Physical,
geog aphical
and social access:
he neglec ed
dimensions o ood
secu i y
Mónica T uninge
Sónia Goula Ca doso
Fábio Ra ael Augus o
Vasco Ramos
21.
510 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
in oduc ion
Food insecu i y is inc easingly ecognised as a social p oblem in indus ialised
coun ies, bea ing se e e social, economic and heal h cos s o go e nmen s
and indi iduals. Ac oss Eu opean coun ies, he ise in ood insecu i y has
been closely linked o ising unemploymen and alling wages (Loops a,
Ree es and S uckle 2015). Unde Aus e i y, such e ec s ha e been ampli ied
and become ubiqui ous. The e has also been a sha p inc ease in he numbe
o indi iduals and amilies eso ing o eme gency ood help ( ood banks and
o he s) ac oss Eu ope. And in se e al coun ies, he e ha e been epo s o an
inc ease in he numbe o child en a i ing a school hung y. Addi ionally,
he e is g owing conce n abou he long- e m e ec s o ood insecu i y on
he well-being o indi iduals and amilies and/o speci ic age-g oups such as
child en o he elde ly.
O e ecen decades, he e y concep o ood (in)secu i y has also e ol ed
om a mainly p oduc ionis de ini ion, which add essed he sus ainabili y o
ood sys ems, o a b oade de ini ion, which includes he issues o access and
consump ion (Bo ch and Kjæ nes 2016; T uninge and Díaz-Méndez 2017).
None heless, as a dimension o ood insecu i y, access is oo o en de ined as
me ely elian on income, when, in ac , ood secu i y en ails sociabili y and
social ne wo ks. Food is a key elemen o social pa icipa ion; i has symbolic
meaning as a ma ke o inclusion/exclusion om socially accep able ac i i ies
and common p ac ices, such as ea ing in/ou o being able o acqui e ood in
a socially and cul u ally app op ia e way om di e en sou ces (e. g. S a e,
communi y, amily and ma ke ). Be i in olun a y o sel -imposed, wi hd awal
om such ac i i ies can be concei ed as limi ing social pa icipa ion and
excluding indi iduals om ac i e ci izenship and collec i ely sha ed ood
p ac ices ha con ey a sense o no mali y o e e yday ou ines. Based on
a c i ique o access as a me ely economic issue, ou aim is o con ibu e o
b oadening how access is amed when add essing ood (in)secu i y. To do
so, we will discuss he physical/geog aphical and social dimensions o ood
secu i y by engaging wi h he li e a u e on ood dese s and social exclusion.
The chap e is o ganised in ou main sec ions. We s a wi h an up-da ed
de ini ion o ood secu i y/insecu i y, which emphasises he mul i-laye ed
na u e o hese concep s. We hen p oceed wi h a b ie his o ical accoun ,
highligh ing he social, economic and poli ical dynamics ha shaped hei
cu en ly accep ed de ini ions. This is ollowed by a discussion o he main
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 511
ea u es o access as a key dimension o ood (in)secu i y. To do so, we engage
wi h wo di e en bodies o schola ly wo k: ood dese s and social exclusion.
In he las sec ion, we summa ise he main a gumen s, o e poin e s o u u e
esea ch, and e lec on he inhe en di icul ies o b inging oge he as ly
di e en app oaches o g asping he concep o ood (in)secu i y.
ood (in)secu i y: de ini ion and a b ie his o y
o he concep
de ini ion and main dimensions
Food insecu i y is usually de ined in e ms o i s con as ing concep : ood
secu i y. The la e has had a long his o y o concep ualisa ion and e inemen
o e he las ou decades, wi h a p ominen con ibu ion by he Food
Ag icul u e O ganisa ion ( ao). As we will see below, in his pe iod he
concep has su e ed con igu a ions ap opos changes in ag icul u e and ood
policies. The cu en de ini ions o ood insecu i y and secu i y acco ding o
ao (2001) a e he ollowing:
Food insecu i y: A si ua ion ha exis s when people lack secu e access o su icien
amoun s o sa e and nu i ious ood o no mal g ow h and de elopmen and an ac i e,
heal hy li e. I may be caused by he una ailabili y o ood, insu icien pu chasing powe
o he inapp op ia e dis ibu ion o inadequa e use o ood a he household le el. Food
insecu i y, poo condi ions o heal h and sani a ion and inapp op ia e ca e and eeding
p ac ices a e he majo causes o poo nu i ional s a us. Food insecu i y may be ch onic,
seasonal o ansi o y.
Food secu i y: A si ua ion ha exis s when all people, a all imes, ha e physical, social and
economic access o su icien , sa e and nu i ious ood ha mee s hei die a y needs and
ood p e e ences o an ac i e and heal hy li e.
