Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Promotion International logoLink to Health Promotion International
. 2026 Jul 28;41(4):daag099. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daag099

Building healthy public policy: addressing the socioeconomic drivers of food insecurity in Australia

Bethanie Chong 1,2, Cherie Russell 3,4, Katherine Sievert 5,6, Rebecca Lindberg 7,8, Kate Wingrove 9,10,11,✉
PMCID: PMC13409142  PMID: 42517583

Abstract

‘Building Healthy Public Policy’ is one of the five strategic action areas in the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, highlighting the role of governments in enabling equitable access to the basic prerequisites for health, including food and income. Yet, 40 years later, 2.6 billion people worldwide are unable to afford a healthy diet, and more than 1 in 8 households in Australia experience food insecurity. In this perspective piece, we draw on the latest data to: (i) discuss the ongoing discordance between the primary drivers of household food insecurity and Australia’s predominant means of addressing the issue; (ii) examine trends in social welfare spending and food insecurity in other high-income countries; and (iii) discuss opportunities for reducing food insecurity in Australia by increasing social welfare spending. In Australia, emergency food relief plays a crucial role in alleviating hunger in the short term and should continue to receive support. However, Australia’s over-reliance on emergency food relief demonstrates the failure of welfare policies in allocating resources equitably. In line with international commitments, Australia’s National Food Security Strategy must be underpinned by the human right to food. Actions to reduce food prices by tackling industry concentration and market power must be combined with actions to increase household incomes (e.g. by increasing social welfare payments) to enable ongoing access to affordable healthy food for all.

Keywords: food security, food insecurity, social welfare, universal basic income, Australia

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract.

Graphical abstract showing that the Australian Government should consider increasing social welfare spending in response to the socioeconomic drivers of food insecurity in Australia.

Open in a new tab

Contribution to health promotion.

  • Governments have a responsibility to ensure all citizens have an adequate standard of living, including enough food. Globally, 2.6 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet, and in Australia, more than 1 in 8 households are food insecure.

  • Responses to food insecurity in Australia have focused on providing free food to people in times of crisis, rather than making healthy food affordable for everyone (e.g. by increasing social welfare payments for people living on low incomes).

  • The Australian Government is currently developing a National Food Security Strategy, which should include actions to ensure that everyone can afford healthy food.

Introduction

In 1986, The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion laid the foundation for ‘action to achieve Health for All by the year 2000 and beyond’ (WHO 2026). As one of the Charter’s five strategic action areas, ‘Building Healthy Public Policy’ highlights the critical role of governments in enabling all citizens to access the basic prerequisites for health, including food and income (WHO 2026).Yet, 40 years later, 2.6 billion people worldwide are unable to afford a healthy diet (FAO 2025).

Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1975, making a legally binding commitment to uphold the human right to food (United Nations 1966), wherein ‘every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement’ (United Nations 2010) (p.2). Despite this commitment, food insecurity remains a prominent and growing issue in Australia. Recently released data from the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey indicate that in 2023, more than 1 in 8 households in Australia experienced food insecurity (ABS 2023a). Households with children, people seeking employment, and people living in a rental property are known to be at increased risk of food insecurity (Miller and Li 2022). Other populations at increased risk of food insecurity include culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Briones Alonso et al. 2018, Bowden 2020) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Bowden 2020). Data from the latest National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey indicate that in 2023, only 63.8% of people living in non-remote areas, and 40.0% of people living in remote areas had consistent access to healthy food in the 4 weeks prior (ABS 2023b). The two most common barriers to accessing healthy food were (i) cost and (ii) availability (reported by 61.2% and 20.3% of people, respectively) (ABS 2023b).

The consequences of food insecurity are numerous and multi-dimensional, including poorer physical and mental health outcomes (Laraia 2013, Ejiohuo et al. 2024) and impaired child development (Gallegos et al. 2021). Food insecurity can be caused by and contribute to devastating social issues, including intergenerational hardship and family violence (McKay and Bennett 2025). To halt the upward trend of food insecurity in Australia (Bowden 2020, Foodbank Australia 2023), it is imperative that socioeconomic drivers are prioritized.

