Our vision

Towards a Social Security for Food

Pleading note 1 | August 2023

The Social Security for Food (SSF)2, is a proposal to develop an 8th branch of social security in Belgium, a public institution with three main objectives:

  1. Increase household budgets for food;
  2. Mobilise financial resources for the transition of food systems; and
  3. Make the political control over food more democratic.

De SSF rests on three pillars:

  1. An asset-based contribution on a broad tax base;
  2. A universal redistribution based on the human right to food; and
  3. A socially supported contract towards fair, sustainable and locally sourced products.

The measure contributes to a social, economic and environmental transition that is feasible and realistic. It relies on local actors and projects. It requires significant social and political support. With the 2024 elections in sight, everyone can play a part in it.

The right to food in danger

In Belgium, many people go hungry and cut back on their food budgets to meet other essential expenses such as housing, energy, mobility, clothing, etc. Inflation, partly caused by speculation on the world food market, increases pressure on household budgets that are already subject to significant fixed costs. An estimated 5% of the population needs food aid.3 An alarming figure, given that food aid is considered to be a safety net for the most precarious situations. Moreover, due to stigmatising access conditions, it is assumed that not everyone turns to this aid. Food aid should exist for extreme situations, it shouldn’t exist as a structural response to food insecurity.

Besides hunger, there is the problem of malnutrition. Half of the population is overweight. More than 16% are obese. A conservative analysis estimated the overweight and obesity related social security costs at around €4.5 billion a year between 2013 and 2017.4 Besides hunger, there is the problem of malnutrition. Half of the population is overweight. More than 16% are obese. A conservative analysis estimated the overweight and obesity-related social security costs at around €4.5 billion a year between 2013 and 2017. Certain population groups are more affected by it than others, but it remains a general problem. For malnutrition, for example, let’s look at the indicator of vegetable consumption: only 15% of the population eats the 5 emphatically recommended portions of fruit and vegetables, and 17% do not eat them every day. 5 Incidentally, Sciensano shows that it costs about twice as much to build a balanced diet than to meet minimum calorie requirements

On the production side, the picture is not more favourable. Farmers’ income is pitiful. Today, their income is about 44% lower than that of the average worker. (Farmers are replaced by large internationally oriented and subsidised farms of which standardisation and control are in the hands of only a handful of economic players. Certain multinationals generate billions in profits, while the population and the planet suffer. Several billions in environmental costs6 and subsidy costs to mostly industrial farms have to added to the abovementoined healthcare costs.

We don not only pay for cheap food at the shop.
We also pay for subsidies, social security costs for related health problems and environmental and climate restoration costs.

A functioning based on 3 pillars

We need to collectively recapture what the Belgian people produce and eat. With government involvement. The idea is to realise the right to food by building on the existing social security system and creating a social security for food. This idea grew out of discussions at the intersections of social security, food security and food sovereignty.7 If we take due account of the lessons of the past, social security seems to be the best way we know of to make access to quality food a right, rather than a consumer choice for those who can afford it..

First pillar:
a contribution by each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs

We need to create a common fund for risks, costs and vulnerabilities.

The current social security budget is mainly based on employee and employer contributions, supplemented by a government subsidy.

SSP funding can follow the same principles:

  • An increase in contributions on workers’ wages and contributions by companies;
  • An increase, to the extent possible, of contributions on income from real estate, financial products, etc.; and
  • A state contribution (e.g. by increasing excise duties on unhealthy food products).

Second pillar:
a universal and automatic right

The pot should be redistributed in solidarity among the whole population. Certain population groups are more affected by malnutrition than others, but it remains a general problem. Everyone legally residing in the country would receive a monthly amount, e.g. paid on an electronic card, in the same way as meal vouchers.8 The card is allocated automatically, which means you don’t have to apply for it.

The amount allocated is the minimum amount needed to eat well. The level of this amount determines the required amount of contributions in the first pillar and can be achieved progressively (see below on progressive implementation). In the long term, this amount is estimated at a minimum of €150 per adult (50% for children).

Third pillar:
a contract as a prerequisite for a transition of our food system

The amount can only be spent on products that are part of a contract. These are products that compensate the producer fairly, meet sustainability criteria and are locally sourced. A government food authority to be set up for the purpose of the contract. This body will manage a database of approved products and locations.

The contract is based on the principle of food democracy: i.e. the criteria will be dynamically set during broadly accessible public discussions in which advice is provided by for example food policy councils. They will be aligned with the objectives of regional food strategies (Good Food in Brussels, the Référentiel Alimentation Durable in Wallonia, the Voedselstrategie in Flanders.9

A Social Security for Food (SSF) will in principle depend on a federal institution to collect funds (based on the division of powers with regards to social security) though the contracting can be organised regionally by means of a cooperation contract (based on the division of powers with regards to environment and agriculture)10. A SSF at regional level is also possible.

A Social Security for Food is based on fundamental challenges and meets the population’s high expectations for social justice, agro-ecological transition and democracy.

A progressive implementation

The Social Security for Food (SSF) should be introduced gradually. First, there is not enough supply in Belgium to meet the monthly budgets for fair, sustainable and locally sourced products. The food chain must gradually undergo a transition to a new situation. Second, the amounts needed to finance a fully-fledged SSF are colossal. About €17 billion a year (€15.8 billion for adults and €1.57 billion for children). This comes close to a 10% increase in social contributions, which is a politically unachievable target in the short term. It is possible to start with a lower amount: at €50 a month, social contributions would have to be increased by 3%. That does not seem unreasonable in a context of current inflation. At 150 euros a year (which is close to the annual expenditure per household on organic products in Belgium), we are only talking about 1.45 billion euros, or an increase in social contributions of less than 1%.

The amount granted by the SSF complements existing social security budgets. Although it is a universal right, in its progressive implementation it would be desirable to already take into account as much as possible those people who are already in a precarious situation on the basis of a predetermined status (like for example a living wage). It could be envisioned they already receive higher amounts earlier.

Our demands
Our topics
  1. This pleading note is based on CréaSSA discussions. http://collectif-ssa.be ↩︎
  2. In French ‘la Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation (SSA)’. In Dutch: ‘de Sociale Zekerheid voor Voedsel (SoZeVo)’. ↩︎
  3. Federatie van de maatschappelijke diensten, 2021. ↩︎
  4. Sciensano, “Health care costs and lost productivity costs related to excess weight in Belgium”, 2022 ↩︎
  5. Eurostat, 2019 ↩︎
  6. The true cost and price of food”, A paper from the UN Food Summit, 2021 ↩︎
  7. Food sovereignty is the ability of people to make choices about food production and distribution in their territories. ↩︎
  8. For those not yet a legal resident, the same problem arises as for access to all other social security services. At this stage, the current proposition does not yet provide a concrete solution to this problem. The presumption is, however, that the measure reduces the pressure on food aid, which should then already improve as a service without additional funding. ↩︎
  9. While the common pot will be redistributed mainly to right holders, the common pot will also allow for funds to be made available to the targeted regional consultation structures as well as to the production and distribution chain to adapt their offer. ↩︎
  10. Jean-François Neven, Etude juridique exploratoire de la faisabilité d’une sécurité sociale alimentaire en Belgique, Centre de droit public et social de l’ULB, december 2022. ↩︎