( ao, 2001)
The abo e de ini ion o ood secu i y is one o he mos popula and
eme ged a e diploma ic nego ia ions a he 1996 Wo ld Food Summi . I he
concep o ood secu i y ep esen s a desi e, ambi ion and expec a ion; he
concep o ood insecu i y ep esen s a p oblem, a h ea o a isk (Midgley
2013, 25). Bo h he concep o secu i y and insecu i y can be unde s ood
512 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
as being si ua ed a he ends o a con inuum, and he wo d (in)secu i y is
some imes used o con ey an idea o p ocess.
As concep ualised by ao, ood secu i y consis s o ou key dimensions
(Table 21.1). Food a ailabili y is necessa y bu no su icien o ensu e ood
secu i y (as he e may be amine in socie ies whe e ood abounds), and access
is necessa y bu no su icien o ensu e use, since ood can be p epa ed
and cooked (Webb e al. 2006). S abili y seems o be he c i e ion ha is
ans e sal o all dimensions. In some app oaches, isk (which is also pa o
phy osani a y and hygiene issues – ood sa e y) is seen as an addi ional ac o
in ood sa e y as “a c oss-cu ing issue a ec ing all componen s o he ood
secu i y s uc u e” (Webb and Roge s 2003).
These de ini ions o ood secu i y and insecu i y p oposed by ao e lec
he econ igu a ions and concep ual e isions implemen ed since he 1970s.
The successi e e isions o he concep o ood secu i y add o he plu alisa ion
The main dimensions o he ood secu i y concep
main dimensions de ini ion
A ailabili y Food a ailabili y add esses he “supply side” o ood secu i y and is de e mined
by he le el o ood p oduc ion, s ock le els and ne ade.
Access (physical,
economic and
social)
An adequa e supply o ood a he na ional o in e na ional le el does no in
i sel gua an ee household le el ood secu i y. Conce ns abou insu icien ,
socially and cul u ally inadequa e ood access ha e esul ed in a g ea e policy
ocus on incomes, expendi u e, ma ke s, p ices, and social inno a ion ini ia i es
o achie e ‘p ope ’ access o ood.
Use and
U ilisa ion
U ilisa ion is commonly unde s ood as he way he body makes he mos
o a ious nu ien s in he ood. Su icien ene gy and nu ien in ake by
indi iduals is he esul o good ca e and eeding p ac ices, ood p epa a ion,
di e si y o he die and in a-household dis ibu ion o ood. Combined wi h
good biological u ilisa ion o ood consumed, his de e mines he nu i ional
s a us o indi iduals.
S abili y E en i you ood in ake is adequa e oday, you a e s ill conside ed o be ood
insecu e i you ha e inadequa e access o ood on a pe iodic basis, isking a
de e io a ion o you nu i ional s a us. Ad e se wea he condi ions, he h ea
o clima e change and o ced displacemen , poli ical ins abili y, o economic
ac o s (unemploymen , ising ood p ices) may ha e an impac on you ood
secu i y s a us.
Sou ce: Adap ed om FAO, 2008.
Table 21.1
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 513
o pe spec i es ega ding he associa ed isk ac o s and he mos app op ia e
in e en ion possible. A he same ime, se e al me hodological p oposals ha e
eme ged, associa ed wi h di e en analy ical concep ions o ood secu i y.
I is a complex concep and no always capable o gene a ing global
consensus. Since i akes di e en o ms, i is a ec ed by issues o scale (global-
local) and, abo e all, i s ems om di e en ac o s depending on he si ua ed
con ex o which i is mobilised. A b ie genealogy o he concep is impo an
o unde s and he e olu ion o such di e ences.
b ie his o y o he concep
In i s incep ion, he main conce n encompassing ood secu i y was o inc ease
ood p oduc ion and make ood a ailable o eed he wo ld popula ion. I was
a ques ion cen ed on ood “a ailabili y”. This iew was gal anised especially
in he pos -Wo ld Wa ii econs uc ion, in he la e 1940s and con inued in o
he ollowing h ee decades, whe ein ag icul u e policies e ol ed a ound
in ensi e ood p oduc ion o mass consump ion, wi h he help o chemical
inpu s o inc ease c op yield (epi omised by he “G een Re olu ion”). This
was he ime when mili a y echnologies and scien i ic inno a ions we e
ans e ed and adap ed o help he blooming o in ensi e ag o- ood indus ies
(T uninge 2013). When i became clea ha inc easing c op yields we e no
necessa ily sol ing he sp ead o hunge and amine in he wo ld, he ocus
u ned o access and ma ke s and how o sol e he aga ies o unbalanced
ood dis ibu ion be ween indus ial and less de eloped coun ies (e. g. in
A ica, Asia and La in Ame ica). This was in he 1980s, when he wo k o
Ama ya Sen (1982) would lead o he concep o ood secu i y being e ised,
b inging he issue o ood igh s o he deba e. Sen’s concep ual con ibu ion
s ems om he asse ion ha ood insecu i y does no necessa ily come om
he una ailabili y o ood in he ma ke , bu a he om he exis ence o
cons ain s on people’s access o ood (T uninge e al, o hcoming). Howe e ,
wi h a ma ke d i en agenda a ed wi h he neo-libe al ideology o he 1990s
access was p ac ically es ic ed o an economic dimension. The p oduc ionis
pa adigm o inc easing ood ou pu ( o he de imen o he en i onmen al
and heal h impac s) was s ill disce nible, his ime wi h a conce n o making
ood cheap and a o dable o consume s. Thus, as Lang and Ba ling (2012, 7)
claim: “The p oduc ionis old pa adigm accep ed a cul u e o choice shaped by
p ice. Reducing p ices was he goal”. Fo ha o happen, he powe geome y

514 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
o he ood sys em shi ed and big dis ibu ion companies s a ed exe cising
p essu e o squeeze p oduc ion cos s and pass alue h oughou he ood
chain on o consume s, while ge ing he lion’s sha e. Such deba es a ound he
need o secu e no only physical and economic access, bu also social access
in ensi ied and leaked in o he de ini ion o ood secu i y. Despi e such e o s
o b oaden he dimension o access beyond he ma ke mechanisms, physical
and especially social access a e s ill he weakes links o he “access” dimension.
