concern, with recent research suggesting that there are over 135 million obese people in India [ 27 ].

The reasons for India’s chronic food insecurity, the high rates of stunting and wasting, and the emerging problems related to obesity are complex. While supply and access to food is important, undernutrition and hunger persist in India not because of problems in food production [ 28 ], but because of the interplay between the social determinants of health and inequalities in entitlement and access within Indian society [ 29 , 30 ]. For example, more than 30% of rural households are landless [ 31 ], relying on manual, casual labour for a large portion of their income [ 32 ], discrimination by caste, religion, and gender remain pervasive [ 33 ], and low literacy and poor formal education restrict opportunities for social mobility [ 34 , 35 ].

Women are known to disproportionately experience food insecurity. This experience of food insecurity is related to inequalities in land ownership, lingering cultural barriers to employment despite increasing education attainment [ 8 ], and the invisibility of women’s economic contribution to agriculture. While research investigating food insecurity in India is increasing, there remain gaps in our understanding of how women respond to, and cope with, food insecurity and hunger. What is also missing from current work is an investigation of the different experiences of food insecurity within households, and the role of women in protecting their families, especially elderly relatives and children, against food insecurity and hunger.

The primary aim of this research is to investigate the experience of food insecurity among women in India. The objectives of this research are (1) to determine the role of women in food production and its contribution to household food security, (2) to examine the gender roles within households and the decision-making processes that influence food security, and (3) to investigate household nutritional status and food insecurity experience.

2. Methods/Design

2.1. sample and recruitment.

Participants will include women who live in the village of Thuha, located in the state of Punjab in north India. Thuha consists of approximately 2500 individuals in 500 dwellings [ 36 ]. This research will consist of interviews with 100 households, drawn from a convenience sample. Households of any size and type will be included, with the preference of interviewing women, all participants will be over 18 years of age. The preference for women is consistent with some emerging work from India that suggests that women have a large influence on the food security status of households, particularly in households where men temporarily migrate into the cities for work [ 37 ].

2.2. Data Collection

The village Sarpanch, the official elected head of the village, will be informed of the research and will meet with the research team before any research activity begins. With the consent of the Sarpanch, information about the study objectives and data collection requirements, including how long the survey will take, and the measurements needed, will be provided to each household. Informed verbal consent will then be obtained from the participant. Households and individuals will not be pressured to participate; all households will only be approached once for their participation.

Data will be collected through face-to-face structured interviews either at the house of the participant or at a mutually agreed on public location. Interviews will include: food related experiences, anthropometric measurements (weight, height, waist, and hip) and dietary assessment (24-h diet recall, two non-consecutive days), dwelling facilities, agriculture related information, including household agriculture activities undertaken, food security status (via the USDA Household Food Security Scale Measurement), and demographic information. Households will be visited up to three times, and in total interviews are expected to last for approximately 30–60 min. Interviews will be audio recorded, with recordings used to supplement notes (see Supplementary materials ) taken during the interview. Interviews will be conducted in Punjabi with at least one translator fluent in English and Punjabi present to provide simultaneous translation to allow for any probing or for follow-up questions at the time of the interview. Four major domains will be explored in the interview (see Table 1 ).

Overview of four domains explored in the interviews.

Domains Explored in Interviews	Example Items to be Explored
Socioeconomic variables	Household type, composition, and size
	Education attainment
	Employment
	Agricultural activity
Food security	Not enough money for food
	Could not afford to eat balanced meals
	Cut the size of meals
	Experience hunger
	Meals per day
	Food storage
	Food costs
Anthropomorphic measurements	Height (cm)
	Weight (kg)
	Waist circumference (cm)
	Hip circumference (cm)
24-h recall	All foods consumed in the past 24-h period

Interviews will consist of 39 close-ended questions, and five open-ended questions. Four major domains will be explored in the interview:

1. Socioeconomic variables: this section includes close-ended questions about household type, household composition, household size, education attainment, employment, and agricultural activity.
(a) The food that [I/We] bought just didn’t last, and [I/We] didn’t have money to get more. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last month?
(b) [I/We] couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last month?
(c) In the last month, did you (or other adults in your household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? Was that almost every week, some weeks but not every week, in only 1 or 2 weeks, or never?
(d) In the last month, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough food? (Yes, No).

Consistent with the method proposed by Agarwal and Sethi [ 39 ], questions 1 and 2 will be coded as 0 for “never true” and 1 for “sometimes true/often true”. Question 3 will be coded as 1 “almost every week, some weeks but not every week, in only 1 or 2 weeks” and 0 for “never true”. Question 4, with response options “yes” or “no” will be coded as 1 and 0, respectively. Households with zero or one affirmative response will be classified as food secure, those with two or more affirmative responses will be classified as food insecure and those with three or more affirmative responses will be classified as food insecure with hunger.

