As of June the number of acute food insecure people – ie food has been restricted to the point that their lives and livelihoods are at risk – increased to 345 million in 82 countries.

This is according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Trade Organisation, World Bank and others. A joint statement called for action in four areas:

1. immediate support to the vulnerable

2. trade and international supplies

3. boosting production and

4. investing in climate-resilient agriculture.

Paper never refused ink but how to achieve all four remains a conundrum, when increased production, even in climatically suitable countries such as Ireland, is legally bound to be reduced.

The FAO says that food security exists when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”.

This week, Janine’s food investigation explores public procurement of food. Reading Claire’s experience would suggest that hospital food is not meeting the aforementioned definition.

Many of us have experienced it at some point. A meal in a hospital or prison, a school or college dinner or perhaps a public sector subsidised canteen.

Farmers, unsurprisingly, find it hard to fathom why a country so proud of the food it produces would not buy more of it for “institutional cuisine” (ie where catering is a service provided for free or with a subsidy).

And not just buy more, but also be willing to pay a premium for it.

As a member of the European Single Market, public procurement rules must be open and transparent, no one is arguing with this but, we found over the course of this investigation that there is little transparency available as to ‘what’ is being purchased with no Irish sourcing data available from the Office of Government Procurement (OGP)”.

I also asked if there was a positive weighting afforded to Irish food and was told that the procurement process does not include a weighting for country of origin as this would “undermine the effective functioning of the Single Market, which provides important export opportunities for Irish food producers”.

It appears that we value our food more when we send it abroad than we do to nourish our own children and ill people?

This dearth of data led me to read some state body reports. The Programme for Government says that, “we [the Government] will: introduce local food procurement policies for the public sector to encourage the availability of nutritious, locally sourced food in public sector areas.

In the OGP’s public procurement guidelines, food is mentioned thrice. First in that it is one of eight priority areas identified as suitable for environmental measures.

Within this “green procurement” (seeking to procure goods with a reduced environmental impact) lies the second reference; “improving animal welfare by purchasing organic food in canteens”.

A comment that is, at best, scientifically ambiguous. The third reference is in relation to legal responsibilities on waste.

Public procurement food spending was not divulged when requested. However the Bord Bia food service insights report (2019) showed that institutional channels accounted for 9% of consumer spending (total value €8.55b) and 13% of total operator purchases (total value €2.9b).

Not insignificant in anyone’s book and this dearth perhaps leaving us less food secure than we think.