Wi h he publica ion o he Wo ld Bank Repo on Po e y and Hunge
(Wo ld Bank 1986) he deba es on ood secu i y e lec ed conce ns abou he
empo al dimension and unexpec ed e en s ha may a ec he popula ion o
di e en deg ees o ood insecu i y. C ises, wa s, con lic s, o ced displacemen
o people due o he sca ci y o na u al esou ces, income and employmen
luc ua ions in people’s li es may h ow hem suddenly in o si ua ions o ood
insecu i y. I is impo an o dis inguish be ween ch onic ood insecu i y
whe ein he popula ion is a ec ed by long-las ing po e y, and episodes ha
a e ansi o y, associa ed wi h e en s ha ha e, ne e heless a s ong impac
on shi ing ood p ac ices. Thus, secu ing s abili y in he supply and access o
ood is undamen al, i being an impo an dimension o he concep included
in i s 1980s’ e o mula ions.
The use/u ilisa ion dimension was he las o be included in he concep .
In he 1990s, a en ion o an inc easing popula ion bo h in he Global No h
and Sou h su e ing ei he om malnu i ion and hunge o o e nu i ion,
excess weigh and obesi y b ough in he need o gua an ee e e yone’s access o
nu i ionally and cul u ally app op ia e oods bea ing in mind he impo ance
o access o ood quali y as pa o a heal hy die and li es yle. Such conce ns wi h
die , nu i ion and heal h shaped he ex ension o he no ion o ood secu i y o
nu i ion as well. In B azil, hese ideas became conc e e h ough he app o al
o an inno a i e s a egy on ood secu i y and nu i ion. This inno a i e policy
model is now being ex ended o o he coun ies a ound he wo ld, namely he
cplp coun ies (Po uguese Language Coun ies, e. g. Mozambique).
Wi h he global c isis o 2007-2008, deba e in ensi ied on ood secu i y wi h
he combined inc ease o uel and ood p ices, e ealing he ulne abili ies o
he global ood sys em. The ag icul u al commodi y spikes igge ed con lic s
o e ood esou ces in de eloping coun ies, wi h he popula ion clea ly
s uggling o ha e access o a o dable ood. Howe e , he agg a a ion o he
inancial and economic c ises in Eu ope and o he de eloped coun ies, due,
o some ex en , o he impac o measu es o public deb con ol was a wakeup
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 515
call o he p oblems o ood access and dis ibu ion among ich na ion s a es.
Suddenly, he p oblem o ood insecu i y was no a away and ou o sigh ,
bu was e y much isible in he s ee s o many Eu opean ci ies wi h i s long
queues o disad an aged g oups wai ing o ee ho meals on cold nigh s. The
21s cen u y economic c isis b ough he p oblem and eali y o ood insecu i y
o Eu opean sho es and obliged he e hinking o adequa e access o ood,
ocusing he deba e on consump ion and no only on p oduc ion (T uninge
and Díaz-Méndez 2017; Bo ch and Kjae nes 2016).
Finally, he connec ion be ween ood secu i y and sus ainabili y issues
( ega ding ei he na u al esou ces deple ion, clima e change e ec s o
gas emissions om he ag o- ood indus y) has b ough o he o e a new
con igu a ion o his concep encapsula ed in he no ion o “sus ainable ood
secu i y” (Sonnino, Mo agues-Fau and Maggio 2014). Indeed, he combined
e ec s o clima e change and o ced displacemen (due o con lic s, wa s,
esou ce sca ci y) imposes u he p essu e on Eu opean coun ies o open
hei bo de s and accommoda e clima e change e ugees (o wa e ugees),
pu ing g ea e s ess on alloca ing and dis ibu ing ood in a mo e socially jus
way. Some o he issues ha will become mo e p ominen wi h he d ama ic
scena ios o people ci cula ing om he Global Sou h o he No h ela e o
social access and ensu ing mul i-cul u ally adequa e die s o popula ions on
he mo e.
access – an o e looked dimension o ood secu i y?