In addition, the interview will include questions regarding how the household sources food, how often they eat, if they consider their eating patterns to be different now than they were in the past, and who makes household decisions.

(a) Body mass index (BMI), employing height and weight measures, has been found to be related to an individual’s food consumption patterns [ 40 ] and health outcomes [ 41 , 42 ]. Food insecurity in women often presents as high BMI [ 43 ], with some studies suggesting that the prevalence of overweight among women increases as food insecurity increases [ 44 , 45 ]. Participants will be weighed, without shoes, on a portable Tanita digital scale to the nearest 0.1 kg. Height will be taken with a portable Seca 213 stadiometer to the nearest 0.5 cm. All measurements will be taken twice, and the average used for calculation. BMI will be calculated as weight (kg) divided by height (m) squared (kg/m 2 ). Criteria used to define overweight will be those adopted by India which considers obesity when BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 [ 46 ].
(b) Waist-to-hip ratio has been identified as a predictor of poor health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease [ 47 ]. Waist circumference (cm) will be taken with a Seca tape measure at the point midway between the costal margin and iliac crest in the mid-axillary line, with the subject standing and breathing normally [ 48 ]. Hip circumference (cm) will be measured at the widest point around the greater trochanter. The waist-to-hip ratio will be calculated as the waist measurement divided by the hip measurement. Given that Asian populations have been found to have an increased risk at lower waist circumference than Europeans, the lower recommended waist circumference and waist-hip ratios of 80 cm and 0.80 will be used for the women in this study [ 49 ]. Waist and hip measurements are being employed in this study as they provide more accurate information about accumulation and distribution of fat in the body than BMI alone [ 50 ].
4. The 24-h diet recall is a structured interview that will be used to capture detailed dietary information regarding all foods and beverages consumed by the respondent, including the quantities and methods of preparation within the designated 24-h period. Women are typically responsible for food preparation and best suited to provide information pertaining to the dietary diversity of their households [ 51 ]. As such, women will be the focus of the 24-h diet recall data collection. 24-h diet recall will follow the multi-pass method with reference photos, which have been shown to allow for a more comprehensive recall [ 52 ].

3. Data Analysis

A variety of data analysis approaches will be employed to interrogate the data collected. Basic descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations will be used to investigate the quantitative data. Standard calculations of food insecurity described above will be applied to determine household food security status. The 24-h diet recall data will be entered into Foodworks 10 for nutritional analysis. Data analysis will be informed by thematic analysis following the process described by Miles and Huberman [ 53 ]. A thematic analysis, following an inductive approach, allows for the identification of themes in the data. The constant comparative method will be employed as soon as the data is collected. This technique allows for the identification of patterns and ideas in the data. The data will be read and re-read to identify codes, categories, and themes.

The study protocol has been approved by the Deakin University Research Ethics Committee (2020-007). Informed consent procedures described above allow individual participants to decline to participate. This study was funded by an Australia–India Strategic Research Fund Early- and Mid-Career Researcher 2020 Fellowship.

4. Discussion

Given the severity of the food insecurity and hunger problem in India, researchers need to start to look at alternative means beyond production and distribution as solutions. To do this, measurements beyond crop production need to be considered, with investigation of household experiences of food security and hunger needed. This study will provide some insight into the role of women in rural households relating to food security and will explore some of the important cultural and gendered influences that can impact food insecurity. By including key anthropomorphic measures, the physical impacts of food insecurity among this population can be explored, while the inclusion of the 24-h diet recall will allow for an exploration of diet diversity and general nutritional intake.

The focus of this research is to reframe current understandings of food security, with the overarching goal of contributing to knowledge that will see the reduction of the intergenerational negative health and social effects of chronic undernourishment that result from food insecurity. This will be achieved by focusing on how those in need can access a reliable, affordable, and sufficient diet, that is both nutritious and culturally appropriate. In addition, as food security is interrelated to livelihoods and entitlements [ 19 ], education [ 54 ], land [ 55 ], and engagement with the formal financial sector [ 56 ], the role of these social determinants of health will also be explored.

5. Conclusions

This study will allow for the identification of some of the components of household food insecurity among women in India and will go part of the way to understanding how and why India continues to experience food and nutritional insecurity despite growth and progress in a range of other indicators.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of research assistants Deniz Atkin, Gurpreet Singh, Rosy Rajput, and Deepti Sehgal who made an important contribution to considerations related to data collection.

