Is the Global Food Security Index Reliable? A Critical Analysis

According to the FAO, by 2023 over 733 million people were experiencing hunger globally, emphasizing the urgent need for dependable metrics. This global concern has pushed international bodies to rely on indices to track progress and guide interventions, but serious questions have been raised: is the Global Food Security Index reliable?

Quick Summary

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Global Food Security Index (GFSI), exploring its comprehensive methodology and primary pillars while critically examining its reliability, limitations, and key differences from other food security measurement tools.

Key Points

• Composite Score: The GFSI is a composite index built from dozens of qualitative and quantitative indicators across four pillars.

• Multi-Dimensional: GFSI measures food affordability, availability, quality, and sustainability, not just hunger.

• Benchmark Tool: It is highly useful for benchmarking countries against one another and tracking macro-level trends over time.

• Subjective Weighting: A key criticism is the subjective weighting of indicators by an expert panel, which some see as a potential source of bias.

• Determinants, Not Outcomes: The GFSI largely measures the environmental and policy drivers of food security rather than the direct experience of food insecurity.

• Imperfect but Useful: While not a perfect tool, the GFSI provides valuable insights when its methodological strengths and limitations are properly understood.

Understanding the GFSI Methodology

The Global Food Security Index (GFSI), published annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), is a composite indicator designed to measure the drivers of food security across a wide range of countries. Instead of just tracking hunger, it focuses on the underlying factors that contribute to or detract from a country's food system resilience. For policymakers, the GFSI serves as a valuable benchmarking tool for national and global food security concerns. The index is built on a framework of four primary pillars, which were updated in 2017 to include the crucial aspect of sustainability.

The Four Pillars of the GFSI

• Affordability: This dimension considers a country's capacity for its citizens to afford food. It includes factors like household expenditure on food, GDP per capita, the presence of national food safety-net programs, and the cost of food relative to incomes.
• Availability: Focusing on the food supply side, this pillar measures a nation's sufficiency of supply. Indicators include agricultural production volatility, political stability risks, national agricultural infrastructure (storage and roads), and the risk of food loss.
• Quality and Safety: This pillar addresses the nutritional quality of diets and the safety of the food system. It incorporates measures of diet diversification, protein and micronutrient availability, national nutritional strategies, and access to clean drinking water.
• Sustainability and Adaptation: Introduced in recent years, this dimension assesses a country's resilience to future food system disruptions. It covers risks associated with climate change, land degradation, water management, and the existence of early warning systems for natural disasters.

Strengths of the Global Food Security Index

While not without its critics, the GFSI offers several significant advantages as a food security metric:

• Comprehensive Perspective: Unlike single-indicator measures like the prevalence of undernourishment, the GFSI provides a holistic view by considering multiple facets of food security. This helps identify the specific drivers influencing a country's performance, such as infrastructure limitations or dietary quality issues.
• Benchmarking for Policymakers: For governments and development agencies, the index is a potent tool for comparative analysis. It allows countries to see how they rank against others and track their own progress or decline over time, helping to inform policy priorities.
• Incorporation of Future Risks: The inclusion of the 'Sustainability and Adaptation' pillar marks a progressive step, explicitly factoring in long-term threats like climate change. This forward-looking aspect is crucial for building resilient food systems.
• Combination of Data Types: The GFSI utilizes both quantitative data from sources like the FAO and World Bank, and qualitative assessments derived from EIU expert panels, providing a blend of hard data and informed perspective.

Criticisms and Limitations of the GFSI

No composite index is perfect, and the GFSI has faced pointed criticism regarding its methodology and scope.

• Subjective Weighting: A major point of contention is the weighting scheme applied to indicators, which is determined by a panel of experts. Critics argue this subjective approach can introduce bias, although some research suggests the overall country rankings are not heavily biased by this method.
• Determinants vs. Outcomes: The GFSI tends to focus on the factors influencing food security (determinants) rather than directly measuring the experience of food insecurity (outcomes) at the individual or household level. This can sometimes mask internal inequalities.
• Incomplete Picture: As highlighted in a 2025 study examining the GFSI in European countries, the index may have limitations for regional analysis, including smaller sample sizes and complexity that can obscure specific problems.
• Corporate Sponsorship: The GFSI has been sponsored by Corteva Agriscience, a major agricultural company. While this is not inherently a problem, it does raise questions for some about potential conflicts of interest and editorial independence.
• High-Level Aggregation: The GFSI provides a national-level snapshot, which can be less informative than household-level indicators. A high national score can hide pockets of deep insecurity within a country.