As al eady ou lined, ood insecu i y is a mul i-laye ed phenomenon, which
can ange widely in se e i y. When indi iduals and amilies a e dependen on
ood aid, one can easily g asp ha hei li elihood is se e ely cons ained: in
such cases, indi iduals lack agency conce ning mundane e e yday ac i i ies,
such as choosing wha o ea /cook. Bu e en in i s less se e e o ms, ood
insecu i y a ec s o es ic s indi iduals om ully pa icipa ing in se e al
sphe es o social li e, e. g. consump ion and sociabili y a ound ood.
While access cons i u es a key dimension o ood (in)secu i y, mos
accoun s s ess he economic ea u es o access. In he Global No h, ood
insecu i y is o en associa ed wi h ela i e po e y, de ined as he inabili y/
a o dabili y o ob aining an adequa e and nu i ious die (Dowle 1998).
In his con ex , amines and se e e ood sho age due o wa s, disas e s o
516 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
d ough , a e mos ly a dis an memo y. A ailabili y o oods u s is no he key
issue bu a he possessing su icien economic means o buy/p ocu e ood.
E en in he Global Sou h, as Sen (1982) b illian ly showed conce ning he
G ea Famine ha a aged India in he 1940s, he p oblem was ne e sho age
o ood bu a he he way i was dis ibu ed, bo h geog aphically and socially.
The physical/geog aphical and social dimensions o ood secu i y a e less o en
add essed, when aming he discussion conce ning wes e n indus ialised
socie ies. In he ollowing sec ions, we p opose o a icula e ood insecu i y
wi h wo di e en li e a u es o con ibu e o he b oadening o his issue,
going c ucially beyond he economic access dimension. Such bodies o wo k
a e encompassed by he ood dese s and social exclusion concep s.
physical/geog aphical access and ood
insecu i y h ough he ood dese lens
A la ge amoun o li e a u e conce ning physical/geog aphical access o ood
e ol es a ound he concep o ood dese s (Adams, Ul ich, and Coleman
2010). Howe e , he e is no consensus conce ning how o cha ac e ise and
measu e wha cons i u es a ood dese . In ui i ely, he me apho could easily
e e o a “ ood p o isioning socio echnical in as uc u e” app oach, whe ein
“dese s” s and o a eas lacking ood s o es (such as ma ke s, supe ma ke s,
es au an s, co ee-shops, e c.). In ac , o he mos pa , esea ch on ood
dese s has aken his app oach and limi ed analysis o speci ic geog aphical
a eas (e. g. ci ies, neighbou hoods, bo oughs). Mos s udies ely hea ily on
quan i a i e measu es like densi y and/o dis ance measu es, such as he
numbe o s o es (pe esiden s o census a ea) o shop dis ance (Block and
Kouba 2006; Hend ickson, Smi h and Eikenbe y 2006; La sen and Gilliland
2008). O he esea che s ha e been s essing ha geog aphical access o ood
canno ely solely on physical/geog aphical analysis: a ea based app oaches
examine po en ial access and no ac ual usabili y, while igno ing indi idual o
social ac o s ha also hinde access o ood (usda 2009).
Fo ins ance, Lau ence (1997 ci in Kennedy 2001) de ined ood dese s
as “ hose a eas in inne ci ies whe e cheap, nu i ious ood is i ually
unob ainable; ca -less esiden s, unable o each ou o supe ma ke s, depend
on he co ne shop whe e p ices a e high, p oduc s a e p ocessed and esh ui
and ege ables a e poo o non-exis en ”. As de ined by his au ho , add essing
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 517
ood dese s also in ol es a mul i-laye ed analysis o issues such as heal h
inequali ies, social exclusion, a ailabili y and p ice o ood, ood consump ion
habi s, anspo a ion o ood po e y (W igley 2002). Addi ionally, his
heo e ical p oposal encou ages quali a i e analysis and assessmen . Mo eo e ,
i opens he heo e ical spec um, encompassing b oade pe spec i es, such as
“ oodways” o “ oodscapes”, which concep ualise “ he e e -changing, social,
ela ional, and poli ical na u e o landscapes o u ban ood consump ion and
p o ision” (Miewald and McCann 2014, 539).
