Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which developed countries have the highest and lowest rates of food insecurity?
Executive summary
Developed countries show wide variation in food insecurity: several analyses place high-income nations like the United States, Greece, Mexico (when included in OECD comparisons) and the United Kingdom among the higher-prevalence cases, while Japan and Switzerland appear among the lowest-prevalence countries. Reported point estimates cluster in the single digits for many high-income countries (around 6–8%) but rise into double digits for specific countries in certain datasets (United States ~10.5%, United Kingdom ~16%, Mexico ~35% in OECD comparisons), reflecting differing measurement approaches and time frames [1] [2].
1. What the different studies actually claim — the headlines you’ll see quoted
The published reviews and indices present overlapping but not identical claims about which developed countries have the highest and lowest food insecurity. A multi-country review of 34 high-income countries reports an average 6.5% prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity and calls out the United States and Greece among the highest and Japan among the lowest in that sample [1]. The OECD-focused work gives an average of 7.5% across OECD countries (2018–2020) but highlights Switzerland as having the lowest moderate food insecurity (~3%) and Mexico as the highest (~35%) in that grouping [2]. The Global Food Security Index frames top performers (Finland, Ireland, Norway) largely on affordability and broader food-system measures rather than direct prevalence percentages [3]. Each source uses a different lens—population surveys, FAO FIES country estimates, and composite indices—so the headline country rankings shift depending on method [1] [2] [3].
2. Why the numbers differ — measurement, samples and time frames explain the gaps
Differences in reported rates reflect measurement instruments, definitions (moderate vs severe), years covered, and which countries are classified as ‘developed’ or OECD members. The 34-country high-income review reports a pooled 6.5% moderate/severe prevalence across 5 years, implying a population-weighted average rather than per-country maxima [1]. The OECD paper relies on a mix of FAO FIES country estimates and OECD survey data for 2018–2020, producing a wider spread that places Mexico at ~35% and Switzerland at ~3%, demonstrating how inclusion of upper-middle-income OECD members shifts the range [2]. Composite indices such as the Global Food Security Index rank countries on affordability, availability and resilience rather than prevalence percentages, so top-ranked countries like Finland, Ireland and Norway score high on systemic metrics rather than necessarily reporting the lowest household-level food insecurity prevalence [3]. These methodological differences account for the apparent contradictions across sources [1] [2] [3].
3. Country specifics — consistent patterns and outliers across datasets
Across the analyses, some patterns recur: the United States, Greece and the United Kingdom appear among higher-prevalence developed-country cases in survey-based estimates, with country-specific FAO FIES figures showing the United States at 10.5% [4], the United Kingdom at 16% [5] and Canada at 10.6% [6] in one compilation [2]. Conversely, Japan and Switzerland are repeatedly identified among the lowest-prevalence countries in the high-income and OECD comparisons [1] [2]. The Global Food Security Index places Nordic and Western European countries at the top for systemic food security (Finland, Ireland, Norway), which aligns with low prevalence findings for several European nations but does not provide identical prevalence percentages to the survey-based work [3]. These consistencies suggest that while absolute percentages differ, the relative positions of several countries are stable across methodological approaches [1] [2] [3].
4. Who is most affected inside these developed countries — social drivers matter
Systematic reviews and country analyses attribute food insecurity in developed settings to income and poverty, household composition, housing instability, parental education and health, and other social vulnerability factors; child food insecurity tracks strongly with these socioeconomic determinants [7] [1]. The 2025 systematic review emphasizes income and poverty as primary drivers of child food insecurity across developed countries, while the 34-country analysis shows food insecurity present across income quintiles and education levels but concentrated among more disadvantaged groups [7] [1]. These findings indicate that national rankings obscure important within-country inequalities: a country with low average prevalence can still have substantial pockets of severe household-level insecurity, and policies targeted at social safety nets and housing can materially change prevalence over time [7] [1].
5. How to interpret rankings and what’s missing — policy implications and data gaps
Rankings that position specific countries as “best” or “worst” rely on different metrics and time windows; indexes emphasize food-system performance while survey-based prevalence captures lived household experience [3] [1]. The datasets cited do not uniformly cover the same years or use identical thresholds for moderate versus severe insecurity, leaving uncertainty when comparing single-year country rankings [2] [1]. Moreover, composite indices and reviews may obscure within-country disparities by focusing on national averages. For policy and public understanding, the most useful view combines household-level prevalence estimates with system-level indices and attention to social determinants—income support, housing and targeted child-food programs—to explain why some developed countries record persistently higher rates [1] [3].