“FOOD IS A Human Right.” On Downing Street, the residential area of the Prime Minister and the Chancellors of the United Kingdom, educators and students held up signs to criticize the government’s decision to halt a food welfare program for schoolchildren*. The public’s highly negative reception to the policy decision and the desperate call for food vouchers reflected the arising anxieties of many people during the pandemic of acquiring their most basic need: food.

England’s food voucher controversy

   Food insecurity in England was a concern even before the pandemic, as economists worried about the economic effects arising from “No-Deal Brexit” that could threaten reliable imports of food. This issue, however, decidedly became worse with the lockdowns and the economic struggles this year. Public demand for food aid grew high as many families struggled to get food, especially those with children. BBC reported that while schools were closed, the government released a voucher scheme that presented a weekly £15 (approximately $20) per recipient to spend in certain supermarkets so that children could eat. Although there was some criticism about the efficiency and the accessibility of the program, the attempt itself was generally well-received, with many praising the immediate relief the food aid brought them. Although the food funding program was planned to be halted during the summer holidays, a successful campaign by Manchester United football player Marcus Rashford, which pushed for an extension of the food voucher program, turned the tides. His rallying cry led to the government reversing their decision and resuming the program during summer break, to many people’s relief.

   However, the conservative Members of Parliament refused the Labour Party’s motion to do the same for the winter holidays, causing contention between the government and the public. To make up for the loss of the program, the government increased funding for the Universal Credit program and to local councils**. Some defended the decision, claiming further welfare would “increase dependency” and relegate the parents’ responsibility of feeding their children to the state***. Others were critical; The Guardian pointed out that Universal Credit, a generalized welfare program, could not solve the immediate food crisis because of its five-week wait period, while the £63 million allocated to local councils for general pandemic efforts have been reported to be not nearly enough to cover food costs. On the UK Government and Parliament petition board, Rashford’s petition for ending child food poverty and expanding food welfare services during the pandemic gathered more than a million signatures by November 2. Daily Mail reported that 2,000 pediatricians wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to revoke this decision, with many politicians on the conservative side openly disagreeing as well. The widespread food insecurity of a conventionally prosperous country and the subsequent political conflict put into perspective how much food insecurity has become a critical issue.

A universal threat to the most essential need

   The Pan American Health Organization bases food security on availability, access, and utilization, which is why food insecurity occurs not only in poverty-stricken countries but also in the richest nations. This only grew worse during the pandemic. According to the World Food Programme (WFP), 265 million people around the world, double the estimated number that the WFP calculated for this year before the pandemic, will “be suffering from acute hunger” by the end of this year. Oxfam International reported that places that were already suffering from famine-like poverty, such as Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Syria, were suffering the worst from the pandemic’s effects on food production and trade. However, previously middle-income nations like India or Brazil were reported to be veering into the danger of serious food insecurity as well.

   Food insecurity from economic instability also hit richer nations, targeting a broader range of the population that previously seemed “safe” from food insecurity. This was the exact problem observed in the United Kingdom; according to Forbes, approximately 8 million people in the United Kingdom reported they experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. An additional 900,000 children applied for food aid because of the pandemic****. A more surprising development, however, was that an unexpected demographic of middle-income households saw an upsurge in applying for food aid. The Guardian reported that unlike the pre-pandemic demographic for food banks that were under the poverty line, the recent user base widened to include those who were previously well-off, such as business owners or independent contractors. Similarly, in the United States more than 10% of adults—a number two times higher than before the pandemic—reported they didn’t have enough food to eat, and demand for food stamps saw a 17% increase between February and May*****. Spain, too, saw about a 30% increase in demand for necessities, with the Red Cross helping more than 5 times the number of applicants from 2019 with basic food packets******.

   The United Kingdom was luckier than most in that they can afford to have the choice whether to provide governmental food aid. On November 8, the government conceded for the second time to the widespread public criticism and promised £170 million for vulnerable households during the winter lockdown and another £220 million extension of holiday meal programs until 2021*******. According to BBC, other U.K. governments such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, have announced earlier that food voucher programs will continue as well. Although much needed and welcomed, this was a unique luxury that many more disfranchised nations were unable to afford.

Everyone’s crisis, everyone’s responsibility

   Sustainability and resilience of procuring food have become an international priority for avoiding food insecurity – Korea is not an exception. Although Korea was lucky enough to not face a public food crisis as England or other impoverished countries yet, The Korea Herald warned that a prolonged pandemic situation could mess with the food supply chains that are connected to other countries’ economies. An extended disruption of exports and imports could raise food prices or tamper with currency values in the current food system, raising the need for a national food procurement system to prepare for potential food insecurities in the future. Korea’s domestic self-sufficiency rate for food dropped to 46.7% of food consumption, while the self-sufficiency rate for grain was reported to be 23% on average, with various food sources relying on importation********. The pandemic was a stark reminder of how much international connection and trade played a part in everyday economy and food supplies.

   The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported in September that global food prices were rising compared to last year’s statistics. They warned that a prolonged pandemic situation of lockdowns, trade barriers, and general economic recession could affect the food supply chain of domestic and global trade. The FAO professed a need for global assistance and cooperation through the COVID-19 Food Coalition and called for renewed efforts to sustain long-term food systems and supplies when agricultural production and trade may be disturbed during and after the pandemic. The World Bank also called for global cooperation from G20 countries as international support was necessary to support community-based protection and aid for those most vulnerable.

   The United Kingdom’s case was a wake-up call for countries worldwide that were ignorant about the growing food crisis during the pandemic. No country is immune to food insecurity, and extensive aid on a state or global level is necessary to satisfy people’s most essential need to eat. It’s undeniable that food is a basic human right that should be prioritized, and the worldwide community should be ready to defend this right during and after COVID-19.

*The Guardian

**The Guardian

***BBC

****Forbes

*****The Independent

******BBC

*******The Independent

********Yonhap News