Al hough di icul o de ine and measu e, ood dese became a popula
concep in bo h academic and policy-making ci cles, pa icula ly a e he
1990s (W igley 2002). Since hen, a la ge body o e idence, mos ly accumula ed
in he usa, has shown ha heal hie oods a e mo e di icul o ob ain and
cos mo e in disad an aged a eas han in a luen a eas (Hend ickson, Smi h
and Eikenbe y 2006). Li ing in ood dese s se e ely cons ains he ype and
quali y o ood ha indi iduals can ob ain. As highligh ed by D ewnowski and
Spec e (2004), a eas whe e quali y oods a e lacking expose esiden s o mo e
ene gy-dense oods ( illed wi h emp y calo ies), which a e usually a ailable
a con enience s o es and as ood es au an s. Unsu p isingly, esea ch has
shown ha hose li ing in a eas wi h easie access o supe ma ke s ha e a
highe household ui in ake (Rose and Richa ds 2004) and a e less p one o
heal h p oblems (Giang e al. 2008). Ne e heless, a s ic and linea causal
ela ion is ha d o de ine.
Se e al au ho s ha ocus on he usa emphasise ha ood dese s a e
pa icula ly wo ying o hose li ing wi h a low income. In ac , in he
Ame ican con ex , he lowes income neighbou hoods had nea ly 30% ewe
supe ma ke s han he highes income neighbou hoods ( Weinbe g 1995
ci in Walke , Keane and Bu ke 2010, 878). Racial issues a e also ex emely
ele an , since p edominan ly black neighbou hoods ha e ou imes ewe
supe ma ke s and mo e p e alence o as - ood es au an s han p edominan ly
whi e neighbou hoods (Mo land e al. 2002; Block, Sc ibne and DeSal o
2004). Mo eo e , wi hin ood dese s, p ices end o be highe and he e a e
ewe ood op ions in ype, numbe and quali y (Hend ickson, Smi h and
Eikenbe y 2006). This could help explain why only 2 o 3% o he o al ood
expendi u es o low-income s a e made in con enience s o es (usda 2009).
On he o he hand, cons ains o access among low-income s a e heigh ened
by he cos o anspo a ion, which make i di icul o each supe ma ke s
ou side he immedia e icini y (Rose and Richa ds 2004). O he s s ill, like
524 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
he oods he/she chooses o inco po a e” (Fischle 1988, 275). In ac , i is
because ood plays a cen al ole in he cons uc ion o iden i ies ha ood
dep i a ion and changes o die a y ou ines and habi s ha e a p o ound impac
on people’s li es (and in e e y hing hey encompass).
conclusion
The double e m ood (in)secu i y has been g adually e ined in i s
concep ualisa ion, especially in he 2nd hal o he 20 h and beginning o he
21s cen u y. Al hough he concep has gained mo e cla i y in ecen yea s, i s
access dimension ends o be o e looked, especially i s physical/geog aphical
and social aspec s. In his chap e , we ha e sugges ed ha hese aspec s
ha e he po en ial o be e empi ical cla i ica ion wi h c oss e ilisa ion
wi h he li e a u e on ood dese s and social exclusion. Toge he wi h o he
schola s, we also ag ee ha i is impo an o p i ilege mixed-me hods and
mul i-laye ed app oaches o capi alise on such concep ual e inemen and
empi ical ope a ionalisa ion. Howe e , he connec ing poin s be ween he
a ious sub-dimensions o access (physical, economic and social) a e almos
unquan i iable, and a e di icul o un angle. Fo ins ance, socioeconomic
dep i ed neighbou hoods a e equen ly disad an aged in e ms o ood cos
and a ailabili y (a leas in he usa), ep esen ing a challenge pa icula ly o
low income amilies, ha see hemsel es excluded, no only om access o
cheap and nu i ious ood, bu also om he social sphe e (shopping, ea ing
ou and social pa icipa ion). In some social se ings, bo h u ban and u al,
e i o ial o ganisa ion is engende ed in o highly seg ega ed spaces, some o
which lacking easy physical access o ood. Li ing in a ood dese doesn’
necessa ily en ail exclusion om ood, consump ion o social pa icipa ion.
Bu , o some amilies, di icul y in access can be a key dimension o exclusion.
Thus, he analy ical ocus on he con igu a ion o exclusion a di e en and
mul iple le els (e. g. income, se ices and pa icipa ion) should be mo e
explo ed in u u e s udies o be e unde s and he access dimension o ood
insecu i y.
As o social exclusion, i is also possible o es ablish b idges wi h he
concep o ood insecu i y. The dis up ion o social bonds can ha e an impac
on people’s ea ing habi s and on he social in e ac ions ha a e es ablished
a ound ood, in he same way as he phenomenon o ood insecu i y can lead

he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 525
o he dis up ion o social bonds. Mo eo e , he ela ionship be ween he
concep s o ood insecu i y and social exclusion goes beyond he idea ha
ood insecu e people a e excluded om access o ood. The way indi iduals
ela e o o he s h ough ood has an impac no only on li elong ela ionships,
bu also on how hese ela ionships in luence indi iduals and de ine hem.
Thus ood ep esen s a s ong elemen o social inclusion and iden i y.