Abbreviations

BMI	Body Mass Index
FAO	Food and Agriculture Organization
ICESCR	International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
UDHR	Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN	United Nations

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3769/s1 , The survey used in this study will be made available as a supplementary file.

Author Contributions

F.H.M. led the development of the study protocol, the research design, and manuscript, as part of her Australian Academy of Sciences funding. A.S., P.J., G.K., and J.K. assisted with components of the design and the manuscript preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This study was funded by an Australia–India Strategic Research Fund Early- and Mid-Career Researcher 2020 Fellowship. This fellowship funds McKay’s travel to India for the purpose of data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts to declare.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate in this project was obtained from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: 2020-007). All participants will be provided with a statement to describe the purpose of the study and will provide verbal consent.

Consent for Publication

This project obtained human ethics approval by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: 2020-007), and the participant consent forms includes consent for publication.

Five Killed in Fresh Violence in Manipur's Jiribam District
This Summer Was Northern Hemisphere's Hottest on Record: EU Climate Monitor
Tamil Cinema: GSICC to Ban Sexual Offenders for Five Years, Vows Legal Support for Victims
Cong Fields Vinesh Phogat From Julana After Inducting Her, Bajrang Punia Ahead of Haryana Polls
What Does Jamaat-e-Islami’s ‘Return’ to Electoral Politics Mean for J&K?
Household Spending on Food Falls Below 50% for the the First Time Since 1947: Report
6,000 Post Graduates, 40,000 Graduates Among Applicants for Position of Sweeper in Haryana
After Criticism, Revised Medical Curriculum that Termed Lesbianism as 'Sexual Offence' Withdrawn
Having Learnt From Election Defeat, BJD to Oppose Waqf Amendment Bill in Rajya Sabha
Supreme Court Reserves Judgement in Kejriwal's Petitions Seeking Bail, Challenging CBI Arrest

India's Path to Food Security Has No Quick Fixes

Population and employment
Economic growth, income and inequality
Yield and production of plant food calories.

Interview | ‘Quit TMC As Act of Self-Immolation; Take Corrective Action’: Jawhar Sircar

भाषा : हिंदी
Classroom Courses
Our Selections
Student Login
About NEXT IAS
Director’s Desk
Advisory Panel
Faculty Panel
General Studies Courses
Optional Courses
Interview Guidance Program
Postal Courses
Test Series
Current Affairs
Student Portal

Prelims Analytica
CSE (P) 2024 Solutions
Pre Cum Main Foundation Courses
1 Year GSPM Foundation Course
2 Year Integrated GSPM Foundation Course: Elevate
3 Year Integrated GSPM Foundation Course: EDGE
2 Year GSPM Foundation with Advanced Integrated Mentorship (FAIM)
Mentorship Courses
1 Year Advanced Integrated Mentorship (AIM)
Early Start GS Courses
1 Year GS First Step
Mains Specific
Mains Advance Course (MAC) 2024
Essay Guidance Program cum Test Series 2024
Ethics Enhancer Course 2024
Prelims Specific
Weekly Current Affairs Course 2025
Current Affairs for Prelims (CAP) 2025
CSAT Course 2025
CSAT EDGE 2025
Optional Foundation Courses
Mathematics
Anthropology
Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
Optional Advance Courses
Political Science & International Relations (PSIR)
Civil Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Interview Guidance Programme / Personality Test Training Program
GS + CSAT Postal Courses
Current Affairs Magazine – Annual Subscription
GS+CSAT Postal Study Course
First Step Postal Course
Postal Study Course for Optional Subjects
Prelims Test Series for CSE 2025 (Offline/Online)
General Studies
GS Mains Test Series for CSE 2024
Mains Test Series (Optional)
PSIR (Political Science & International Relations)
Paarth PSIR
PSIR Answer Writing Program
PSIR PRO Plus Test Series
Mathematics Yearlong Test Series (MYTS) 2024
Indian Economic Services
ANUBHAV (All India Open Mock Test)
ANUBHAV Prelims (GS + CSAT)
ANUBHAV Mains
Headlines of the Day
Daily Current Affairs
Editorial Analysis
Monthly MCQ Compilation
Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
Previous Year Papers
Down to Earth
Kurukshetra
Union Budget
Economic Survey
Download NCERTs
NIOS Study Material
Beyond Classroom
Toppers’ Copies
Indian Economy

Food Security in India: Challenges and Opportunities

Food security is the availability of food and the access to it by people. It means that people have enough food to eat all year round and that the food is safe and nutritious.