Food insecurity is receiving unprecedented attention from policymakers in Australia. Following the 2023 Parliamentary Inquiry into Food Security in Australia (Parliament of Australia 2023), a National Food Security Strategy discussion paper was released in August 2025 (DAFF 2025). Three ‘key priority areas’ were identified: resilient supply chains; productivity, innovation and growth; and competition and cost of living (DAFF 2025). Cost of living was identified as a driver of food insecurity and actions to reduce food prices were described as part of the solution (DAFF 2025). While actions to reduce food prices can ease cost of living pressures, actions to address low incomes (including social welfare payments that fall below the poverty line (The Australia Institute 2024, Davidson and Bradbury 2025)) are also critical. In this perspective, we draw on the latest data to: (i) discuss the ongoing discordance between the primary drivers of food insecurity and Australia’s predominant means of addressing the issue; (ii) examine trends in social welfare spending and food insecurity in other high-income countries (HICs); and (iii) discuss opportunities for reducing food insecurity in Australia by increasing social welfare spending.

Australia’s current response to food insecurity does not address the socioeconomic causes

In Australia, food insecurity is primarily chronic in nature and is largely a result of high living expenses (including food and grocery, energy, medical expenses and housing costs) and low levels of income or social benefits (Reeves et al. 2017, Loopstra 2018, Miller and Li 2022). Household income level has been found to most reliably predict the likelihood of an individual experiencing food insecurity in HICs (Loopstra 2018), and food insecurity is present in up to 78% of Australian households with an annual income of <$30 000 (Miller and Li 2022).

Although costs of living are generally expected to rise over time, from July 2023 to July 2024 both housing (4.0%) and food prices (3.8%) rose more than inflation (3.5%) (ABS 2024). Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic, rental prices have increased substantially across Australia, particularly in metropolitan areas. Illustratively, rent in Metropolitan Melbourne increased by over 14% from 2023 to 2024 (State Government of Victoria 2024a) and in 2025, only 9.7% of rental listings were affordable for low-income households (defined as households receiving social welfare payments) (State Government of Victoria 2025).

Food price inflation from July 2023 to July 2024 was largely attributable to increases in fruit and vegetable prices, which rose by 7.5% over this period (ABS 2024). The highly concentrated nature of the Australian grocery industry has enabled extensive ‘price gouging’ by the dominant duopoly, which has contributed significantly to elevated food prices (Grimmer 2018, The Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices 2024). Excessive exercise of market power occurs across the agrifood system, from fertilizer companies to multinational ultra-processed food companies, who engage in behaviours such as intentionally restricting production and over-inflating commodity prices in response to global supply shocks. This ultimately translates to increased food prices (Clapp et al. 2025).

Though food insecurity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is driven, in part, by low-income levels and high living costs, additional food security barriers exist as an ongoing consequence of British colonialism. These barriers include a forced diversion from traditional foods towards ultra-processed foods, intergenerational poverty, and disruption to family structures (Sherriff et al. 2022). Additionally, in rural and remote communities, produce is generally more expensive, poorer quality and less available than in urban centres (Ferguson et al. 2016, Rogers et al. 2018, Whelan et al. 2018).

Despite the main drivers of food insecurity being socioeconomic in nature, a highly visible, politically popular and growing response to food insecurity is emergency food relief (Pettman et al. 2022), including community kitchens, soup vans, and food banks, from which people experiencing food insecurity can access donated groceries and/or meals (Parliament of Australia 2023, Foodbank Australia 2025). Australian food bank organizations receive 1.4 million AUD total in federal government funding annually from the Department of Social Services (Parliament of Australia 2023). At a state level, the Victorian government invested over 66 million AUD in the food relief sector between 2020 and 2024 (State Government of Victoria 2024b). Nationally, the food relief sector provides an immensely valuable service to people experiencing food insecurity, with an estimated 900 000 to 2 000 000 food relief recipients annually (Gentilini 2013, Lindberg et al. 2015, Miller and Li 2022). In addition to alleviating hunger in the short term, some food relief programs also run workshops to improve nutrition knowledge, cooking and safe storage skills, and provide support networks and access or avenues to other social support services (Lindberg et al. 2015).

