this graph was created in R:

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F99ddcc7060665597ad9b1c263aa8174d%2Fgraph1.gif?generation=1717872782993200&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Ff7af5fc372d601a18645c41c37411157%2Fgraph2.gif?generation=1717872788516258&alt=media" alt="">

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fc85d9de1d5b88949298afa0bab1d9406%2Fgraph3.gif?generation=1717872793749722&alt=media" alt="">

Having enough to eat is one of the fundamental basic human needs. Hunger – or, more formally, undernourishment – is defined as eating less than the energy required to maintain an active and healthy life.

The share of undernourished people is the leading indicator for food security and nutrition used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The fight against hunger focuses on a sufficient energy intake – enough calories per person per day. But it is not the only factor that matters for a healthy diet. Sufficient protein, fats, and micronutrients are also essential, and we cover this in our topic page on micronutrient deficiencies.

Undernourishment in mothers and children is a leading risk factor for death and other poor health outcomes.

The UN has set a global target as part of the Sustainable Development Goals to “end hunger by 2030“. While the world has progressed in past decades, we are far from reaching this target.

On this page, you can find our data, visualizations, and writing on hunger and undernourishment. It looks at how many people are undernourished, where they are, and other metrics used to track food security.

Hunger – also known as undernourishment – is defined as not consuming enough calories to maintain a normal, active, healthy life.

The world has made much progress in reducing global hunger in recent decades — we will see this in the following key insight. But we are still far away from an end to hunger. Tragically, nearly one-in-ten people still do not get enough food to eat.

The share of the undernourished population is shown globally and by region in the chart.

You can see that rates of hunger are highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. South Asia has much higher rates than the Americas and East Asia. Rates in North America and Europe are below 2.5%. However, the FAO shows this as “2.5%” rather than the specific point estimate.

This dataset measures food availability and access for 76 low- and middle-income countries. The dataset includes annual country-level data on area, yield, production, nonfood use, trade, and consumption for grains and root and tuber crops (combined as R&T in the documentation tables), food aid, total value of imports and exports, gross domestic product, and population compiled from a variety of sources. This dataset is the basis for the International Food Security Assessment 2015-2025 released in June 2015. This annual ERS report projects food availability and access for 76 low- and middle-income countries over a 10-year period. Countries (Spatial Description, continued): Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: CSV File for all years and all countries. File Name: gfa25.csvResource Title: International Food Security country data. File Name: GrainDemandProduction.xlsxResource Description: Excel files of individual country data. Please note that these files provide the data in a different layout from the CSV file. This version of the data files was updated 9-2-2021

More up-to-date files may be found at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-food-security.aspx

Polygons in this layer represent Census Tracts in the DMV (DC, Maryland, and Virginia). Data are included for each tract which estimate hunger and food insecurity. Data were compiled by the CAFB through internal tracking, and the layer was shared with the DC government as a courtesy. Fields include (all available for 2015 and 2014):15_FI_Rate: The estimated portion of the population in the census tract experiencing food insecurity (by CAFB standards). 15/14 indicates year measured.15_FI_Pop: The estimated number of people in the census tract experiencing food insecurity (by CAFB standards). 15/14 indicates year measured.15_LB_Need: The estimated pounds of food needed by the food insecure population in the census tract. 15/14 indicates year measured.15_Distrib: The number of pounds of food distributed by CAFB and partners in the census tract. 15/14 indicates year in which the distribution took place.15_LB_Unme: The difference between the estimated pounds of food needed and the real pounds of food distributed by CAFB and partners, representing the unmet need for food assistance in the census tract. 15/14 indicates year.The layer was shared with the DC government in May 2016 and is based on 2015 and 2014 data.