According to the World Food Programme, 195 million people in India are undernourished.
43% of children in India are chronically undernourished.
India ranks 68 out of 113 major countries in terms of the Global food security index 2022.

There are Four Dimensions:

It is related to the production and supply of food.

: It is related to the ability of people to obtain food.

It is related to the way people use food.

: It is related to the ability of the food system to withstand shocks and stresses.

Why is there a Need for Food Security in India?

Population Pressure : With over 1.3 billion people, India has a large and growing population. The increasing demand for food places significant pressure on agricultural production and food resources.
Agricultural Productivity : India’s agricultural sector is characterized by low productivity due to several factors such as fragmented land holdings, inadequate irrigation facilities, lack of modern farming techniques, and limited access to credit and technology.
Climate Change and Natural Disasters : Erratic weather patterns, including droughts, floods, and extreme temperatures, affect crop yields and livestock productivity.
Water Scarcity : Agriculture in India is heavily dependent on monsoon rains. However, rainfall patterns are increasingly unpredictable, leading to water scarcity in some regions.
Land Degradation and Soil Health : Land degradation, caused by factors like erosion, overuse of chemical fertilizers, and improper land management practices, poses a threat to agricultural productivity.
Storage and Distribution : Inefficient storage facilities and inadequate cold chain systems result in substantial food losses and wastage.
Poverty and Inequality : Many people, particularly in rural areas and marginalized communities, struggle to afford and access nutritious food consistently.

How to Address the Challenges Related to Food Security in India?

Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Promote sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, agroforestry, and integrated pest management. These practices enhance soil fertility, reduce chemical inputs, and conserve water, leading to increased productivity and resilience.
Irrigation and Water Management: Improve irrigation infrastructure by expanding access to reliable irrigation facilities, promoting water-efficient technologies like drip irrigation, and implementing water harvesting and conservation techniques.
Research and Technology: developing high-yielding crop varieties, drought and pest-resistant seeds, and innovative farming techniques. Encourage the adoption of modern technologies like precision agriculture, remote sensing, and digital farming tools to optimize resource use and improve productivity.
Climate Change Adaptation: Implement crop diversification, crop rotation, and agroecology. Develop early warning systems for extreme weather events and support farmers in adopting climate-resilient practices.
Storage and Cold Chain Infrastructure: investing in modern storage facilities, cold chain infrastructure, and transportation systems will help reduce food losses and wastage.
Strengthening Food Distribution Systems: Enhance the efficiency of food distribution networks through better logistics, supply chain management, and market linkages.

How is Food Security Ensured in India?

The Government of India has taken a number of initiatives including

The National Food Security Act, 2013
The Public Distribution System (PDS)
The Mid-Day Meal Scheme
The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)
The National Nutrition Strategy
The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)
The Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)
The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA)

National Food Security Mission

In 2007, the National Development Council (NDC) adopted a resolution to initiate a Food Security Mission.
This mission aimed to increase the annual production of rice by 10 million tonnes, wheat by 8 million tonnes, and pulses by 2 million tonnes by the end of the Eleventh Plan (2011-12).
In line with this resolution, the ‘National Food Security Mission’ (NFSM), a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, was launched in October 2007.
The NFSM proved to be highly successful, meeting its targets and achieving the desired additional production of rice, wheat, and pulses.

National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013

The National Food Security Bill, which was passed in India in 2013 and subsequently enacted as the National Food Security Act (NFSA), is a landmark legislation aimed at ensuring food security for the population.

Key Features of the National Food Security Act

Targeted Coverage: The Act identifies specific categories of beneficiaries entitled to subsidized food grains. These include priority households, which constitute the poorest of the poor, and eligible households under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY).
Entitlements: The Act guarantees the right to receive food grains at subsidized prices. Nutritional support is also provided to pregnant women and lactating mothers, as well as children through the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program.
Subsidized Prices: For priority households, the prices for rice, wheat, and coarse grains are fixed at Rs. 3, Rs. 2, and Rs. 1 per kilogram, respectively.
Public Distribution System (PDS) Reforms: The Act emphasizes the need for strengthening and reforming the PDS, by computerization of records, and grievance redressal mechanisms.
Grievance Redressal: It aims to provide a platform for beneficiaries to seek remedies in case of denial or irregularities in accessing their entitlements.