By ocusing mo e on he physical and social aspec s we enable he e inemen
o he concep o access ha has been biased owa ds p i ileging he economic
a ena. Mo e in e na ional and na ional s udies a e a welcome addi ion,
especially i hey u he examine he dimension o physical and social access,
and p oblema ise mo e issues a ound ood insecu i y, consump ion and social
pa icipa ion.
acknowledgemen s
The esea ch leading o hese esul s has ecei ed unding om he Eu opean Resea ch
Council unde he Eu opean Union’s Se en h F amewo k P og amme ( p7/2007-2013)/e c
g an ag eemen n.° 337977. We a e also g a e ul o he aluable ime kindly gi en by ou
pa icipan s in he in e iews. The in e na ional esea ch eam comp ises Rebecca O’Connell,
Julia B annen, Abigail Knigh , Lau a Hamil on, Cha lie Owen and An onia Simon (uk); Silje
Skuland and Anine F ykholm (No way) and Monica T uninge , Ka in Wall, Vasco Ramos,
Sónia G. Ca doso, Fábio R. Augus o and Manuel Ab an es (Po ugal). This esea ch e lec s
only he au ho s’ iews and he Eu opean Union is no liable o any use ha may be made o
he in o ma ion con ained he ein.’
Fábio Ra ael Augus o wishes o g a e ully acknowledge he inancial suppo om he
Po uguese Founda ion o Science an d Technology ( c ), unde he PhD g an s h/
bd/130072/2017, co- unded by he Eu opean Social Fund ( se) and na ional unds o he
Po uguese Minis y o Science, Technology and Highe Educa ion (mc es) h ough he
Human Capi al Ope a ional P og amme (poch).
Vasco Ramos wishes o acknowledge unding ecei ing om he Po uguese Founda ion
o Science and Technology, wi hin he amewo k o a pos -doc o al p ojec (s h/
bpd/116221/2016).
526 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
____________________________________
mónica uninge
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-4251-2261
____________________________________
sónia goula ca doso
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
sonia.goula[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-6442-5265
____________________________________
ábio a ael augus o
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
abio.augu[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-1957-2477
____________________________________
asco amos
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
asco[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0003-4379-2354
____________________________________
e e ences
aasland, A., T. Flø en. 2001. “E hnici y and social exclusion in Es onia and La ia”. Eu ope-
Asia S udies 53 (7): 1023-1049.
adams, A. T., M. J. Ul ich, and A. Coleman. 2010. “Food dese s”. Jou nal o Applied Social
Science 4 (2): 58-62.
adhika y, M., K. Sa ka . 2012. “Consump ion p o ile o he socially excluded people.” Mode n
Economy, 3 (6): 14.
babajanian, B., J. Hagen-Zanke . 2012. “Social p o ec ion and social exclusion: an analy ical
amewo k o assess he links”. In Backg ound No e, ed. by odi. London.
ba e sby, J. 2012. “Beyond he ood dese : Finding ways o speak abou u ban ood secu i y
in Sou h A ica.” Geog a iska Annale : Se ies B, Human Geog aphy, 94 (2): 141-159.
block, D., J. Kouba. 2006. “A compa ison o he a ailabili y and a o dabili y o a ma ke
baske in wo communi ies in he Chicago a ea”. Public Heal h Nu i ion, 9 (7): 837-845.
block, J. P., R. A. Sc ibne , and K. B. DeSal o. 2004. “Fas ood, ace/e hnici y, and income: a
geog aphic analysis”. Ame ican Jou nal o P e en i e Medicine, 27 (3): 211-217.
bo ch, A., U. Kjæ nes. 2016. “Food secu i y and ood insecu i y in Eu ope: an analysis o he
academic discou se (1975-2013)”. Appe i e, 103: 137-147.
b u o da cos a, A. 1998. Exclusões Sociais. Lisbon: G adi a.
bu cha d , T. 2000. “Social exclusion: concep s and e idence”. B eadline Eu ope: The
Measu emen o Po e y, 385-406.
capucha, L. 2005. Desa ios da Pob eza. Oei as: Cel a Edi o a.
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 527
cas el, R. 1996. “Les ma ginaux dand l’his oi e”. In L’ exclusion: l’ é a des sa oi es, ed. S.
Paugam. Pa is: La Décou e e, 32-41.
cummins, S., e al. 2008. “Reducing inequali ies in heal h and die : indings om a s udy on
he impac o a ood e ail de elopmen ”. En i onmen and Planning A, 40 (2): 402-422.
cummins, S., S. Macin y e. 2002. “A sys ema ic s udy o an u ban oodscape: he p ice and
a ailabili y o ood in g ea e Glasgow”. U ban S udies, 39 (11): 2115-2130.
diogo, F., A. Cas o and P. Pe is a. 2015. Pob eza e Exclusão Social em Po ugal: Con ex os,
T ans o mações e Es udos. Lisbon: Húmus.
dowle , E. 1998. “Food po e y and ood policy”. ids Bulle in, 29 (1): 58-65.
d ewnowski, A., S. E. Spec e . 2004. “Po e y and obesi y: he ole o ene gy densi y and
ene gy cos s”. The Ame ican Jou nal o Clinical Nu i ion, 79 (1): 6-16.