However, food relief providers majorly rely on donated goods, of which the type, quantity and nutritional quality of food can vary significantly (Mossenson et al. 2024). This often results in people receiving unhealthy and/or culturally inappropriate foods that may be past their safe consumption date (McKay et al. 2020). Additionally, some people experiencing food insecurity report that they avoid charitable food relief due to stigma and/or being unable to navigate complex means testing procedures, for example due to lacking the documentation required to ‘prove’ their food insecurity status (McKay et al. 2020, Mossenson et al. 2024). Furthermore, multiple food relief organizations have difficulties in meeting current food relief demands due to financial, labour and supply constraints (Pollard et al. 2018, Parliament of Australia 2023), a challenge set to worsen as demand continues to rise (OzHarvest 2026).

Food rescue and redistribution as food relief can be promoted as a solution to both food insecurity and food waste. However, as a standalone program, it is a solution to neither. Food insecurity has socioeconomic drivers and food waste is largely driven by overproduction secondary to food system industrialization, supply chain inefficiencies and the practices of corporate agribusiness, including profit maximization within a framework of shareholder primacy (Thyberg and Tonjes 2016). Uncoupling these two issues may be necessary to address their respective underlying causes (Booth and Pollard 2020).

Trends in social welfare spending and food insecurity in high-income countries

As food insecurity is primarily a result of socioeconomic factors that impair economic access to nutritious foods in Australia; such as low wages, inadequate social safety nets, and market concentration; addressing food insecurity should include consideration of social welfare policies. Social welfare policies vary significantly across HICs. In 1990, Esping-Andersen broadly classified welfare policy arrangements in capitalist nations as being either liberal, corporatist, or social democratic (Esping-Andersen 1990). In liberalist (including neoliberal) nations, the allocation of goods and services is determined by supply and demand (the ‘free market’), with minimal government interference and therefore minimal (and means-tested) public sector welfare spending. In corporatist welfare regimes, resources are allocated via the market, but welfare provision is organized intersectorally, such as between government, industry and unions. Welfare support is strongly tied to employment status and contributions. Under social democratism, resources are still primarily market allocated, however the state assumes primary responsibility for providing universal welfare services and there is little reliance on charitable aid (Esping-Andersen 1990, Richards et al. 2016, Berkowitz et al. 2024).

In comparing HICs categorized as having either corporatist, liberal, or social democratic welfare policies, the probability of food insecurity for an individual is greatest in liberalist countries and significantly reduced in countries whose welfare policies are either corporatist or social democratic (Berkowitz et al. 2024). For example, Norway is a largely socially democratic nation where access to social benefits is purportedly universal, and food insecurity is addressed mainly through cash benefits as opposed to emergency food relief. Norway’s prevalence of food insecurity is approximately 2.5% (Economist Impact 2022), far below the recent estimate of 13.2% in Australia (ABS 2023a). In contrast, Australia has a liberal welfare policy system; social security is complex and means tested with strict eligibility criteria and mutual obligation requirements (Berkowitz et al. 2024, Australian Government 2025). The prominence of food relief as the primary intervention against food insecurity in Australia is likewise in alignment with liberalist welfare policies, in that food relief operations are heavily reliant on private sector charitable aid and are often challenging to navigate (McKay et al. 2020, Mossenson et al. 2024). It is estimated that the probability of an individual experiencing food insecurity in Australia would decrease by more than one-third if Australia switched from a liberal to either a corporatist or a social democratic welfare system (Berkowitz et al. 2024).