Way Forward

It refers to the state in which all individuals within a country have access to an adequate supply of nutritious food, can afford to purchase high-quality food, and face no obstacles in obtaining it. While those living in poverty often struggle to meet their food needs, even wealthier individuals can experience food insecurity during emergencies or crises. In India, numerous people encounter issues with food and nutrition security, with particular groups being more severely impacted. To ensure the widespread availability of food, the Indian government has established a food security system comprised of two main components: a reserve stock of food and a public distribution system. Additionally, the government has implemented various programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving food security. In order to ensure food security in India it will require a multi-pronged approach that includes increasing agricultural production, reducing inequalities in access to food improving the infrastructure, and raising awareness.

Asked Questions in UPSC

Q. What are the salient features of the National Food Security Act, of 2013? How has the Food Security Bill helped in eliminating hunger and malnutrition in India? (Answer in 250 words) (UPSE CSE 2021)

How Does PDS Ensure Food Security in India?

Public Distribution Systems (PDS) in India play a crucial role in ensuring food security for its population. With the help of targeted Identification PDS provides subsidized food grains. DS supplies essential commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar, and kerosene oil.

It maintains a buffer stock of food grains to meet emergency requirements, such as natural disasters. DS has an extensive distribution network spread across the country. Fair Price Shops act as the primary distribution points to reach the most vulnerable populations

Featured Post

NEXT IAS (Delhi)

Old rajinder nagar.

27-B, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar no.118, Near Karol Bagh Metro, New Delhi-110060

Mukherjee Nagar

1422, Main Mukherjee Nagar Road. Near Batra Cinema New Delhi-110009

NEXT IAS (Jaipur)

NEXT IAS - Plot No - 6 & 7, 3rd Floor, Sree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Above Zudio Showroom Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302015

NEXT IAS (Prayagraj)

31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh - 211001

NEXT IAS (Bhopal)

Plot No. 46 Zone - 2 M.P Nagar Bhopal - 462011
8827664612 ,

Major Ports in India: Names, Performance, Challenges and Sagarmala Initiative

Loksabha Election
Budget 2024
Stock Market Quotes
Mutual Fund
Stock Stats
Top Gainers
CaFE Invest
Investing Abroad
Gold Rate in India
Silver Rate in India
Petrol Rate in India
Diesel Rate in India
Express Mobility
Banking & Finance
Mutual Funds
Travel & Tourism
Brand Wagon
Entertainment
Web Stories
Auto Web Stories
Infographics
Today’s Paper
International
Edits & Columns
Personal Finance Print
PRIVACY POLICY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
IPO’s Open and Upcoming 16
Top Indices Performance
Stock Analysis
Stock Market Stats
Financial Literacy
Gold Rate Today
NSE Top Gainers 692
NSE Top Losers 1966
BSE Top Gainers 1940
BSE Top Losers 3033
NSE 52-Week High 0
NSE 52-Week Low 0
BSE 52-Week High 0
BSE 52-Week Low 0
NSE Price Shocker
NSE Volume Shocker
BSE Price Shocker
BSE Volume Shocker
NSE Sellers
BSE Sellers
Silver Rate Today
Petrol Rate Today
Diesel Rate Today

Strategic Plan
Board of Trustees
Director General
Our Research Experts
Donors and Partners
Annual Reports
Climate Smart Crops
Agrosilvopastoral Systems
Soil Water and Agronomy
Capacity Development
Empowering women and youth
Open Access
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL)
Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS)
Improving Farmers' Livelihoods
INTERNATIONAL NURSERIES
Promoting value chains and policies
ICARDA Genebanks
Integrated Desert Farming
Research Projects
CWANA & Middle East
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Afghanistan
Central Asia & Caucasus
Publications & Resources
Innovations
Latest News
In The Media
Country Offices
Newsletter Signup

ICARDA News

29th Annual Group Meet on Rabi Pulses in India

Pulses, the unsung heroes of the agricultural realm, embody a crucial protein source and exhibit remarkable resilience to environmental stresses like drought, heat, and cold, making them a pivotal crop in India's agricultural landscape. Pulse crops emit fewer greenhouse gases and serve as carbon sequesters, distinguishing them as a climate-friendly and strategically essential crop for the nation. ICARDA has delivered cutting-edge pulses research for the last decades and has promoted pulses as a food crop that can help to strengthen food and nutritional security in India, where the population keeps growing.

On September 2 – 4, 2024, the dedicated team of ICARDA India hosted the successful 29th Annual Group Meet on Rabi Pulses at the Food Legume Research Platform (FLRP) at Amlaha, near Bhopal. Rabi crops – chickpea, lentil, grasspea, fababean, field pea, and Rajmash – are crops that are sown in winter and harvested in spring in India. The word “rabi” was borrowed from Persian (ربيع, romanized: rabī) and means spring.