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger globally, regionally, and by country. Each year, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculates GHI scores in order to assess progress, or the lack thereof, in decreasing hunger. The GHI is designed to raise awareness and understanding of regional and country differences in the struggle against hunger. This year, GHI scores have been calculated using a revised and improved formula. The revision replaces child underweight, previously the sole indicator of child undernutrition, with two indicators of child undernutrition—child wasting and child stunting—which are equally weighted in the GHI calculation. The revised formula also standardizes each of the component indicators to balance their contribution to the overall index and to changes in the GHI scores over time. The 2015 GHI has been calculated for 117 countries for which data on the four component indicators are available and where measuring hunger is considered most relevant. GHI scores are not calculated for some higher income countries where the prevalence of hunger is very low. The GHI is only as current as the data for its four component indicators. This year's GHI reflects the most recent available country-level data and projections available between 2010 and 2016. It therefore reflects the hunger levels during this period rather than solely capturing conditions in 2015. The 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2015 GHI scores reflect the latest revised data for the four component indicators of the GHI. Where original source data were not available, the estimates of the GHI component indicators were based on the most recent data available. The four component indicators used to calculate the GHI scores draw upon data from the following sources: 1. Undernourishment: Updated data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) were used for the 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2015 GHI scores. Undernourishment data and projections for the 2015 GHI are for 2014-2016. 2. Child wasting and stunting: The child undernutrition indicators of the GHI—child wasting and child stunting—include data from the joint database of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Bank, and additional data from WHO's continuously updated Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition; the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) reports; statistical tables from UNICEF; and the latest national survey data for India from UNICEF India. For the 2015 GHI, data on child wasting and child stunting are for the latest year for which data are available in the period 2010-2014. 3. Child mortality: Updated data from the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation were used for the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005, and 2015 GHI scores. For the 2015 GHI, data on child mortality are for 2013. Resources related to 2015 Global Hunger Index 2015 Global Hunger Index Web App Snapshots of Hunger in the Developing World 2015 Global Hunger Index Linked Open Data (LOD) 2015 Global Hunger Index Report

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a comprehensive tool used to assess and rank the state of hunger worldwide. It provides valuable insights into the severity of hunger and malnutrition in various countries, highlighting the challenges faced by populations in accessing sufficient and nutritious food.

By analyzing multiple factors such as undernourishment, child wasting, child stunting, and child mortality, the Global Hunger Index presents a holistic picture of the hunger situation globally. The index takes into account both the prevalence and intensity of hunger, considering not only the lack of food but also the quality of nutrition and health outcomes.

Through its rankings, the Global Hunger Index aims to draw attention to regions and countries where hunger is most prevalent and urgent. It serves as a crucial tool for policymakers, organizations, and governments to identify areas requiring immediate intervention and to formulate effective strategies for combating hunger and improving food security.

Moreover, the Global Hunger Index plays a significant role in monitoring progress and identifying trends over time, enabling stakeholders to track improvements or setbacks in the fight against hunger. By regularly updating the index, it provides an objective measure to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and interventions implemented to address hunger-related challenges.

Ultimately, the Global Hunger Index serves as a call to action, urging global cooperation and collective efforts to eliminate hunger, promote sustainable agricultural practices, and ensure access to nutritious food for all.

This year’s Global Hunger Index (GHI) brings us face to face with a grim reality. The toxic cocktail of conflict, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic had already left millions exposed to food price shocks and vulnerable to further crises. Now the war in Ukraine, with its knock-on effects on global supplies of and prices for food, fertilizer, and fuel is turning a crisis into a catastrophe. The 2022 global GHI score shows that progress in tackling hunger has largely halted. Other indicators reveal the tragic scale of the unfolding crisis. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 reported that in 2021 the number of undernourished people, an indicator of chronic hunger, rose to as many as 828 million. Further, according to the Global Report on Food Crises 2022, the number of people facing acute hunger also rose from 2020, reaching nearly 193 million in 2021. These impacts are now playing out across Africa South of the Sahara, South Asia, Central and South America, and beyond. As we face the third global food price crisis in 15 years, it is clearer than ever that our food systems in their current form are inadequate to the task of sustainably ending poverty and hunger. The global food crisis underway now is widely presented as an aftershock caused by the war in Ukraine. The severity and speed of the impacts on hunger have occurred largely, however, because millions of people were already living on the precarious edge of hunger, a legacy of past failures to build more just, sustainable, and resilient food systems. While it is urgent that the international community respond to these escalating humanitarian crises, it must not lose sight of the need for a long-term transformation of food systems. The shocks we have experienced reveal chronic vulnerabilities that will continue to put millions at risk of hunger. Past and current GHI reports highlight these persistent vulnerabilities and shows what actions can address immediate humanitarian needs and kick-start food system transformation. Rather than operating reactively, the international community must take proactive steps to actually make good on its international commitments and pledges, scaling them up and directing them toward emergency measures. Political attention and funding must be targeted toward evidence-based policies and investments that address structural obstacles to food and nutrition security. More high-quality and timely data are also needed so that we can monitor progress in these areas. This year’s GHI report considers one important avenue for food systems transformation: community action that engages local leaders and citizens in improving governance and accountability. The essay by Danielle Resnick provides promising examples from a variety of settings where citizens are finding innovative ways to amplify their voices in food system debates, including by tracking government performance and by engaging in multistakeholder platforms, and keeping decision-makers accountable for addressing food and nutrition insecurity and hunger. Encouragingly, examples of empowerment are just as visible in fragile contexts with high levels of societal fractionalization as they are in more stable settings with longer traditions of local democracy. It is critical to act now to rebuild food security on a new and lasting basis. Failure to do so means sleepwalking into the catastrophic and systematic food crises of the future. Much more can be done to ward off the worst impacts of the current crisis and set deep changes in motion rather than reinforcing the dangerous and unsustainable arrangements we now live with. We must ensure rights-based food systems governance at all levels, building on the initial steps taken at the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit. Governments and development partners must harness local voices, match local governance efforts to conditions and capacities on the ground, and support local leadership through capacity building and funding. Governments must enable citizens to participate fully in developing and monitoring public policies affecting food security while upholding a legal right to food. Prevention pays off. Investments made today can avert future crises that may be even more costly and tragic than what we now face. It has been said that the saddest words are “If only.” We may find ourselves saying, “If only past generations had used their time and resources to do what was needed to end hunger and ensure the right to food for all.” May the next generation not say the same of us.