du kheim, É. 1977 [1893]. A Di isão do T abalho Social. Lisbon: P esença.
ischle , C. 1988. “Food, sel and iden i y”. Social Science In o ma ion 27 (2): 275-292.
ischle , C. 2011. “Commensali y, socie y and cul u e”. Social Science In o ma ion, 50 (3-4):
528-548.
ao. 2001. The S a e o Food Insecu i y in he Wo ld. Link: h p://www. ao.o g/doc ep/003/
y1500e/y1500e06.h m#P0_2 , accessed 9 h No embe 2017.
ao. 2008. An In oduc ion o he Basic Concep s o Food Secu i y. Rome: ao. Link: h p://
www. ao.o g/doc ep/013/al936e/al936e00.pd accessed 10 h No embe 2017.
u ey, S., C. S ugnell and Ms H. McIl een. 2001. “An in es iga ion o he po en ial exis ence
o ‘ ood dese s’ in u al and u ban a eas o No he n I eland”. Ag icul u e and Human
Values, 18 (4): 447-457.
giang, T. e al. 2008. “Closing he g oce y gap in unde se ed communi ies: he c ea ion o
he Pennsyl ania F esh Food Financing Ini ia i e”. Jou nal o Public Heal h Managemen
and P ac ice 14 (3): 272-279.
gi elsohn, J., S. Sha ma. 2009. “Physical, consume , and social aspec s o measu ing he
ood en i onmen among di e se low-income popula ions”. Ame ican Jou nal o P e en i e
Medicine, 36 (4): s161-s165.
goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class : a S udy in Compa a i e Sociology, Themes in he
Social Sciences. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
haan, A. de, S. Maxwell. 1998. “Edi o ial: po e y and social exclusion in No h and Sou h”.
ids Bulle in, 29 (1): 1-9.
helbich, M., e al. 2017. “Food dese s? Heal hy ood access in Ams e dam”. Applied
Geog aphy, 83: 1-12.
hend ickson, D., C. Smi h, and N. Eikenbe y. 2006. “F ui and ege able access in ou
low-income ood dese s communi ies in Minneso a”. Ag icul u e and Human Values, 23
(3): 371-383.
kennedy, L. A. 2001. “Communi y in ol emen a wha cos ?—local app aisal o a pan-
Eu opean nu i ion p omo ion p og amme in low-income neighbou hoods”. Heal h
P omo ion In e na ional, 16 (1): 35-45.
lang, T., D. Ba ling. 2012. “Food secu i y and ood sus ainabili y: e o mula ing he deba e”.
The Geog aphical Jou nal, 178 (4): 313-326.
la sen, K., J. Gilliland. 2008. “Mapping he e olu ion o ‘ ood dese s’ in a Canadian ci y:
Supe ma ke accessibili y in London, On a io, 1961-2005”. In e na ional Jou nal o Heal h
Geog aphics, 7 (1): 16.
lenoi , R. 1974. Les exclus: un F ançais su dix: Seuil.
528 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
li lewood, P., S. He komme . 1999. “Iden i ying social exclusion: some p oblems o
meaning”. In Social Exclusion in Eu ope: P oblems and Pa adigms, ed. P. Li lewood e al.
Alde sho : Ashga e, 1-21
loops a, R., A. Ree es, and D. S uckle . 2015. “Rising ood insecu i y in Eu ope”. The
Lance , 385 (9982): 2041.
macin y e, S., L. Macdonald, and A. Ellaway. 2008. “Do poo e people ha e poo e access
o local esou ces and acili ies? The dis ibu ion o local esou ces by a ea dep i a ion in
Glasgow, Sco land”. Social Science & Medicine, 67 (6): 900-914.
miewald, C., E. McCann. 2014. “Foodscapes and he geog aphies o po e y: Sus enance,
s a egy, and poli ics in an u ban neighbo hood”. An ipode, 46 (2): 537-556.
midgley, J. L. 2013. “Food (in)Secu i y in he global ‘No h’ and ‘Sou h’. In The Handbook o
Food Resea ch, eds. A. Mu co , W. Belasco and P. Jackson. London: Bloomsbu y, 384-397.
mo land, K., e al. 2002. “Neighbo hood cha ac e is ics associa ed wi h he loca ion o ood
s o es and ood se ice places”. Ame ican Jou nal o P e en i e Medicine, 22 (1): 23-29.
noguei a, H. G. 2010. “Dep i a ion ampli ica ion and heal h p omo ing esou ces in he
con ex o a poo coun y”. Social Science & Medicine, 70 (9): 1391-1395.
paugam, S. 1996. L’ exclusion, l’ é a des sa oi s, Tex es à l’ appui. Pa is: Ed. La Décou e e.
awal, N. 2008. “Social inclusion and exclusion: a e iew”. Dhaulagi i Jou nal o Sociology
and An h opology, 2: 161-180.