The gathering of over 200 researchers and policy makers aimed to facilitate discussions among experts in the field, fostering collaboration to enhance pulse production in India. Co-hosted by ICAR's key institute, the Indian Institute of Pulses Research under the All India Coordinated Research Project , the event featured insightful discussions on modern agricultural tools and strategies to boost pulse productivity.

The event saw esteemed speakers, including ICARDA’s Regional Coordinator for South Asia and China Regional Program, Dr. Shiv Kumar Agrawal , and ICAR’s Deputy Director General for Crop Science, Dr. Tilak Raj Sharma, emphasizing the importance of leveraging modern tools in agricultural research such as speed breeding and genome editing to address challenges in pulse improvement programs. Dr. Sharma also underscored the importance of developing region-specific product profiles for pulses in India.

The Agriculture Commissioner of the Government of India, Dr. P.K. Singh, discussed the new strategy of the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare that aims to increase the pulse variety replacement rate in India. He stressed the goal of achieving self-sufficiency in pulse production by 2027 and highlighted various government policies and initiatives designed to support farmers in boosting pulse productivity.

By emphasizing the importance of revitalizing the All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Rabi pulses, particularly in the areas of promotion and testing criteria for the ecological promotion of pulses, Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, Assistant Director General (Oilseeds and Pulses) of ICAR set the tone for the subsequent technical sessions whereas Dr. G.P. Dixit, Director of ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur, provided an overview of the notable research and development activities in Rabi pulses, particularly in chickpea and lentil production, Dr. Shailesh Tripathi, Project Coordinator (Rabi Pulses), presented progress and achievements of coordinated research trials, setting the stage for further review and discussions.

In his remarks, Dr. S.C. Dubey , the Vice Chancellor of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, Jharkhand, highlighted the significant increase in Indian pulse production but emphasized the need for sustained collaborative efforts to ensure continued success in this sector.

The meeting concluded with a collective agreement to prioritize the establishment of modern breeding facilities at ICARDA’s Food and Legume Research Platform, aimed at adding value to the national system and accelerating advancements in pulse improvement programs. Joint research proposals on pulse improvement were also explored with national partners, with an emphasis on capacity-building and genetic enhancement.

Stay Informed

Food security and the value of water (KB-35)

The United Nations strive for ‘zero hunger’ in 2030. Meanwhile, over the past years, the number of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition has increased on a global scale. Furthermore, food systems are vulnerable to climate change and are required to feed an ever-increasing population. These facts are felt primarily by the lower and middle social strata in Africa and Asia. Providing every world citizen with sufficient and healthy nutrition demands a transition towards sustainable food systems.

Theory of change

Through the research programme Food security and Valuing water, Wageningen University & Research aims to develop new routes towards a sustainable food system. The main challenges in achieving this goal are the depletion of freshwater resources, climate change, land management, soil degradation, declining biodiversity, migration, the increase in agricultural production and changes in international trade. Not just the amount of food, but its availability and affordability are crucial. In this programme, we develop and asses new insights for shaping transitions towards sustainable food security.

Thematic Areas

The Food security and Valuing water programme focusses on research, development and assessment of new insights that shape transitions towards sustainable food security that can be applied in multiple middle and low-income regions across the globe. A characteristic of this programme is that we combine knowledge and experience from several disciplines in each project. In every project, researchers with backgrounds in social, technological and natural sciences work together.

The research activities in the KB35 programme are organised along three inter or transdisciplinary research areas and each consist of several projects:

Land – water interfaces
Changing role of (informal) actors, consumers and rural-urban linkages in transitions
Future scenarios and navigating trade-offs and synergies

Visit Food and Water Security for more details of the individual projects.

Food System Approach as a framework

Central to our research is the Food System Approach, an interdisciplinary framework for analysing the cohesion between the different parts of the food system and its outcomes in socio-economic and environmental terms, as well as creating a better understanding of the feedback loops between the different elements of food systems. For example, we look at the efficiency of production and processing and its impact on environmental aspects (e.g. water, soil) as well as the income of the local farmers. Furthermore, we analyse the role and consequences of labour, informal actors, income, and the influence and dependence of food production on biodiversity and climate.

Food systems are highly complex systems which encompass all the stages of feeding the population: agricultural production, harvesting, packing, processing, transforming, marketing, consuming and disposing of food (UNEP, 2016; van Berkum et al., 2018).

Report: The food systems approach: sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food, Siemen van Berkum, Just Dengerink and Ruerd Ruben, 2018

Read the longread

Agriculture is very thirsty

Water as a guiding principle in transitions.