This year’s **Global Hunger Index (GHI) **shows that, though some countries have made significant headway, little progress has been made in reducing hunger on a global scale since 2015. The 2023 GHI score for the world is 18.3, considered moderate—less than one point below the world’s 2015 GHI score of 19.1. Furthermore,since 2017 the prevalence of undernourishment, one of the indicators used in the calculation of GHI scores, has been on the rise, and the number of undernourished people has climbed from 572 million to about 735 million. South Asia and Africa South of the Sahara are the world regions with the highest hunger levels, with GHI scores of 27.0 each, indicating serious hunger. For the past two decades, these two regions have consistently had the highest levels of hunger. While both regions achieved considerable progress between 2000 and 2015, progress since 2015 has nearly halted, mirroring the trend seen for the world as a whole. https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F21333147%2F9e3d2f08dbafc1ed2508674456c6375e%2Fghi-pic.JPG?generation=1721673079307767&alt=media" alt="">

"Food deserts" are defined as areas where residents do not live near supermarkets or other food retailers that carry affordable and nutritious food.

This dataset describes the total and percentage of people in relation to their relative distance to a major grocery store and their poverty level in the San Diego County. The dataset is curated from multiple sources, such as the Census ACS and the California Economic Development Department, using methodology from the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A sampling quota of at least 200 observations per each Administrative 1 areas is set Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

The margin of error is estimated as NA. This is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

"Food deserts" are defined as areas where residents do not live near supermarkets or other food retailers that carry affordable and nutritious food.

