How Livelihood Change Affects Food Choice Behaviors in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Livelihoods have changed dramatically over the past decade in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). These shifts are happening in tandem with shifts in individual and household food choice behaviors. This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize mechanisms through which livelihood changes could affect food choice behaviors in LMIC, including behaviors relating to food production, acquisition, preparation, distribution, and consumption. A literature search was conducted using 4 databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, AGRICOLA, and Embase. The search was further enhanced by expert solicitations. Studies were included if they measured or focused on a livelihood change, described or assessed a change in ≥1 food choice behavior, and focused on LMIC. Studies were excluded if they focused on migration from LMIC to a high-income country. Of the 433 articles that were identified, 53 met the inclusion criteria. Five mechanisms of how livelihood change can affect food choice were identified: occupation, locality, time, income, and social relations. Changes in occupation altered the balance of the availability and affordability of foods in local food environments compared with individual food production. Changes in location, time use, and income influenced where food was purchased, what types of foods were acquired, and how or where foods were prepared. Additionally, changes in social relationships and norms led to expanded food preferences, particularly among urban populations. Time limitations and higher discretionary income were associated with consumption of ultraprocessed foods. Understanding the relationships between the changes in livelihood occuring in LMIC and food choices of households in these countries can inform the development of policies, programs, and other actions to promote sustainable healthy diets and planetary health.

The politics of agricultural policy and nutrition: A case study of Malawi's Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP)

The concept of food and nutrition policy has broadened from simply being an aspect of health policy, to policy interventions from across a wide range of sectors, but still with potentially important impact on nutritional outcomes. This wider and more complex conceptualisation involves policy with multiple objectives and stakeholder influences. Thus, it becomes particularly important to understand the dynamics of these policy processes, including policy design and implementation. To add to this literature, we apply the Kaleidoscope Model for understanding policy change in developing country contexts to the case-study of an agricultural input subsidy (AIS) programme in Malawi, the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP), exploring the dynamics of the FISP policy process including nutritional impact. Over a three-month period between 2017 and 2019 we conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at national and district levels, and focus groups with people from rural districts in Malawi. We also undertook a review of literature relating to the political economy of the FISP. We analysed the data thematically, as per the domains of the Kaleidoscope Model. The analysis across the FISP policy process including policy design and implementation highlights how stakeholders' ideas, interests and influence have shaped the evolution of FISP policy including constraints to policy improvement-and the nutritional impacts of this. This approach extends the literature on the tensions, contradictions and challenges in food and nutrition policy by examining the reasons that these occur in Malawi with the FISP. We also add to the political science and policy analysis literature on policy implementation, extending the concept of veto players to include those targeted by the policy. The findings are important for consideration by policymakers and other stakeholders seeking to address malnutrition in rural, food-insecure populations in Malawi and other low-income settings.