WUR researchers’ vision on the theme of water.

The Impact of Climate Change on Food Security

Dive into the world of participatory research

‘The prize money is nice, but the acknowledgement of my research matters most’

UN Climate Change Conference (COP28)

Background stories.

"Put water at the heart of food systems"

WUR in Ethiopia: on the way to a sustainable food pyramid for all

Mekong Delta: Vietnam’s rice bowl transitions into a diverse food basket

Applying a food system approach: the key to Zero Hunger in 2030

Food security: sufficient safe and healthy food for everyone

A food system approach leads to food security

More about food security and the value of water.

Participatory Seaweed research in South Sulawesi, Indonesia
Course testimonial ‘Managing Risk in the Face of Climate Change’
WUR Students look for solution for corona-caused hunger
Pond aquaculture farming in Kenya
Cage aquaculture farming in Kenya
Kibera (Nairobi) - horticulture and aquaculture food system
Science talks about corona virus
Feeding Cities - the case of Kibera, Kenya

Join the Student Challenge

QING Innovation Track - Competition for Climate Adaptation in Food Systems
Student Challenge on Food System in 10 years time
Research Theme Food Systems
Ocean Conference Lisbon: how marine systems contribute to the global food challenge
Hester Biemans in Atlas about the impact of melting glaciers on food production (starting at 22.20) (only Dutch)
Interview Ivo Demmers in Wageningen World: the road to zero hunger; 'If you zoom out, you see a lot going on at the same time.'

De wereld voeden

Bangladesh delta plan.

On April 20 2022, a team from Bangladeshi TV visited WUR, in the context of a programme about the Delta Works in the south of the Netherlands. The broadcast in Bangladesh on May 21 received much attention and positive reactions.

Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga in Bangladesh TV broadcast about Bangladesh Delta Plan

Posters community day 2023, overview of posters.

Performance and robustness of tilapia-shrimp polyculture in Java
Deltas under Pressure: transition pathways for salinity and drought
Food & Nutrition Security in the Global South
Understanding midstream actors in informal sectors of the food system
Improving understanding of the role of consumers in low- and middle-income countries
Trade-offs and synergies in food system transition pathways
Healthy diets
Food Systems Across Multiple Scales
Imagine food systems 2100
Bridging Sustainability and Innovation: INCiTiS-FOOD's Circular Agri-Food Approach in African Cities
Sustainable Development Goals – Enhanced monitoring through the family of Copernicus Services

Research on the impact of climate change on food security in Africa

39 Pages Posted: 4 Sep 2024

Jinglei liu

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Fangyu Ding

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) - Institute of Geographic Sciences & Natural Resources Research

Mengmeng Hao

China Academy of Space Technology

Hanwei Liang

Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology

Against the backdrop of global warming and increasingly frequent extreme climate events, assessing the impact of climate change on food security has become an important issue of global concern. We examine the influence of climate change on food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a specific emphasis on four key crops: maize, rice, wheat, and soybeans. A random forest model is used to estimate the temporal and spatial trends of agricultural yields on the basis of climate data, land use, and irrigation ratios. We also studied the differential impacts of climate change on various crop types, taking into account their physiological characteristics and responses to changing environmental conditions. This prediction is performed under three shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios—SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5—using three global climate models (GCMs): BCC-CSM2-MR, CanESM5, and IPSL-CM6A-LR.The findings suggest the following: (1) Maize, a C4 crop, is projected to experience a severe decrease in future harvests, especially under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. The worst declines are forecasted in eastern South Africa and Zambia. (2) Both rice and wheat are C3 crops that experience a "CO2 fertilization effect," resulting in an increase in yields over time. The SSP5-8.5 scenario primarily focuses on the increase in rice production in West Africa, highlighting this phenomenon. Conversely, significant increases in wheat yield are observed in South Africa and Nigeria. (3) Soybean, a C3 nitrogen-fixing crop, is projected to retain consistent yields overall but with a modest decline in comparison with past norms. The general distribution pattern of soybean yields remains mostly consistent across the SSP scenarios, with the increase in high-yield regions occurring primarily in South Africa.

Keywords: Climate change, Food security, random forest, spatial and temporal evolution, Sub-Saharan Africa

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Jinglei Liu

Affiliation not provided to ssrn ( email ).

No Address Available

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) - Institute of Geographic Sciences & Natural Resources Research ( email )

Mengmeng hao (contact author), china academy of space technology ( email ), nanjing university of information science and technology ( email ).

Nanjing China

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, development economics: agriculture, natural resources, & environmental impact ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Agricultural Economics eJournal

Agricultural sustainability & security ejournal, environmental science & climate change ejournal, political economy - development: environment ejournal.

