This study examined plant-based product (PBP) consumption, related motivations and barriers, and PBP attributes of importance. An online survey collected responses (n = 456) from PBP consumers and non-PBP consumers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and the United Kingdom (UK). Responses were analyzed using univariate statistics, binary logistic regression, and Principal Component Analysis. Females, and those living in urban areas were more likely to consume PBPs. Primary motivations for consumption were 'sustainability,' 'animal welfare' and 'health.' Barriers to consumption for non-PBP consumers were 'not seeing a need to change their diet' and 'taste.' Taste, health, and product information on the label were cited as the most important PBP attributes. Findings are of relevance to PBP manufacturers and marketers; the paper presents related recommendations for PBP marketing strategies, considers how best to target both usage segments (PBP and non-PBP consumers), and evaluates the usefulness of a usage segmentation approach for this product category.

The objective of this review was to examine the methods used to measure food insecurity (FI) globally, to inform considerations relating to adopting a novel, or reviewing an existing, FI measurement approach in developed countries. Considerations for measurement are examined with particular applicability to the United Kingdom (UK) which has recently announced adoption of the US Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) as an indicator to facilitate annual FI monitoring. This study uses a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methodological approach to systematically review the literature on FI measurement and considers: geographical jurisdiction, methodological approach, sampling strategy, FI indicator(s) used, and implications for measurement. Results found that the majority of papers reviewed emanate from North America with the US Household Food Security Scale Module (HFSSM) and its various adapted forms being the most commonly reported indicator. FI is becoming a key concern within developed countries with a range of indicators being used to report on the severity of the issue. This paper provides a contribution to knowledge by: (i) identifying various approaches to FI measurement and commonalities of existing measurement approaches; (ii) providing a summation of the methodologies and findings of studies relating to FI measurement, and associated implications for measurement, (iii) providing a justification evidenced by the literature for the adoption of the HFSSM in the UK; and (iv) assessing the methodological usefulness of a REA review. Understanding the components of robust FI indicators and their effectiveness can help inform existing and novel measurement approaches to ensure that data collected on FI are meaningful and thereby useful to inform future policy work in this area. Paper type: Literature review Introduction Food insecurity (FI), defined as "a situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life" [FAO 2017, 107], is often considered a developing world problem (Kneafsey et al. 2013). However, an increased research focus on identifying and understanding FI in developed countries such as Canada (e.g. Faught et al. 2017), Australia (e.g. Butcher et al. 2018), the United States (US) (e.g. Bowen et al. 2019) and the UK (e.g. Dowler and Lambie-Mumford 2015), has proved this phenomenon is not exclusive to developing nations. Despite acknowledging the gap between the scale and severity of those living in developing market economies who experience severe poverty, hunger and starvation, and those defined as food insecure who live in 'developed market economies', Riches (2011, 769) rationalises the importance of discussing food insecurity in developed market economies on the same level as that in developing countries as the statistics are cause for concern, with 49 million people in the US defined as food insecure, and 43 million at risk of food insecurity in the EU (Riches 2011).Originally, th...

PurposeA number of food poverty definitions have been identified by academics and various government organisations globally; however, there exists no government-endorsed definition of food poverty in the United Kingdom (UK), and there remains a gap regarding how relevant current food poverty definitions are in the Northern Ireland (NI)/UK contexts.Design/methodology/approachInterviews (n = 19) with a range of stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, politicians, community advice centre workers, consumer sub-group representatives, food bank and food redistribution organisation representatives) were conducted to examine (1) the usefulness of a food poverty definition, (2) what a food poverty definition should include and (3) the applicability of an existing definition (Radimer et al., 1992) in the NI/UK context. Data was thematically analysed using QSR NVivo (v.12).FindingsDefinition was considered important to increase awareness and understanding. Any consideration of revising the Radimer et al. (1992) definition, or of establishing a new standardised definition, should seek to reduce/remove ambiguity and subjectivity of terminology used (i.e. more clearly defining what the terms “adequate”, “sufficient”, “quality” and “socially acceptable ways” mean in this context).Practical implicationsThis research emphasises the importance of appropriately conceptually defining social phenomena such as food poverty, as a first step to constructing and reviewing measurement approaches and ultimately assessing predictors and recommending solutions.Originality/valueThis research addresses the gap relating to stakeholders’ opinion on food poverty definition and contributes recommendations for modifying the Radimer et al. (1992) definition in the NI/UK and present-day contexts.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the proportionality of market brand (MB) foods versus supermarket own brand (OB) foods sold on promotion and to compare their healthiness.Design/methodology/approachAn existing dataset containing nutritional information about a variety of foods on promotion (n = 6,776) from 48 stores across 8 retail chains in Northern Ireland (NI) was reanalysed. Product healthiness was measured using a score aligned to the Food Standards Agency's Front of Pack nutrient labelling system. MBs and OBs were considered as a whole and in their respective subsets–international/national and regional MBs, and premium, mid-market and value tiered OBs.FindingsResults found a balance in favour of health (52.4% amber/green versus 47.6% red) across retailers' promotions in NI. Further, OB products were often found to be superior to MBs with regards to overall healthfulness, and regional brands were found to be less healthy than international/national brands.Research limitations/implicationsFindings rationale further retail research to compare nutritionally OB and MB product types, and further consumer research regarding important attributes of OBs.Practical implicationsRetailers should communicate the comparative healthiness of their OBs in comparison to MB alternatives, in addition to communicating comparative price savings. There is opportunity for retailers to increase visibility of mid-market and value OB tiers, and for regional MBs to improve the nutritional profile of products in line with the consumer trend for health.Originality/valueThis study provides a contribution by using data on OBs and MBs on promotion, and by investigating the nutritional differences between different tiers of OB and MB products.