RESUMEN
Food poverty is an important contributing factor to health inequalities in industrialised countries; it refers to the inability to acquire or eat an adequate quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways (or the uncertainty of being able to do so). Synonymous with household food insecurity, the issue needs to be located within a social justice framework. Recognising the clear interdependence between the right to food and the right to health, this paper explores how international human rights obligations could inform approaches to addressing food poverty and insecurity with specific reference to Ireland and the UK. Little attention has been paid to how countries should meet their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food in developed countries. The paper contributes by examining the social and policy circumstances which inhibit poor households from obtaining sufficient food to eat healthily, along with strategies and interventions from State and civil society actors in the two countries. In practice, problems and potential solutions have largely been directed towards the individual rather than at social determinants, particularly as research on environmental factors such as distance to shops has produced equivocal results. Other key structural aspects such as income sufficiency for food are broadly ignored by the State, and anti-poverty strategies are often implemented without monitoring for effects on food outcomes. Thus scant evidence exists for either Ireland or the UK meeting its rights to food obligations to date, in terms of roles and responsibilities in ensuring access to affordable, available and appropriate food for all.
Asunto(s)
Abastecimiento de Alimentos , Pobreza , Justicia Social , Femenino , Abastecimiento de Alimentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Irlanda , Masculino , Formulación de Políticas , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the wake of the 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis' there was renewed interest in how those responsible for public health could take account of public views, both to 'democratize' policy making and to increase the likelihood of information about health risks resonating with public concerns. This study explored how members of the public in four European countries (Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK) understood food risks in general, and risks arising from BSE in particular. The aims were to identify the sources of knowledge used and trusted by the public and to explore how public views could be accessed for public health information policy. METHODS: Thirty-six focus group interviews were held using a common protocol across the four countries, including people from four life-cycle stages. RESULTS: The study demonstrated the utility of using focus groups as a relatively efficient method for accessing public views, and the feasibility of cross-national qualitative research on public views. We found that public views of food risks are neither irrational nor naïve, but that they do need to be interpreted in the context of everyday food purchasing decisions, in which particular food risks are unlikely to have the same salience as they do for experts. CONCLUSIONS: Focus groups are a feasible method for accessing public knowledge on public health risks to inform information strategies.