Food insecurity is a hidden and overlooked socio-economic problem in Australia. Data gap is a critical concern in research and practice, as official statistics on food insecurity are neither reliable nor regularly published. In the absence of appropriate data, multiple ad hoc/or US based experiential scale measures are being used by researchers to estimate prevalence of food insecurity, which often generate a wide range of conflicting numbers which are neither reliable nor comparable across settings. A prerequisite to accurate identification of the food insecure is a reliable metric to measure food insecurity.
The eight-item Food Insecurity Experience Scale (also SDG indicator to measure Goal 2 of zero hunger) is a reliable tool to measure food insecurity in Australia. Based on alternative approaches to estimating prevalence of food insecurity, in 2020, roughly 2 million people were food insecure in Australia. Interestingly, severe food insecurity is a bigger concern in Australia relative to other OECD countries. South Australia and Queensland were the most food insecure states. Findings also indicate that household level measure of food insecurity may hide intrahousehold hunger. The single-item official measure underestimates food insecurity, while muti-item US based measure may overestimate prevalence of food insecurity.
If the food insecure are not accurately identified, resources would not be appropriately targeted to households and people who are truly food insecure. Therefore, if Australia continues to rely on experience-based food security measures to monitor food security, then a muti-item scale must replace the single item measures. Additionally, rather than using the US measure, an Australia specific measure should be used. Geographic variation on prevalence estimates warrants tailor-made context-specific policies to address issues related to inadequate access to food. Finally, if the critical issue of intra-household hunger is overlooked, food insecure individuals living in apparently food secure households may miss the benefits of public policy.