This dataset describes the total and percentage of people in relation to their relative distance to a major grocery store and their poverty level within block groups of the San Diego County. The dataset is curated from multiple sources, such as the Census ACS and the California Economic Development Department, using methodology from the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Goal 2End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agricultureTarget 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year roundIndicator 2.1.1: Prevalence of undernourishmentSN_ITK_DEFC: Prevalence of undernourishment (%)SN_ITK_DEFCN: Number of undernourish people (millions)Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)AG_PRD_FIESMS: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the adult population (%)AG_PRD_FIESMSN: Total population in moderate or severe food insecurity (thousands of people)AG_PRD_FIESS: Prevalence of severe food insecurity in the adult population (%)AG_PRD_FIESSN: Total population in severe food insecurity (thousands of people)Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older personsIndicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age SH_STA_STNT: Proportion of children moderately or severely stunted (%)SH_STA_STNTN: Children moderately or severely stunted (thousands)+2 or SH_STA_WAST: Proportion of children moderately or severely wasted (%)SH_STA_WASTN: Children moderately or severely wasted (thousands)SN_STA_OVWGT: Proportion of children moderately or severely overweight (%)SN_STA_OVWGTN: Children moderately or severely overweight (thousands)Indicator 2.2.3: Prevalence of anaemia in women aged 15 to 49 years, by pregnancy status (percentage)SH_STA_ANEM: Proportion of women aged 15-49 years with anaemia (%)SH_STA_ANEM_PREG: Proportion of women aged 15-49 years with anaemia, pregnant (%)SH_STA_ANEM_NPRG: Proportion of women aged 15-49 years with anaemia, non-pregnant (%)Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employmentIndicator 2.3.1: Volume of production per labour unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise sizePD_AGR_SSFP: Productivity of small-scale food producers (agricultural output per labour day, PPP) (constant 2011 international $)PD_AGR_LSFP: Productivity of large-scale food producers (agricultural output per labour day, PPP) (constant 2011 international $)Indicator 2.3.2: Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous statusSI_AGR_SSFP: Average income of small-scale food producers, PPP (constant 2011 international $)SI_AGR_LSFP: Average income of large-scale food producers, PPP (constant 2011 international $)Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil qualityIndicator 2.4.1: Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agricultureTarget 2.5: By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreedIndicator 2.5.1: Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium- or long-term conservation facilitiesER_GRF_ANIMRCNTN: Number of local breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored for reconstitutionER_GRF_PLNTSTOR: Plant breeds for which sufficient genetic resources are stored (number)Indicator 2.5.2: Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk of extinctionER_RSK_LBREDS: Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk as a share of local breeds with known level of extinction risk (%)Target 2.a: Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countriesIndicator 2.a.1: The agriculture orientation index for government expendituresAG_PRD_ORTIND: Agriculture orientation index for government expendituresAG_PRD_AGVAS: Agriculture value added share of GDP (%)AG_XPD_AGSGB: Agriculture share of Government Expenditure (%)Indicator 2.a.2: Total official flows (official development assistance plus other official flows) to the agriculture sectorDC_TOF_AGRL: Total official flows (disbursements) for agriculture, by recipient countries (millions of constant 2018 United States dollars)Target 2.b: Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development RoundIndicator 2.b.1: Agricultural export subsidiesAG_PRD_XSUBDY: Agricultural export subsidies (millions of current United States dollars)Target 2.c: Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatilityIndicator 2.c.1: Indicator of food price anomaliesAG_FPA_COMM: Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (IFPA), by type of productAG_FPA_CFPI: Consumer Food Price IndexAG_FPA_HMFP: Proportion of countries recording abnormally high or moderately high food prices, according to the Indicator of Food Price Anomalies (%)

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A sampling quota of at least 200 observations per each Administrative 1 areas is set Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [CATI]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

The margin of error is estimated as NA. This is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A Random Digit Dialling (RDD) approach was used to form a random sample of telephone numbers. Stratified phone numbers made available from telephone service providers or administrative registers were also used to integrate RDD when needed. Socio-demographic characteristics collected in the survey were then compared with the available information from recent national surveys to verify the extent to which the sample mirrored the total population structure. In case of discrepancies, post-stratification sampling weights were computed to adjust for the under-represented populations, typically using sex and education level. Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [CATI]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

Not Available.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A sampling quota of at least 200 observations per each Administrative 1 areas is set Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

The margin of error is estimated as NA. This is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A sampling quota of at least 200 observations per each Administrative 1 areas is set Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

The margin of error is estimated as NA. This is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A Random Digit Dialling (RDD) approach was used to form a random sample of telephone numbers. Stratified phone numbers made available from telephone service providers or administrative registers were also used to integrate RDD when needed. Socio-demographic characteristics collected in the survey were then compared with the available information from recent national surveys to verify the extent to which the sample mirrored the total population structure. In case of discrepancies, post-stratification sampling weights were computed to adjust for the under-represented populations, typically using sex and education level. Exclusions: None Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [CATI]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

The margin of error is estimated as NA. This is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level. The variable HEALTHY was not considered in the computation of the published FAO food insecurity indicator based on FIES due to the results of the validation process.

Dataset image: The Politics of Famine in European History and Memory

Many photos on Internet are about famine, though not on Ukraine 1932-33 (Holodomor) or even caused by human beings.

1932-1933

"The Holodomor, also known as the Ukrainian famine, was a mass famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Other examples in history where human beings starved till death, whic was caused by other human beings.