GFSI vs. Other Food Security Metrics

To fully understand the reliability of the GFSI, it is essential to compare it with other widely used metrics.

Feature	Global Food Security Index (GFSI)	FAO's Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU)	Household Hunger Scale (HHS)
Focus	National-level drivers (affordability, availability, quality, sustainability).	Outcome-based; percentage of population unable to acquire enough food to meet dietary energy requirements.	Individual or household-level hunger experience via a survey.
Data Sources	Mix of quantitative data (FAO, World Bank) and qualitative expert assessments (EIU).	FAO data based on food balance sheets and survey information.	Household survey data and direct interviews.
Scope	Broad, multi-dimensional view of food system resilience.	Primarily addresses energy intake and undernourishment.	Measures perceptions and experiences of food deprivation.
Strengths	Comprehensive, good for national-level benchmarking and trend analysis. Includes sustainability factors.	Strong focus on core human well-being outcome, globally standardized methodology.	Directly captures the lived experience of hunger, very specific to household-level access.
Limitations	Potential for subjective weighting bias, higher-level aggregation can obscure local issues, focuses on determinants rather than direct outcomes.	May be overly focused on caloric intake and can miss other dimensions of food security like nutrition quality.	Subjective measures can be impacted by cultural or psychological factors; snapshot in time.

Is the GFSI Reliable? A Balanced Conclusion

So, is the Global Food Security Index reliable? The answer is nuanced. The GFSI should not be viewed as the definitive or sole measure of food security, but rather as one important tool among many. Its reliability depends entirely on the purpose for which it is being used. For high-level, national-level benchmarking and assessing a country's overall systemic resilience, the GFSI offers valuable and comprehensive insights. Its incorporation of long-term sustainability and resilience metrics is a strength not always found in other indices.

However, its reliability is less certain for understanding localized or household-level food insecurity, where other, more outcome-focused indicators like the Household Hunger Scale would be more appropriate. The ongoing debate over its subjective weighting and sponsorship also warrants consideration. Ultimately, a critical and informed user will recognize the GFSI's strengths while acknowledging its methodological limitations, combining its data with other metrics to paint a more complete picture of global food security.

For more information on the pillars of food security from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), you can visit the World Bank's summary on the topic.

What is the Global Food Security Index?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Global Food Security Index (GFSI)?

The GFSI is an annual index created by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that measures the drivers of food security across approximately 113 countries. It scores and ranks countries based on factors like food affordability, availability, quality, safety, and system resilience.

What are the four pillars of the GFSI?

The GFSI assesses food security across four dimensions: Affordability, Availability, Quality and Safety, and Sustainability and Adaptation. These pillars provide a comprehensive look at the factors influencing a country's food system.

Who publishes the GFSI?

The GFSI is produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis division of The Economist Group. It is often sponsored by corporate partners, such as Corteva Agriscience.

Is the GFSI the only measure of food security?

No, the GFSI is not the only measure. Other important indicators include the FAO's Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) and tools used for household-level assessment, such as the Household Hunger Scale (HHS).

What are the main criticisms of the GFSI?

Primary criticisms include the use of a potentially subjective weighting scheme for indicators, its focus on systemic determinants rather than direct hunger outcomes, and its reliance on national-level data that can overlook household-level disparities.

Can the GFSI be used to identify hunger at the local level?

The GFSI is aggregated at the national level and is not designed to capture local or household-level food insecurity. It provides a broad overview, and more localized data is needed for a granular understanding of hunger.

Why is the GFSI still a useful tool despite its limitations?

Despite limitations, the GFSI is useful for its comprehensive and comparative approach. It helps identify key policy priorities related to systemic factors like infrastructure, climate resilience, and public safety nets.