In comparing welfare expenditure in HICs, higher state social and healthcare expenditure is associated with lower food insecurity (Hossain et al. 2021), and vice versa (Loopstra et al. 2016, Pollard and Booth 2019). For instance, Belgium’s social spending (26.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) is greater than that of the United States (19.7% of GDP), and is associated with significantly less food bank usage—1.9% of the total population, compared with 12% in the US (Gentilini 2013). Even within countries, social spending shifts are accompanied by changes in food security; demand for emergency food relief, particularly in households with children, surged (and is continuing to rise) in the UK following a shift in social policy towards austerity and reduced welfare provisions in 2010 (Lambie-Mumford and Green 2017).

Using social welfare payments (including Universal Basic Income) as an economic intervention to address food insecurity

A key component of social welfare policy is welfare payments, through which the government transfers direct financial protection to individuals/households (AIHW 2023). Using social welfare payments to protect people’s standards of living and ensure their material needs are met has a flow on effect to food security status. This is an example of a nutrition-sensitive policy (Friel et al. 2015). Australia’s social security system provides payments to approximately 32% of the population and was originally established as social protection for individuals and families experiencing poverty or exclusion (AIHW 2023, Australian Government Department of Social Services 2025). Welfare payments are set at different bi-weekly amounts and include ‘Jobseeker’ unemployment benefits, an old age pension, and disability support pension (Australian Government 2025). Additional cash assistance is available to certain households, such as a maternity allowance and supplementary income for low- and middle-income households (Lindberg et al. 2021). Australia’s social security system has been criticized as stigmatizing and difficult to navigate, largely because of complicated means testing processes and conditional requirements to receive benefits (The Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee 2024).

Universal Basic Income (UBI) systems present an alternative to conditional, mean-tested systems that may be less stigmatizing and bureaucratic (Beck et al. 2023). They are universally paid to every member of society; unconditional; paid to individuals regardless of marital status or household size; stable (transferred regularly and protected by legislation); and substantial enough to guarantee a socially and culturally acceptable standard of living (Beck et al. 2023, Basic European Income Network 2025). In contrast to food relief and other direct food provision programs, UBI has potential to reduce the risk of food insecurity, while enabling recipients to purchase foods based on their own dietary and cultural preferences and household needs. By providing consistent income to food system workers, UBI could also help support producers, particularly small and medium enterprises, in their resilience and response to natural disasters, as well as support a transition towards more environmentally sustainable agricultural practices (Beck et al. 2023).

UBI is not without limitations. The high costs of UBI can be a barrier to its implementation—a policy which completely fulfils UBI requirements is estimated to cost the UK around 67 billion GBP per year, or approximately 3% of its GDP (Reed et al. 2023). To reduce implementation costs associated with UBI, food security advocates in Canada have suggested Basic Income, defined as ‘an income tested and targeted unconditional cash transfer from governments to individuals to enable everyone in Canada to meet their basic needs, participate in society, and live in dignity, regardless of work status’ (Martin et al. 2020) (p.2) as an alternative. Using this approach, Basic Income is targeted to people most in need, based solely on a low-income threshold (i.e. not based on employment status and not means-tested) and without conditions on how the money can be spent (Martin et al. 2020).

To have the most potential benefit on reducing food insecurity, the UBI needs to be at a level such that recipients are able to afford healthy and sustainable foods that align with cultural preferences and dietary needs (Beck et al. 2023), whilst also taking into account other personal and household expenditures required to guarantee socially and culturally acceptable living standards; such a level may be difficult to accurately estimate. At the same time, food insecurity is typically less prevalent in old age pension recipients in Australia and Canada, (in comparison to groups reliant on other welfare payment types) suggesting pensioner households are able to maintain an acceptable living standard and governments can accurately estimate what income levels offer adequate protection (McIntyre et al. 2016, Temple et al. 2019). UBI alone does not address other drivers of food insecurity, such as a lack of healthy food options at retail stores and should therefore be considered alongside existing food environment initiatives (World Cancer Research Fund International 2025).