1945

Starving men in German concentration camp at time of liberation by U.S. Army (II WW 1945)

https://www.loc.gov/item/89715812

1968

“A” as in Auschwitz, “B” as in Biafra (1968) The Nigerian Civil War, Visual Narratives of Genocide, and the Fragmented Universalization of the Holocaust

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/humanitarian-photography/as-in-auschwitz-b-as-in-biafra/D5D7DF77368EBFF672B86D292C8F4962

2025

Malnourished children, hospital supplies running low: Impact of 2 months of no aid in Gaza (2025) Aid workers say many children are dangerously underweight due to lack of food.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/gaza-aid-children-supplies-hospital-israel/story?id=121618020

As Gaza suffers, hunger watchdog refrains from using the F word: famine

https://aurdip.org/en/as-gaza-suffers-hunger-watchdog-refrains-from-using-the-f-word-famine/

Descriptive statistics (N and mean (standard deviation)) for some basic characteristics of the sample (age, BMI, hunger) and for personality traits (Food Craving-Trait, [39]; Self-Esteem, using a Spanish adaptation of Rosenberg's scale [40], [41]; Sensitivity to Reward/Sensitivity to Punishment, [42]). Self-reported hunger was assessed before the rating procedure began, as both a dichotomous “yes/no” variable (“Are you hungry right now?”) and as a continuous variable, using a 1–9 Likert scale (“On a 1 to 9 scale, where 1 means ‘no hunger at all’ and 9 means ‘a lot of hunger’, how much hunger do you feel right now?”).Descriptive statistics are provided separately for boys and girls.Participants characteristics.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A Random Digit Dialling (RDD) approach was used to form a random sample of telephone numbers. Stratified phone numbers made available from telephone service providers or administrative registers were also used to integrate RDD when needed. Socio-demographic characteristics collected in the survey were then compared with the available information from recent national surveys to verify the extent to which the sample mirrored the total population structure. In case of discrepancies, post-stratification sampling weights were computed to adjust for the under-represented populations, typically using sex and education level. Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

Not Available.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.

Abstract

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 2.1 commits countries to end hunger, ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year around. Indicator 2.1.2, “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)”, provides internationally-comparable estimates of the proportion of the population facing difficulties in accessing food. More detailed background information is available at http://www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en/.

The FIES-based indicators are compiled using the FIES survey module, containing 8 questions. Two indicators can be computed:
1. The proportion of the population experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity (SDG indicator 2.1.2). 2. The proportion of the population experiencing severe food insecurity.

These data were collected by FAO through GeoPoll. National institutions can also collect FIES data by including the FIES survey module in nationally representative surveys.

Microdata can be used to calculate the indicator 2.1.2 at national level. Instructions for computing this indicator are described in the methodological document available in the documentations tab. Disaggregating results at sub-national level is not encouraged because estimates will suffer from substantial sampling and measurement error.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

Individuals of 15 years or older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A Random Digit Dialling (RDD) approach was used to form a random sample of telephone numbers. Stratified phone numbers made available from telephone service providers or administrative registers were also used to integrate RDD when needed. Socio-demographic characteristics collected in the survey were then compared with the available information from recent national surveys to verify the extent to which the sample mirrored the total population structure. In case of discrepancies, post-stratification sampling weights were computed to adjust for the under-represented populations, typically using sex and education level. Exclusions: NA Design effect: NA

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Cleaning operations

Statistical validation assesses the quality of the FIES data collected by testing their consistency with the assumptions of the Rasch model. This analysis involves the interpretation of several statistics that reveal 1) items that do not perform well in a given context, 2) cases with highly erratic response patterns, 3) pairs of items that may be redundant, and 4) the proportion of total variance in the population that is accounted for by the measurement model.

Sampling error estimates

Not Available.

Data appraisal

Since the population with access to mobile telephones is likely to differ from the rest of the population with respect to their access to food, post-hoc adjustments were made to control for the potential resulting bias. Post-stratification weights were built to adjust the sample distribution by gender and education of the respondent at admin-1 level, to match the same distribution in the total population. However, an additional step was needed to try to ascertain the food insecurity condition of those with access to phones compared to that of the total population.

Using FIES data collected by FAO through the GWP between 2014 and 2019, and a variable on access to mobile telephones that was also in the dataset, it was possible to compare the prevalence of food insecurity at moderate or severe level, and severe level only, of respondents with access to a mobile phone to that of the total population at national level.