Food Consumption

Diet Diversity

At the time of the survey, the majority of households in the selected areas of Mindanao reported average or above access to food (87%), and 13 percent reported a bad or very bad access to food. Half the households in Maguindanao(50%) said that they had poor access to food, compared to 16 percent in Sultan Kudarat, 12 percent in Lanaodel Norte, and less than 5 percent elsewhere.

The most commonly consumed items during the week prior to the survey were cereals, consumed on average every day of the week, followed by animal products, sugar and vegetables (average of 5 days a week). The cumulative distribution of food item consumption suggest that, on average, households in Maguindanao consume food items less frequently than other households in the survey area.

Figure 31: Food groups consumption by strata

Figure 32: Food groups consumption by settlement status

Comparing across settlement status, currently displaced households and those who returned homeconsumed fewer food items (especially vegetables, animal products and sugar) compared to other households.Their poorer access to food may be due to the limited availability of resources to acquireit and/or their more limited ability to produce or obtain food.

Food Consumption Groups

A Food Consumption Score (FCS) was computed to reflect the diversity, frequency, and nutritional value of the food items consumed by the household during the 7-day recall period. Each food group was assigned a standardized weightrepresenting the nutritional importance of the food group.[1] The FCS is the sum across food groups of the product of the frequency by the weight. The resulting FCS is a continuous variable. To facilitate interpretation of the results, two thresholds are used to distinguish consumption level: a FCS of 28 and a FCS of 42. The thresholds define three groups: Poor consumption (FCS ≤28), Borderline Consumption (FCS >28 and ≤42), and Acceptable Consumption (FCS >42).

The cross-tabulation of the consumption of food groups with the FCS shows that cereals are the basis of all diets. Over the recall period, households in the poor consumption group consumed most frequently cereals (on average 6.7 days/week), vegetables (4.1 days), sugar (2.7 days) and tubers (2.5 days). Households in the borderline consumption group had on average a higher consumption of all the food items compared to those with poor food consumption, and most notably, increased consumption of animal products (3.0 days a week). Among households with an acceptable consumption score, consumption of all the food groups continues to increase, and most significantly, the consumption of animal products reaches an average of 6 days a week. The consumptions of milk and pulses are almost exclusively found among individuals with an acceptable FCS.

Figure 33: Food groups consumption by FCS

Characteristics of Food Consumption Groups

Four percent of the households in the surveyed area had a poor FCS, and 21 percentcame into the category of borderline FCS. The proportion of households with a borderline FCS was highest in Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur. Similarly, the proportion of households with a poor FCS was highest in Maguindanao (12%). In Maguindanao, over half the population had either a poor (12%) or borderline (44%) FCS. In Lanao del Sur, the percentages were 4 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Differences between strata were statistically significant (Pearson χ² = 462, 10 df, p<0.01).

Figure 33b: Characteristics of food consumption groups

In addition, a household’s food consumption was found to be associated with settlement status at the bivariate level (Pearson χ² = 252, 8 df, p<0.01). Over half the households displaced at the time of the survey had either a poor (10%) or borderline FCS (45%). Households who had returned home were also more likely to have a poor (9%) or borderline (34%) FCS compared to others. In comparison, 15 percentof the households who were never displaced, or 20 percent of those who had resettled in a new location had a poor or borderline FCS.

Figure 34: Food consumption groups by settlement status

Other variables were found to be significantly associated with food consumption at the bivariate level:

• The food consumption score was strongly associated with the total number of assets owned, a proxy measure of wealth (Pearson Correlation 0.45, p<0.001). Among households in the richest wealth quintile, 1 percent had a poor FCS, and 6 percent had a borderline FCS, compared to 14 percent and 43 percent respectively among households in the poorest wealth quintile.