The literature on UBI, as well as social welfare payments more generally, as an intervention to improve household food security is sparse. Few social policies globally satisfy all five UBI criteria, and of those that do, fewer still have been evaluated for their effects on food insecurity. A systematic review of UBI interventions in HICs yielded two examples in which UBI-type welfare payments reduced the probability of experiencing food insecurity (Rizvi et al. 2024). Likewise, although less relevant to Australia, a Cochrane review of UBI-type unconditional cash transfers in low- and middle-income countries demonstrated an increase in the likelihood of food security and improvements in dietary diversity in the following 1–3 years post receiving the UBI (Pega et al. 2022).

Several factors may help to explain the sparsity of evidence around nutrition-sensitive economic interventions. Firstly, food insecurity is rarely a measured outcome in studies evaluating social policies. For instance, in a systematic review of UBI policies in HICs, only two out of the 27 studies assessed included food insecurity as an endpoint (Rizvi et al. 2024). Moreover, there is far greater focus on downstream nutrition-specific interventions to address food insecurity, rather than interventions which address upstream socioeconomic determinants. A systematic review of existing literature may yield more food insecurity-relevant welfare policy evaluations. Even so, further research is required to explore whether social welfare interventions, particularly UBI, are an effective and feasible means of combating food insecurity.

Conclusion

In summary, emergency food relief plays a crucial role in alleviating hunger in the short term. However, Australia’s over-reliance on emergency food relief demonstrates the failure of liberalist welfare policies in allocating resources equitably, and greater focus should be placed on combating low-income levels and high costs of living to achieve a sustainable reduction in chronic food insecurity. Increasing social welfare spending through systems that are less bureaucratic and stigmatizing warrants strong consideration by the government. Increased characterization of the factors which help or hinder social welfare policies from being effective would also serve to guide policymakers in their design and implementation. While this perspective piece focused on social welfare spending, other policy levers that have potential to reduce food insecurity by increasing household incomes include increasing minimum wages and reducing the rate of tax paid by households in the lowest income bracket (PROOF Food Insecurity Policy Research 2021). In line with the principles of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, the Australian Government has a responsibility to enable equitable access to the resources required for good health, including food and income. With a National Food Security Strategy in development, now is the time for coordinated policy action. In line with the international commitment Australia made in 1975, the National Food Security Strategy must be underpinned by the human right to food. Actions to reduce food prices by tackling industry concentration and market power must be combined with actions to increase household incomes to enable ongoing access to affordable healthy food for all.

Contributor Information

Bethanie Chong, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 4, 207-221 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia; Healthy Food Systems Australia, Preston, Victoria 3072, Australia.

Cherie Russell, Healthy Food Systems Australia, Preston, Victoria 3072, Australia; Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.

Katherine Sievert, Healthy Food Systems Australia, Preston, Victoria 3072, Australia; Institute for Health Transformation, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Faculty of Health, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.

Rebecca Lindberg, Healthy Food Systems Australia, Preston, Victoria 3072, Australia; Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.

Kate Wingrove, Healthy Food Systems Australia, Preston, Victoria 3072, Australia; School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia; School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Level 2, Public Health Building, 288 Herston Road, Herston, Queensland 4006, Australia.

Author contributions

Bethanie Chong (Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Cherie Russell (Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review & editing), Katherine Sievert (Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review & editing), Rebecca Lindberg (Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing), and Kate Wingrove (Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review & editing)

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Funding

K.S. is supported by an Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. C.R. is supported by a Deakin Executive Dean of Health Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. The funding sources were not involved in this article.

Data availability

No new data were generated or analysed in this perspective.