od igues, E. V. 2000. “O Es ado-P o idência e os p ocessos da exclusão social: conside ações
eó icas e es a ís icas em o no do caso po uguês”. Sociologia: Re is a da Faculdade de
Le as da Uni e sidade do Po o, 10: 173-200.
oom, G. 1988. “New po e y in he Eu opean Communi y”. Semina a F ee Uni e si y o
B ussels, ii P og amme Eu opeén de Lu e Con e la Pau e é.
oom, G. 1989. “Po e y and he single Eu opean ma ke ”. Cen e o he Analysis o Social
Policy, Uni e si y o Ba h.
oom, G. J. 1999. “Social exclusion, solida i y and he challenge o globaliza ion”. In e na ional
Jou nal o Social Wel a e, 8 (3): 166-174.
ose, D., R. Richa ds. 2004. “Food s o e access and household ui and ege able use among
pa icipan s in he us Food S amp P og am”. Public Heal h Nu i ion, 7 (8): 1081-1088.
san ana, P., R. San os and H. Noguei a. 2009. “The link be ween local en i onmen and
obesi y: a mul ile el analysis in he Lisbon Me opoli an A ea, Po ugal”. Social Science &
Medicine, 68 (4): 601-609.
sen, A. 1982. Po e y and Famines : An Essay on En i lemen and Dep i a ion. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
sen, A. 1999. De elopmen as F eedom. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
sen, A. 2000. Social Exclusion: Concep , Applica ion, and Sc u iny. ol. 1, De elopmen Pape s.
Manila, Philippines: Asian De elopmen Bank.
sil e , H. 1994. “Social exclusion and social solida i y: h ee pa adigms”. In e na ional
Labou Re iew, 133 (5/6): 531-578.
sonnino, R., M. Faus, A. and A. Maggio. 2014. “Sus ainable ood secu i y: an eme ging
esea ch and policy agenda”. In e na ional Jou nal o Sociology o Ag icul u e and Food, 21
(1): 173-188.
uninge , M. 2013. “The his o ical de elopmen o indus ial and domes ic ood
echnologies”. In The Handbook o Food Resea ch, eds. A. Mu co , W. Belasco and P.
Jackson. London: Bloomsbu y, 82-108.
he neglec ed dimensions o ood secu i y 529
uninge , M., C. Díaz-Méndez. 2017. “Po e y and ood (in)secu i y”. In Rou ledge
Handbook on Consump ion, eds. M. Kelle e al. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge, 271-
-281.
uninge , M. e al. ( o hcoming). Alimen ação em Tempos de C ise: Consumo e Segu ança
Alimen a na Famílias Po uguesas, Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais.
usda, Uni ed S a es Depa men o Ag icul u e, Economic Resea ch Se ice. 2009. Access o
A o dable and Nu i ious Food: Measu ing and Unde s anding Food Dese s and Thei
Consequences, Repo o Cong ess, June 2009. A ailable online: h ps://www.e s.usda.
go /webdocs/publica ions/42711/12716_ap036_1_.pd ? =41055.
walke , R. E., C. R. Keane and J. G. Bu ke. 2010. “Dispa i ies and access o heal hy ood in
he Uni ed S a es: A e iew o ood dese s li e a u e”. Heal h & Place, 16 (5): 876-884. doi:
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.heal hplace.2010.04.013.
webb, P. e al. 2006. “Measu ing household ood insecu i y: why i ’s so impo an and ye so
di icul o do”. The Jou nal o Nu i ion, 136 (5): 1404s-1408s.
webb, P., B. L. Roge s. 2003. Add essing he “In” in Food Insecu i y. Food and Nu i ion
Technical Assis ance P ojec Academy o Educa ional De elopmen .
whi ley, S. 2013. “Changing imes in u al Ame ica: Food assis ance and ood insecu i y in
ood dese s”. Jou nal o Family Social Wo k, 16 (1): 36-52.
w igley, N. 2002. “ ‘Food dese s’ in B i ish ci ies: policy con ex and esea ch p io i ies”.
U ban S udies, 39 (11): 2029-2040.
w igley, N., D. Wa m and B. Ma ge s. 2003. “Dep i a ion, die , and ood- e ail access:
Findings om he Leeds ‘ ood dese s’ s udy”. En i onmen and Planning A, 35 (1): 151-
-188.
xibe as, M. 1993. “As eo ias da exclusão”. Epis emologia e Sociedade, 41. Lisbon: Ins i u o
piage .
ya es, L., A. Wa de. 2017. “Ea ing oge he and ea ing alone: meal a angemen s in B i ish
households”. The B i ish Jou nal o Sociology, 68 (1): 97-118.
ci e his chap e as:
uninge , M. e al. 2018. “Physical, geog aphical and social access: he neglec ed dimensions o ood
secu i y”. In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i. Ambiguous Inclusions: Inside Ou , Inside
In, eds. S. Aboim, P. G anjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 509-529.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715030.21