Russia & Former Soviet Union
RT Features
Entertainment

Russia ensuring India’s energy and food security – envoy

Russia remains India’s largest partner in the energy sector, covering the full spectrum from nuclear energy to fossil fuels, and this cooperation will expand in the coming years, New Delhi’s envoy to Moscow, Vinay Kumar, stated on Thursday while addressing a session at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

“Russia forms part of our energy security and we are looking to further expand these ties,” Kumar said. He added: “Russia is also an important partner for food security as it is a large exporter of fertilizers. I would encourage the Russia producers not to only continue but increase exports, for which Russia needs to expand domestic production of fertilizers.”

Bilateral trade between the two nations has increased six-fold in the past two years, mainly owing to India’s purchases of Russian crude oil. In 2023, the trade turnover registered over $65 billion, compared to an average figure of $10-13 billion reported annually before 2022.

India is the fastest growing and most populous nation in the world. Securing Russian energy resources is key to sustaining such high levels of growth. The Indian economy is projected to post growth of 7.2% this financial year, Reserve Bank of India Governor Shaktikanta Das said on Thursday.

Oil is thicker than water: What to expect from Putin-Modi trade talks

“The energy sector remains a cornerstone of bilateral cooperation,” Tribhuvan Darbari, chairman of the India-Russia Business Council, stated. Addressing the forum he emphasized that India’s “growing energy requirement aligns with Russia’s abundant energy resources.” In 2023, India imported over 43 million barrels of crude oil from Russia, a significant increase from the previous years, he added.

India has not supported the sanctions on Russia despite pressure from Western partners, and has in fact ramped up its purchases of Russian oil. It recently overtook China as the largest buyer of Russian crude. This not only helped the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government ensure its commitments to invest in upgrading the country’s infrastructure and provide socio-economic benefits to hundreds of millions of Indians, but made the South Asian nation one of the leading exporters of petrochemicals to Europe. India’s exports of refined oil products to European countries have surged by 2,539 times since 2018, The Print reported earlier this week, citing data from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Indian officials have repeatedly stated that the country’s decision to buy Russian oil, despite Western pressure, has helped prevent a global energy crisis. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri emphasized in a recent interview with RT that without Russian oil on the market, global prices would have hit $250-$300 per barrel.

According to Darbari, Indian energy companies’ investments in the Russian hydrocarbon sector will also ensure a stable supply of oil to India, as well as foster the economic development of Russia’s Far East. Indian state-owned firms have invested around $16 billion in oil and gas assets in the Far East and East Siberia, including Sakhalin-1, Vankor and Taas-Yuryakh, and have been considering investing more in Rosneft’s massive Vostok oil project in the Arctic portion of Krasnoyarsk Region. After reaching its full capacity, the project is set to produce 50-100 million tons of oil per year.

research food security in india

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability

Introduction

Mapping the current Indian food system

Mapping potential near-term and long-term scenarios

Current food system pathways

Potential future pathways

Scenario results for 2050.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Loss and waste percentages by food chain stage and commodity group for South and Southeast Asia.

S2 Table. Assumptions and sources for figures used within all scenarios from 2011 baseline to 2050 scenarios.

S3 Table. Indian baseline and attainable yield (AY) values for key crop types.

S4 Table. Average estimated climatic impacts on Indian crop yields in 2050.

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Measuring Food Insecurity in India: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Research Materials

Food insecurity and its determinants among adults in North and South India

Introduction

Materials and methods

Measurements

Demographics

Body Mass Index (BMI)

Wealth index

Statistical analysis

Prevalence of food insecurity

Body mass index (BMI)

Mediation and regression analysis

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Additional file 2:

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Nutrition Journal

Measuring Food Insecurity in India: A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence

Cite this article

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Similar content being viewed by others

The Experience of Food Insecurity Among Immigrants: a Scoping Review

A 5-year review of prevalence, temporal trends and characteristics of individuals experiencing moderate and severe food insecurity in 34 high income countries

A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security

Introduction

Measuring Food Insecurity

Population Groups Under Investigation

Limitations

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 35 KB)

About this article

Share this article

Interview for the U.S. Senate India Caucus

FROM FOOD SECURITY TO NUTRITION SECURITY IN INDIA: A FOOD SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

Food security in India - statistics & facts

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Further recommended statistics

Food availability

Food access

Food utilization

Further reports

Documenting the Food Insecurity Experiences and Nutritional Status of Women in India: Study Protocol

Preethi John

Join the Student Challenge