References

  1. ABS . Food Insecurity. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023a. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/food-and-nutrition/food-insecurity/2023 (20 November 2025, date last accessed).
  2. ABS . National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023b. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/national-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-nutrition-and-physical-activity-survey/2023 (20 November 2025, date last accessed).
  3. ABS . Monthly Consumer Price Index Indicator. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/monthly-consumer-price-index-indicator/latest-release (12 September 2025, date last accessed).
  4. AIHW . Australia’s Welfare 2023: Data Insights. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2023. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2023-data-insights (28 November 2025, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  5. Australian Government . Services Australia. Australian Government, 2025. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/ (10 September 2025, date last accessed).
  6. Australian Government Department of Social Services . DSS Benefit and Payment Recipient Demographics—Quarterly Data. Australian Government, 2025. https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/dss-payment-demographic-data (10 November 2025, date last accessed).
  7. Basic European Income Network . What is Unconditional Basic Income? Basic European Income Network, 2025. https://ubi-europe.net/ubi/unconditional-basic-income/ (8 September 2025, date last accessed).
  8. Beck  D, Peters  R, Poitier  F  et al.  Could a Universal Basic Income Reduce Food Insecurity and Assist with the Transition to a Sustainable Food System?  London: Food Research Collaboration, Centre for Food Policy at City University of London, 2023. https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/could-a-universal-basic-income-reduce-food-insecurity-and-assist-with-the-transition-to-a-sustainable-food-system/ [Google Scholar]
  9. Berkowitz  SA, Drake  C, Byhoff  E. Food insecurity and social policy: a comparative analysis of welfare state regimes in 19 countries. Int J Soc Determinants Health Health Serv  2024;54:76–86. 10.1177/27551938231219200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Booth  S, Pollard  CM. Food insecurity, food crimes and structural violence: an Australian perspective. Aust N Z J Public Health  2020;44:87–8. 10.1111/1753-6405.12977 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowden  M. Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2020. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/understanding-food-insecurity-australia [Google Scholar]
  12. Briones Alonso  E, Cockx  L, Swinnen  J. Culture and food security. Glob Food Secur  2018;17:113–27. 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.02.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clapp  J, Vriezen  R, Laila  A  et al.  Corporate concentration and power matter for agency in food systems. Food Policy  2025;134:102897. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102897 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. DAFF . National Food Security Strategy: Discussion Paper. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2025. https://haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/food-security-strategy. (26 February 2025, date last accessed).
  15. Davidson  P, Bradbury  B. Poverty in Australia 2025: Overview. Sydney: Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and University of New South Wales, 2025. https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Poverty-in-Australia-2025-V4_screen.pdf [Google Scholar]
  16. Economist Impact . Global Food Security Index 2022—Norway. Economist Impact, 2022. https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-security-index/explore-countries/norway (14 September 2025, date last accessed).
  17. Ejiohuo  O, Onyeaka  H, Unegbu  KC  et al.  Nourishing the mind: how food security influences mental wellbeing. Nutrients  2024;16:501. 10.3390/nu16040501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Esping-Andersen  G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  19. FAO . The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2025. https://www.fao.org/publications/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world/en [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferguson  M, O'Dea  K, Chatfield  M  et al.  The comparative cost of food and beverages at remote Indigenous communities, Northern Territory, Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health  2016;40:S21–6. 10.1111/1753-6405.12370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Foodbank Australia . Foodbank Hunger Report 2023. North Ryde, Foodbank Australia, 2023. https://reports.foodbank.org.au/foodbank-hunger-report-2023/?state=au
  22. Foodbank Australia . Hunger in Australia. Foodbank Australia, 2025. https://www.foodbank.org.au/hunger-in-australia (10 September 2025, date last accessed).