Table 05b: Asset wealth quintiles

• Similarly, there was a significant correlation between the FCS and expenditures(Pearson Correlation 0.30, p<0.001). Food expenditures averaged 1,920PhP per month among households with a poor FCS, compared to 3,000 PhP for those with a borderline FCS, and 3,400PhP for those with an acceptable FCS.
• Female headed households were more likely to have a poor FCS, compared to male headed households: 7 percent had a poor FCS and 20 percent had a borderline FCS, compared to 4 percent and 21 percent of the male-headed households, respectively (Pearson χ² =8.4, 2 df, p=0.015). Elderly-headed households, however, were not found to be more likely to have a poor or borderline FCS.
• Although there was no association between a household size and its FCS, households with poor and borderline FCS tended to have a worse dependency ratio (number of dependents per active household member - 1.06 and 1.11 respectively) compared to those with an acceptable FCS (1.00) (F=3.295, 2d.f. p=0.037).

Table 05c: Asset wealth details

• There was a strong association between the head of household literacy level, and the households’ FCS: 11 percent of the illiterate-headed households had a poor FCS, and 38 percenthad a borderline FCS, compared to 4 percent and 20 percent respectively among households with a head that can read and write simple messages (Pearson χ² =55, 2 df, p<0.001).  Consistent with those results, the highest proportion of households with a poor or borderline FCS was found among households with a head that had no education (11% and 41% respectively), and those with incomplete primary education only (7% and 36% respectively).
• Food consumption increased with home ownership. Among households in the poor FCS group, 49 percentsaid that they owned their dwelling, compared to 64 percent among households in the borderline FCS group, and 73 percent of those with an acceptable FCS.
• Among livelihood groups, the proportion of households with a poor or borderline FCS was highest among agriculturalists (respectively 5% and 29%), followed by natural resources exploiters (7% and 23% respectively). Differences between groups were statistically significant (Pearson χ² = 94, 14 df, p<0.01).

Figure 35: Food consumption groups by livelihood profile

A multivariate stepwise (forward) logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with food insecurity. The dependent variable was a dichotomized one indicating whether a household had an acceptable FCS, or a poor and borderline FCS. The resulting model had a R² of 0.44 indicating that the factors in the model explain 44 percent of the variance in FCS. The logistic regression was chosen to facilitate interpretation and the use of adjusted odds ratio.

The results show that, after adjusting for the other variables:

• Settlement status was significantly associated with FCS. Compared to those who were never displaced, households who were displaced at the time of the survey were 1.9 times more likely to have a poor or borderline FCS (adjusted O.R. 1.92, 95% CI 1.13-3.25), and households who returned home were 2.0 times more likely have a poor or borderline FCS (adjusted O.R. 2.01, 95% CI 1.52-2.66). Those who had resettled in a new location were as likely as those who were never displaced to be food insecure (adjusted O.R. 0.72, 95% CI 0.44-1.19).
• Across strata, and after adjusting for settlement status, households in Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur were 2.7 times more likely to be food insecure compared to those in Lanao del Norte. (adjusted O.R. Maguindanao vs. LdN: 2.73, 95%CI 1.87-3.98; LdS vs. LdN: 2.68, 95% CI 1.91-3.77). Inversely, respondents in North Cotabato were less likely than those in Lanao del Norte to be food insecure (adjusted O.R. 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.22). There was no significant difference between Sultan Kudarat and Lanao del Norte.
• All livelihood groups were less likely to be food insecure compared to agriculturalists, except day laborers and transporters, for whom no significant differences with agriculturalists were found
• After adjusting for the other variables, ownership of additional assets assessed by the survey reduced the odds of being food insecure by a 0.78 factor (adjusted O.R. 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82).
• Finally, heads of households who had any level of education were between 0.2 and 0.6 times less likely to be food insecure compared to those with no education.

[1] The standardized weights are as follow: Cereals and tubers: 2; Pulses: 2; Vegetables: 1; Fruits: 1; Meat: 4; Milk: 4; Sugar: 0.5; Oil: 0.5. Source: WFP, 2008. Food Consumption Analysis