Billions of people can't afford healthy food despite not being 'poor'

Between 2 and 2.9 billion people worldwide cannot afford what they need to live a healthy life. These individuals do not fit traditional definitions of extreme poverty, yet they still face hardship in accessing food with enough nutrients for long-term well-being.

Research from the University of Göttingen shows that most conventional yardsticks miss a key point: many people live above the typical “extreme poverty” threshold but cannot buy what experts call a basic healthy diet.

The study was led by Jonas Stehl, a PhD researcher at Göttingen University’s Development Economics Research Group, who collaborated with the aid agency Misereor.

People need more than calories

Basic living needs go beyond mere survival calories. People also require vitamins, minerals, and proteins to avoid illnesses linked to poor diets. Many policy discussions still focus on strict income cutoffs that do not include the cost of diverse foods.

This broader perspective introduces a different headcount of global poverty. By one calculation, at least 2.3 billion people fall below a new line that factors in both food variety and other essentials.

A large chunk of humanity faces health risks simply because they cannot purchase nutritious foods.

The high cost of healthy food

Researchers argue that current methods fail to reflect the price of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and other necessary foods. Studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization show that nutrient-rich diets often cost more than low-quality staples alone. This gap means many working families end up short on daily vitamins.

Some in wealthier nations may spend less overall on daily necessities, but they can still purchase balanced meals. Others in low-income regions might manage cheap starches yet cannot add proteins or produce.

This imbalance can spell the difference between meeting basic nutrient targets or lacking them for years.

Old poverty lines miss real needs

The World Bank sets a widely used cut-and-dried income line to count extreme poverty. It is useful for simpler global comparisons but leaves out dietary requirements beyond raw calorie intake. The new findings say health must be a central factor in assessing need.

Healthy diets cost more than a single universal figure can capture. Prices change based on location, food availability, and purchasing power. Diet-related disease burdens also vary, making a single yardstick less effective in reflecting true welfare.

“There are billions of people who are not classified as extremely poor by current standards, yet they cannot afford food for adequate nutrition and other basic needs, overlooking the long-term health consequences of malnutrition,” said Stehl. He added that traditional measures should be reconsidered to direct resources more precisely.

Poor food harms people and society

Health impacts stretch far beyond the individual. Research published in The Lancet found that undernutrition and diet-linked illnesses contribute to high medical expenses, reduced labor output, and stunted childhood development. Societies bear additional burdens when large groups cannot afford the cost of healthy food.

Food assistance projects, micronutrient fortification programs, and cash transfers often aim to tackle these problems. However, efforts can fall short if poverty lines fail to identify who needs help with healthy diets.

Role of non-food essentials

The same study highlights that the expense of meeting non-food basics is also crucial. People need more than food – they also require housing, electricity, school fees, and healthcare.

A new poverty benchmark should account for both food and these other core needs to give a more accurate picture of deprivation.

If a household’s income only covers calories from cheap staples, they may still face undernutrition and struggle to pay for medicine or transportation. That shortfall harms productivity and can lock future generations into hardship.

Policies must reflect real costs

Policymakers often rely on conventional international poverty lines to plan social support.

The researchers’ findings suggest that billions of people remain overlooked because their incomes sit above outdated baselines. Officials could fine-tune global and local programs by adding a healthy-diet cost to official thresholds.

Certain governments have already started adjusting their calculations. Specialists hope more will follow, especially where malnutrition persists despite moderate overall growth. Shifting the conversation could help spark new investment in farm output, market efficiency, and safety nets.

Why healthier diets help economies

Balanced nutrition is linked with stronger immune systems, better brain function, and improved school performance for children. Workers become more productive and health expenses often drop.

Recognizing the real cost of these diets can steer governments, charities, and donors toward more impactful solutions.

A person might be working multiple jobs yet still remain food-insecure if healthy items are priced out of reach. That reality calls for creative policy, such as subsidizing nutrient-rich foods or offering direct financial support to low-income families.

Reducing the cost of healthy food

Experts say updating poverty metrics to include the cost of a balanced diet aligns with the human right to adequate food. Focusing only on a single daily dollar amount does not capture the real gap that blocks better health and fuller lives.

Governments and aid groups can use this knowledge to push for market policies that reduce prices on nutritious staples, boost local production, or provide direct income programs. Measures of economic well-being can shift to something that covers more than a limited food basket.

The study is published in the journal Food Policy.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–