  23. Friel  S, Hattersley  L, Ford  L  et al.  Addressing inequities in healthy eating: Table 1. Health Promot Int  2015;30:ii77–88. 10.1093/heapro/dav073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gallegos  D, Eivers  A, Sondergeld  P  et al.  Food insecurity and child development: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2021;18:8990. 10.3390/ijerph18178990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gentilini  U. Banking on Food: The State of Food Banks in High-Income Countries. East Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 2013. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/banking-on-food-the-state-of-food-banks-in-high-income-countries/ (28 November 2025, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  26. Grimmer  L. The diminished stakeholder: examining the relationship between suppliers and supermarkets in the Australian grocery industry. J Consum Behav  2018;17:e13–20. 10.1002/cb.1674 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hossain  MB, Long  MA, Stretesky  PB. Welfare state spending, income inequality and food insecurity in affluent nations: a cross-national examination of OECD countries. Sustainability  2021;13:324. 10.3390/su13010324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lambie-Mumford  H, Green  MA. Austerity, welfare reform and the rising use of food banks by children in England and Wales. Area  2017;49:273–9. 10.1111/area.12233 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Laraia  BA. Food insecurity and chronic disease. Adv Nutr  2013;4:203–12. 10.3945/an.112.003277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lindberg  R, Barbour  L, Godrich  S. A rights-based approach to food security in Australia. Health Promot J Austr  2021;32:6–12. 10.1002/hpja.324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lindberg  R, Whelan  J, Lawrence  M  et al.  Still serving hot soup? Two hundred years of a charitable food sector in Australia: a narrative review. Aust N Z J Public Health  2015;39:358–65. 10.1111/1753-6405.12311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Loopstra  R. Interventions to address household food insecurity in high-income countries. Proc Nutr Soc  2018;77:270–81. 10.1017/s002966511800006x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Loopstra  R, Reeves  A, McKee  M  et al.  Food insecurity and social protection in Europe: quasi-natural experiment of Europe's great recessions 2004–2012. Prev Med  2016;89:44–50. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Martin  M, Favreau  J, Power  E  et al.  The Case for Basic Income for Food Security. Canada: Coalition Canada Basic Income, 2020. https://basicincomecoalition.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Case-for-BI-and-Food-Security.pdf (8 June 2026, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  35. McIntyre  L, Dutton  DJ, Kwok  C  et al.  Reduction of food insecurity among low-income Canadian seniors as a likely impact of a guaranteed annual income. Can Public Policy  2016;42:274–86. 10.3138/cpp.2015-069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. McKay  FH, Bennett  R. Examining the relationship between food insecurity and family violence: a systematic narrative review. J Fam Violence  2025;40:369–82. 10.1007/s10896-023-00624-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. McKay  FH, Haines  BC, Beswick  H  et al.  The prevalence, severity and experience of food insecurity in Australia: an investigation of food aid use. Health Soci Care Community  2020;28:2399–407. 10.1111/hsc.13062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller  K, Li  E. Foodbank Hunger Report 2022. North Ryde: Foodbank Australia, 2022. https://reports.foodbank.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Foodbank-Hunger-Report-2022.pdf (8 June 2026, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  39. Mossenson  S, Giglia  R, Pulker  CE  et al.  The nutritional quality of food donated to a western Australian food bank. Nutrients  2024;16:509. 10.3390/nu16040509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. OzHarvest . OzHarvest Frontline Report 2026. Sydney: OzHarvest, 2026. https://www.ozharvest.org/frontline-report-2026/ [Google Scholar]
  41. Parliament of Australia . Australian Food Story: Feeding the Nation and Beyond. Inquiry into Food Security in Australia. Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2023. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/RB000221/toc_pdf/AustralianFoodStoryFeedingtheNationandBeyond.pdf (8 June 2026, date last accessed). [Google Scholar]
  42. Pega  F, Pabayo  R, Benny  C  et al.  Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev  2022;3:CD011135. 10.1002/14651858.CD011135.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pettman  TL, Williams  C, Booth  S  et al.  A food relief charter for South Australia—towards a shared vision for pathways out of food insecurity. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2022;19:7080. 10.3390/ijerph19127080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pollard  CM, Booth  S. Food insecurity and hunger in rich countries—it is time for action against inequality. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2019;16:1804. 10.3390/ijerph16101804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollard  CM, Mackintosh  B, Campbell  C  et al.  Charitable food systems’ capacity to address food insecurity: an Australian capital city audit. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2018;15:1249. 10.3390/ijerph15061249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. PROOF Food Insecurity Policy Research . Provincial Policy Levers to Reduce Household Food Insecurity. Toronto: Univeristy of Toronto, 2021. https://proof.utoronto.ca/resource/provincial-policy-levers-to-reduce-household-food-insecurity/ [Google Scholar]
