For many, income spent on food (even food that is not of the highest nutrition) is a huge share of the household budget. In 2022, for over 100 countries included in the available data, the share of household income spent on food ranged from 6.7 percent in the United States to over 50 percent in 5 included countries (Laos, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Kenya, and Nigeria). Over half the included countries spent over 23 percent of their income on food. (Also, note that these are averages, and the distribution of food spending and especially food spending of the lowest earning households is often significantly higher than the national average. For example in the United States there is a large spread from low to high income households; USDA ERS data for 2023 shows the lowest quintile of households by income spent 32.6 percent of their income on food, and the highest quintile spent 8.2 percent of their income on food.)

If those households spending the largest share of their income on food were able to meet their basic needs more fully and with less of their time and energy, imagine what they could each create in their lives, in their communities, and in the world. Households that have the ability to provide food for themselves that is nourishing and supportive of the way they want to live also have a greater ability to develop their skills and capacity to thrive, instead of barely surviving.

Having access to and choice of the food we eat is one of the most basic needs we have as humans. Not only is food one of the basic ways our body receives nourishment, what we eat has a profound impact on our health and wellbeing. So this ability to choose what we eat and how we eat has far-reaching ripples through our lives. For example, when our basic needs are met, we also have more access to our power over our lives and our choice in how we spend our time and resources. This is how food sovereignty intersects with our inherent human sovereignty, our “Capital S” Sovereignty.

Food Sovereignty in Context

Why does Sovereignty matter in the context of food spending? While the situation might be dire at present for those in circumstances of very high food spending, a simultaneous orientation is that the impact of creating change for those households can be incredibly meaningful. If the share of the income of these households (a proxy for their time and energy in many cases) spent on food can be shifted, there is both HUGE need for change and HUGE potential impact and possibility resulting from change. These households are, in a way, at the Precipice of Potential.

How change occurs is part of where the possibility lies. Certainly there are the common suggestions on ways to alleviate food insecurity, such as maximizing farm productivity, generating off-farm income, transitioning to cash crops that are more exportable, etc. And, perhaps there are some alternatives that have even greater potentials, such as:

• Cultivating the land with a greater focus on what the land calls for

• Being in greater collaboration with community on food production

• Growing plants that can thrive in an area without unsustainable inputs

• Considering climate extremes as likely rather than anomalies

• Kitchen gardens in rural and urban areas

• More cooperative ownership of food system infrastructure

Thinking Across Communities and Nations

The potential impact of increasing food sovereignty is also amplified in thinking of the many households in a local area or across a nation. Although many regions around the world, such as in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa, have the ability to grow and produce foods abundantly, they also rely heavily on food imports.

There is much more detail available within this data. If you, like me, love maps too, I recommend exploring the data yourself.

Imports of food can provide substantial relief in years of drought or other weather disaster, balance unusual trade flows, lower costs for those most in need, and increase the variety of food available. There are certainly plenty of good reasons we trade.

And, an over-reliance on food imports for staple foods can create a greater susceptibility to the whims of exchange rates and global geopolitical circumstances. Examples include the 2008 rice price crisis and impacts on wheat markets of the war in Ukraine. For nations importing a large share of their basic foods, considering ways to reduce food security risk from import reliance while simultaneously supporting overall improvements in food security could be beneficial to individuals and households. Also considering where we are globally in 2025, trends of increased protectionism, the seemingly high probability of increasing tariffs in coming days, months, and years, and the history of food crop trade being used as a key point of international leverage, investing in food systems where some degree of local production is able to meet local food needs seems not only idealistic, but pragmatic in many situations.

Individuals and households who have adequate nutrition have access to far greater agency in what they support and cultivate in their lives, and in the choices they make: consumer choices, work choices, political choices, cultural choices, global choices. Small changes in food choices by households, smallholders, and local communities can have profound ripple effects through these spheres. So for leaning into greater choice, this is an area that seems ripe for exploration with intention, a Precipice of Possibility.

--1/17/25

Note: An introduction to this series and links to other topics in the series can be found here.