  47. Reed  HR, Johnson  MT, Lansley  S  et al.  Universal basic income is affordable and feasible: evidence from UK economic microsimulation modelling. J Poverty Soc Justice  2023;31:146–62. 10.1332/175982721X16702368352393 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Reeves  A, Loopstra  R, Stuckler  D. The growing disconnect between food prices and wages in Europe: cross-national analysis of food deprivation and welfare regimes in twenty-one EU countries, 2004–2012. Public Health Nutr  2017;20:1414–22. 10.1017/s1368980017000167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Richards  C, Kjærnes  U, Vik  J. Food security in welfare capitalism: comparing social entitlements to food in Australia and Norway. J Rural Stud  2016;43:61–70. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.11.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rizvi  A, Kearns  M, Dignam  M  et al.  Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev  2024;20:e1414. 10.1002/cl2.1414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rogers  A, Ferguson  M, Ritchie  J  et al.  Strengthening food systems with remote Indigenous Australians: stakeholders’ perspectives. Health Promot Int  2018;33:38–48. 10.1093/heapro/daw047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sherriff  S, Kalucy  D, Tong  A  et al.  Murradambirra Dhangaang (make food secure): aboriginal community and stakeholder perspectives on food insecurity in urban and regional Australia. BMC Public Health  2022;22:1066. 10.1186/s12889-022-13202-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. State Government of Victoria . New Grant Program to Support Community Food Relief. State Government of Victoria, 2024b. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-grant-program-support-community-food-relief (11 March 2025, date last accessed).
  54. State Government of Victoria . Rental Report Statistics—March Quarter 2024. State Government of Victoria, 2024a. https://www.dffh.vic.gov.au/publications/rental-report (8 September 2025, date last accessed).
  55. State Government of Victoria . Homes Victoria Rental Report—September Quarter 2025. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria, 2025. https://www.dffh.vic.gov.au/publications/rental-report
  56. Temple  JB, Booth  S, Pollard  CM. Social assistance payments and food insecurity in Australia: evidence from the household expenditure survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2019;16:455. 10.3390/ijerph16030455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. The Australia Institute . Jobseeker payments are too low. Canberra: The Australia Institute, 2024. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Factsheet-Jobseeker-payments-are-too-low.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. The Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee . The Extent and Nature of Poverty in Australia. Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2024. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/PovertyinAustralia/The_extent_and_nature_of_poverty_in_Australia
  59. The Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices . Supermarket Prices. Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2024. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Supermarket_Prices/SupermarketPrices/Report
  60. Thyberg  KL, Tonjes  DJ. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour Conserv Recycl  2016;106:110–23. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. United Nations . International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva: United Nations General Assembly, 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights [Google Scholar]
  62. United Nations . The Right to Adequate Food. Human Rights Fact Sheet No. 34. Geneva: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2010. www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  63. Whelan  J, Millar  L, Bell  C  et al.  You can’t find healthy food in the bush: poor accessibility, availability and adequacy of food in rural Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health  2018;15:2316. 10.3390/ijerph15102316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. WHO . The 1st International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 1986. World Health Organization, 2026. https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/first-global-conference (26 February 2025, date last accessed).
  65. World Cancer Research Fund International . NOURISHING Policy Framework. World Cancer Research Fund International, 2025. https://www.wcrf.org/policy/policy-databases/nourishing-framework (20 May 2025, date last accessed).

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were generated or analysed in this perspective.

Articles from Health Promotion International are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES