Reader TTS

In the context of the Transition stage, it is not possible to eliminate the current food aid sector, especially with the current health situation. However, the differentiation of the targets

of emergency food assistance must be implemented rapidly in order to stop treating the situations of food-insecure families and individuals in the same way as those in extreme poverty.

Thus, a distinction should be made between: i) low-budget households and individuals whose sole reason for using food aid is an economic problem that they could overcome as soon as an income

dedicated to sustainable diet is put in place; ii) low-budget households and individuals who are recurrently enrolled in this mode of access to food; iii) low-budget households and

individuals in emergency situations. – i) From a preventive perspective, for households and people on low budgets who do not usually currently resort to food aid (apart from in periods of

generalized crisis such as the COVID crisis), the main response would be financial support through the granting of a monetary allowance to enable them to achieve food autonomy. – ii) For

households and individuals who currently use food aid on a recurrent basis, educational mechanisms should be put in place to empower them so that they have more autonomy than in the food aid

system and gain everyday access to sustainable diet. – iii) For people in emergency situations (approximately 700,000 to 1 million people)[77], the need for food assistance remains, and it

is essential that it respects both dignity as a principle of human rights and the nutritional quality of a sustainable diet. The Curative component, i.e. the emergency response for people in

very insecure situations (iii), will therefore have to remain to take into account emergency situations. Since 1985, the modes of food intervention have been designed with reference to

extreme poverty. The treatment of people is based on this vision and justifies the distribution of food. Even if we know that the choice to distribute food is strongly linked to the

agri-food production model, the justification for food aid operators, recognized by public institutions, is to fight against what is called “food insecurity”, and not to support ordinary

access for those on low incomes. The most recent responses continue to be mainly in the direction of “solidarity with insecure groups” based on food aid and without questioning the existence

of this insecurity in France. The new measures consist of a modernization of the food aid system, in particular through more frequent use of monetized aid. Thus, based on a proposal by the

_Convention citoyenne pour le climat_ (Citizens’ Climate Convention), the establishment of “100% local, organic and sustainable diet vouchers” to be allocated by the CCAS (and other local

actors) to people using food aid was announced in mid-December 2020 by Emmanuel Macron[78] (but is unlikely to be implemented, at least not during the current presidential term[79]).

Similarly, at the launch on 8 July 2021 of the “action plan to transform food aid and combat food insecurity” resulting from the _Cocolupa_ (National Coordination Committee for the Fight

against Food Insecurity), the Minister of Health, Olivier Veran, more specifically listed measures aimed at children[80] such as the distribution of free breakfasts in voluntary primary

schools zones named « Rep » and « Rep+ » and located in QPVs (social priority neighbourhoods) and vulnerable rural areas[81], the strengthening of state support for social pricing measures

for school canteens, particularly for disadvantaged rural municipalities[82], as well as the national deployment of the “Malin” programme, a scheme targeting pregnant women in insecure

situations and their unborn children (up to the age of two)[83]. The “Malin scheme has the advantage of simultaneously acting on economic accessibility (discount vouchers for food

products[84]), empowerment (site providing advice adapted to the child’s age, training of early childhood professionals, networks for parents), and physical accessibility (the vouchers can

be used in all shops selling the products concerned). Furthermore, an intervention research study currently underway (Cavalli _et al., _ 2017) will evaluate its impact. As far as social

pricing for canteens is concerned, if it were generalized with uniform implementation procedures across all regions, it could tend towards the principle of proportionate universalism (see

Annex 8), but with the limitation that not all municipalities are obliged to offer a school meals service. It could be proposed to make this a legal obligation in the context of the SSA.

4.3.1. CURATIVE COMPONENT 4.3.1.1. _CURATIVE COMPONENT ACTION TARGETS_ In the first instance, the Curative component would bring together schemes offering a range of measures that address

economic accessibility, physical accessibility, individual empowerment and social inclusion, while allowing for an immediate response to emergency situations, as described in the guiding

principles for action (see section 4.1.). We must not lose sight of the fact that these actions are also intended to support people towards universal access. These actions would be

progressively reduced as the Preventive component is introduced in the form of a common right to sustainable diet applying to all citizens, while continuing to provide a Curative component

enabling emergency situations to be addressed. 4.3.1.2. _ORGANIZATION OF THE CURATIVE COMPONENT_ Regarding the organization of the Curative component, it is necessary to ensure the internal

organization of the schemes (equal access, involvement of people) and coordination with existing food insecurity schemes within a region and other social schemes, as described in the

organizational guidelines (see section 4.1.2). This coordination of the Curative component is necessary, but it is not sufficient to drive the large-scale change necessary for sustainable

food security. A central task of this coordination would be to involve current food aid operators so that they are included alongside the other actors in the food system to participate in

the construction of the Preventive component, with the aim of gradually reducing users of the Curative component. 4.3.2. PREVENTIVE COMPONENT ​​​​​​​4.3.2.1. _PREVENTIVE COMPONENT ACTION

TARGETS _ The implementation of the SSA would allow for the creation of a universal sustainable diet allowance available on the “Vitalim” card (see above). The _Démocratie Alimentaire_

collective proposes that this allowance be based on the model of family allowances which are granted to all families residing in France and whose amount is adjusted for higher incomes[85].

The amount of this allowance is to be defined and should take into account the budgets calculated in the ONPES study for a decent minimum standard of living (estimated, for food, at between

75% and 85% of the average food budget, depending on the composition of the household) (ONPES, 2014), the strictly minimum cost necessary to meet all the nutritional recommendations in terms

of protein, fibre, vitamins, essential fatty acids, minerals, without excessive proportions of sugar, fat, or salt (estimated at €3.85 /day for an adult, Maillot _et al_ ., 2017), and, more

specifically, the budget needed to meet the PNNS (National Nutrition and Health Programme) recommendation to eat “at least 5 fruits and vegetables a day” (_Familles Rurales_, 2021)[86].

This allowance would contribute to changing the demand and supply of food towards a more sustainable diet, and thus contribute to the Transformation. To make the Transformation a reality,

one proposal would be to set up a process for allocating the allowance on the following basis: initially unconditional (possible use of the allowance for any type of food supply), then

progressively directed, first in part and then in full, towards products from more sustainable food systems. This would make it possible to support the change to more virtuous food systems,

and provide the time necessary to set up the approval system (definition of the criteria that “products from more sustainable food systems” should respect and the modalities for monitoring

the respect of these criteria). Given the urgency of climate change, the whole process should not take more than 10 years. This allowance would give families control over their food supply.

Moreover, access to this right would also allow them, through information and awareness-raising, to take their place in democratic structures such as the GLADs, and would serve as a lever to

act on the food supply in the same time frame. In this context, the role of food aid operators could evolve with a view to supporting this Transition and could go as far as playing a role

in sustainable food systems: for example, the network of social and solidarity grocery stores could join “ordinary” distributors. Territorial Food Projects could play an important role in

the Transition by serving the SSA, particularly in the preparation/development of the GLADs. The French Law on the Future of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of 13 October 2014 institutes the

creation in article 39 of these Territorial Food Projects, whose objective is to localize agriculture and food in regions by supporting the installation of farmers, short supply chains and

local products in canteens. The framework is one of encouraging cooperation between the various actors in the local food system. This institutional arrangement has multiplied rapidly since

its creation. However, the social dimension, although present in its conception, is not very effective in practice. Moreover, when it exists, the actions are always based on a specific

approach for families with low budgets and rarely on a Transition approach that would create a common right for these families. However, the framework of the Territorial Food Projects[87]

and the experience acquired over the last six years would be precious assets for the creation of the democratic (economic and social) process of the SSA for the two components, i.e. the

Preventive and Curative components, as much in the preparation of the approval of actors and products from localized sustainable food systems, as in the reflection on the necessary

hybridizations that will necessary between long and short supply chains circuits, processed products and fresh products, etc.[88] In parallel with the main action on economic accessibility,

the Preventive component will also act on physical accessibility and promoting the empowerment of individuals and groups (Figure 2). The deployment of educational schemes aimed at sharing

knowledge and collective learning contributes to the empowerment of individuals and groups, including the empowerment of professionals in the social action sector. The feedback from these

collective learning spaces is also useful for improving food supply and demand in terms of both production and democratic decisions. Educational tools such as the Opticourses® kits are

already available (see Box 4). There is also the ici.C.local® collective brand designed to trace the origin of products sold in open-air markets on a participatory basis[89]. Others are in

the process of being finalized, such as the Démocralim© game[90], the objective of which is to understand the food system and to find cooperative solutions, based on scenarios such as a

“zero food aid region”. All these support tools were designed on the basis of needs expressed through action or intervention research. The Preventive component would contribute to the

environmental transition, by implementing simpler logistics and a circular economy (including waste management and recycling) across the entire food system, concerning all participants,

whatever their budget. The educational aspect also contributes to the environmental transition by encouraging the evolution of diets towards more sustainable ones. ​​​​​​​4.3.2.2. 

_ORGANIZATION OF THE PREVENTIVE COMPONENT_ The organization of the Preventive component would be based first and foremost on the GLADs (Local Sustainable Food Groups). These GLADs, like

social security offices, would be implemented at the scale of local living areas. They would thus adapt to different regions, environments and food landscapes (including physical

accessibility) and support, on an approval basis, products and professionals in a sustainable food systems perspective. As part of the SSA, thought will have to be given to the criteria for

the approval process to be organized in a democratic fashion and the creation of a system that guarantees the application of these criteria in an equal way across all regions while taking

into account local characteristics. We have several suggestions: – This Transition towards universal, equal and inclusive access could be based on the existing public mechanisms such as the

Territorial Food Projects mentioned above, but also on less obvious mechanisms such as the MINs (National Interest Markets) in the mission to regulate and distribute the food supply. – More

generally, the food and nutrition policy plans (National Food Programme and National Health Nutrition Programme) would be stakeholders in the SSA. – Collective catering has a significant

role (highlighted by the CNA opinion 89) which could be expanded to support a universal food access policy. Today, these catering services provide a maximum of 4 to 5 meals per week for

school children and employees who have access to a company restaurant. It could be expanded by making it available to the general public, for lunch and dinner. The skills and material

resources are already present on a national scale; it would be enough to make them available to populations living within their perimeters. This could contribute to strengthening a lever for

transformation of food systems. IN CONCLUSION, the aim is to move from the current food aid system, which provides a partial solution for the most vulnerable and does reach everyone, [91]

to a universal system for preventing food insecurity. For this universal system, the proposal of a Social Security for Food (SSA) including curative and preventive components appears to be a

way to respond to the guiding principles we have identified to ensure sustainable food security on a regional scale, and possibly on a European scale, on a sustainable basis. However, many

aspects of this SSA, in particular the economic aspect, remain to be finalized to constitute a complete proposal. Public research on a multidisciplinary basis can contribute to the

development of a structured approach to the analysis and co-construction of the two components (curative and preventive) of a Social Security for Food, the evaluation of the impact and its

monitoring. 5. REFERENCES ABENA2 (2013). Alimentation et état nutritionnel des bénéficiaires de l’aide alimentaire. Etude Abena 2011–2012 et évolutions depuis 2004–2005.

https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants-de-sante/nutrition-et-activite-physique/documents/rapport-synthese/alimentation-et-etat-nutritionnel-des-beneficiaires-de-l-aide-alimentaire.-etude-abena-2011–2012-et-evolutions-depuis-2004–20052

Action Contre la Faim (2020). _Intérêt des transferts monétaires dans la lutte contre la précarité_, 12 mai 2020.

https://www.solidarites-actives.com/sites/default/files/2021–03/Annexe_ACF_Note_Transferts_monetaires.pdf ADEME (2016). _Pertes et gaspillages alimentaires : l’état des lieux et leur gestion

par étapes de la chaîne alimentaire_. https://presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DP_Etude-ADEME_-pertes-et-gaspillages-alimentaires.pdf Afssa (2009). _Etude Individuelle Nationale

des Consommations Alimentaires 2 (INCA 2) (2006–2007). _Rapport Afssa. https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/PASER-Ra-INCA2.pdf Alberola E., Brice L., Guisse N., Hoiboan S. (2015). La France

des invisibles. CREDOC/ONPES. https://onpes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ONPES_CREDOC_rapport_invisibilite_sociale_091115.pdf Alessandrin A., Meidani A. (2021). Les quartiers prioritaires sont les grands

perdants de la crise sanitaire, _The Conversation_, 31 mars 2021, https://theconversation.com/les-quartiers-prioritaires-sont-les-grands-perdants-de-la-crise-sanitaire-157000 Allègre G.,

Sterdiniak H. (coord.) (2017). _Revenu universel : l’état du débat_. OFCE ebook, https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/pdf/ebook/ebook_10–03–2017.pdf AMF, Association des Maires de France (2020).

_Panorama de la restauration scolaire après la loi EGalim. _https://www.amf.asso.fr/documents-panorama-la-restauration-scolaire-apres-la-loiegalim/40445 Anonymous (1990). Core indicators of

nutritional state for difficult-to-sample populations. _Journal of Nutrition_ 120 (suppl 11): 1559–1600. Anses (2017).  _Troisième étude individuelle nationale des consommations alimentaires

(INCA3)._https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/inca-3-evolution-des-habitudes-et-modes-de-consommation-de-nouveaux-enjeux-en-mati%C3%A8re-de  Anses (2021). _Consommations alimentaires et apports

nutritionnels dans la restauration hors foyer en France._ https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/OQALI2018SA0291Ra.pdf Anses (2021). _Faciliter l’accès à la restauration collective et

améliorer la qualité nutritionnelle en restauration rapide._ Rapport de l’ANSES, fev 2021.

https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/faciliter-l%E2%80%99acc%C3%A8s-%C3%A0-la-restauration-collective-et-am%C3%A9liorer-la-qualit%C3%A9-nutritionnelle-en AREAS (Association de Recherche et

d’Echanges en Anthropologie et en Sociologie) / ORS (Observatoire Régional de la Santé) (2016). Rapport de l’étude _Le non recours et le renoncement à l’aide alimentaire en Poitou-Charentes,

2016_. https://www.ors-na.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RenonAA_16.pdf  Bacqué M.H., Biewener C. (2013). _L’empowerment, une pratique émancipatrice ?_, Editions La découverte. Badia B.,

Brunet F., Carrera A., Kertudo P., Tith F., avec la collaboration de Caillavet F. (2014). _Inégalités sociales et alimentation. Quels sont les besoins et les attentes en termes

d’alimentation des personnes en situation d’insécurité alimentaire et comment les dispositifs d’aide alimentaire peuvent y répondre au mieux ?_ FORS-Recherche Sociale,

https://agriculture.gouv.fr/inegalites-sociales-et-alimentation  Bartholo L. (2016). Le programme Bolsa Familia et l’autonomie des femmes : que révèlent les études qualitatives ?

_International Policy Research Brief_, Centre for Inclusive Growth. de Basquiat M. (2020).

https://www.atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/socle-citoyen—l-assemblee-nationale-vote-pour-l-exploration-d-un-revenu-universel-qui-ne-dit-pas-son-nom-mais-demeure-une-tres-bonne-idee-marc-de-basquiat

  de Basquiat M., Petit V., Koenig G. (2020). Plaidoyer pour un socle citoyen, Tribune dans _l’OBS_, Publié le 04 mai 2020 à 16h32,

https://www.nouvelobs.com/coronavirus-de-wuhan/20200504.OBS28348/tribune-plaidoyer-pour-un-socle-citoyen.html Bazin A., Bocquet E. (2018). _Rapport d’information fait au nom de la commission

des finances sur le financement de l’aide alimentaire_, https://www.senat.fr/rap/r18–034/r18–0341.pdf Bencharif A., Rastoin J.L. (2007). _Concepts et Méthodes de l’analyse de filières

agroalimentaires_, Working paper n° 7, 2007. Bertrand M.N., Paturel D. (2020). _Manger. Plaidoyer pour une Sécurité Sociale de l’Alimentation. _Paris : Editions Arcanes. BIEN (Basic Income

Earth Network) (2021). https://basicincome.org/a-short-history-of-bien/ Bihan H., Méjean C., Castetbon K., Faure H., Ducros V., Sedeaud A. _et al_. (2012). Impact of fruit and vegetable

vouchers and dietary advice on fruit and vegetable intake in a low-income population. _European Journal of Clinical Nutrition_ 66(3): 369–75. Bocquier A., Vieux F., Lioret S., Dubuisson C.,

Caillavet F., Darmon N. (2015). Socioeconomic characteristics, living conditions and diet quality associated with food insecurity in France. _Public Health Nutrition _18(16): 2952–2961.

Both, S., Coveney, J. (2015). _Food democracy:_ _from consumer to food citizen_, Singapore: Springer. Boussaguet L., Jacquot S., Ravinet P. (2019). _Dictionnaire des politiques publiques_,

5e édition revue et corrigée, Presses de Sciences Po. Buscail C., Margat A., Petit S., Gendreau J., Daval P., Lombrail P., Hercberg S., Latino-Martel P., Maurice A., Julia C. (2018). Fruits

and vegetables at home (FLAM): a randomized controlled trial of the impact of fruits and vegetables vouchers in children from low-income families in an urban district in France. _BMC Public

Health_ 18: 1065. Caillavet F., Castetbon K., Darmon N. (2014). Insécurité alimentaire, in _Inégalités sociales de santé en lien avec l’alimentation et l’activité physique, _ p. 203–226,

Expertise collective INSERM. Editions INSERM, avril 2014, ISBN 978–2–85598–914–3. Caillavet F., Dufour A., Lucas E., Pierrard L., Schneider E., Volatier J.L., Huneau J.F., Dubuisson C.

(2019). Consommations alimentaires et apports nutritionnels des adultes en situation d’insécurité alimentaire dans l’enquête individuelle nationale des consommations alimentaires 3.

_Journées Francophones de Nutrition_, Rennes 27–29 Novembre 2019. Caillavet F., Fadhuile A. (2020). Inégalités et politiques publiques pour une alimentation durable. _INRAE Sciences

Sociales_ n° 1, avril 2020. Cameron A. J., Spence A. C., Laws R., Hesketh K. D., Lioret S., Campbell K. J. (2015). A Review of the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Position and the

Early-Life Predictors of Obesity. _Current Obesity Reports _4(3): 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679–015–0168–5 Cavalli B., Lauzon-Guillain B., Turck D., Beghin L., Solène Bonhoure S.,

_et al_. (2017). Difficultés rencontrées pour la réalisation d’une recherche interventionnelle en santé publique : l’étude ECAIL. _Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique_, 52 (2) : 94–99.

doi/10.1016/j.cnd.2016.11.004. hal-02898136 Cayol C. (2019). Les expérimentations de revenu(s) de base. _Multitudes_ 74 : 92–98. https://www.cairn.info/revue-multitudes-2019–1-page-92.htm

CNA (2021). _Retour d’expérience de la crise Covid 19. Période du premier confinement national. _Avis n° 89 du CNA adopté le 7 juillet 2021. Cnesco (2017). _Contribution sur la restauration

scolaire : une disparité en termes d’accès et de service. _ http://www.cnesco.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/171002_Restauration_scolaire_VF.pdf Collart Dutilleul F. (2013). _Penser une

démocratie alimentaire_. (vol. I), Inida (Costa Rica). hal-00930245. Collectif Alerte PACA (2020). Ultra-précarité en région PACA.

https://www.alerte-exclusions.fr/sites/default/files/Fichiers/Publications/ALERTE%20PACA%20-%20Ultrapr%C3%A9carit%C3%A9%20en%20r%C3%A9gion%20PACA.pdf Committee on World Food Security (2012).

S’entendre sur la terminologie. Rome, 39e session. 15–20 octobre 2012. http://www.fao.org/3/md776f/md776f.pdf Cour des comptes (2020). _L’évaluation de l’attractivité des quartiers

prioritaires_ – Cour des comptes décembre 2020– www.ccomptes.fr Darmon N. (2008). Recommandations pour un colis d’aide alimentaire équilibré, _Information Diététique_, 4 : 24–31. Darmon N.

(2010). Plus on est riche, moins on risque d’être obèse, _l’Humanité des débats_, 20 février 2010. Darmon N. (2014). Coût et qualité nutritionnelle de l’alimentation, in _Inégalités sociales

de santé en lien avec l’alimentation et l’activité physique_, p 275–306, Expertise collective INSERM, Editions INSERM. Darmon N., Andrieu E., Bellin-Lestienne C., Dauphin A.G., Castetbon K.

(2008a).  _E3A : Enquête auprès des Associations d’Aide Alimentaire_, Rapport pour la Direction Générale de la Santé, Ministère de la Santé. Darmon N., Andrieu E., Bellin-Lestienne C.,

Dauphin A.G., Castetbon K. (2008b). Enquête auprès des Associations d’Aide Alimentaire (E3A) : mode de fonctionnement des structures et valeur nutritionnelle des colis et repas distribués.

_Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique_, 43 (5):243–250. Darmon N., Bocquier A., Lydié N. (2009). Nutrition, revenus et insécurité alimentaire, in _Baromètre Santé Nutrition 2008_ p.

272–301, dir. Escalon H., Bossard C., Beck F. Saint-Denis, coll. Baromètres santé. Darmon N., Gomy C., Saïdi-Kabeche D. (2020). La crise du Covid-19 met en lumière la nécessaire remise en

cause de l’aide alimentaire. _The Conversation_, 29 juin 2020 https://theconversation.com/la-crise-du-covid-19-met-en-lumiere-la-necessaire-remise-en-cause-de-laide-alimentaire-140137

Délégation interministérielle à la prévention et à la lutte contre la pauvreté (2021a). Cantines à 1€. Tarification sociale des cantines. Présentation de la mesure. Avril 2021.

https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/tarification_sociale_cantines.pdf  Délégation interministérielle à la prévention et à la lutte contre la pauvreté (2021b). La cantine à 1€. Dossier

de presse 19 mai 2021. https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dp_cantines_a_1eur_2021_vf.pdf DESC (2015). Liste des points concernant le quatrième rapport périodique de la France, 13 mars

2015, E/C.12/FRA/Q/4 Nations-Unies DESC (2016). Liste des points concernant le quatrième rapport périodique de la France – Réponses de la France à la liste des points, 7 avril 2016,

E/C.12/FRA/Q/4/. Drees (2021). Le dispositif de suivi de l’aide alimentaire en France, _Ressources et Méthodes_, 7 mai 2021, mis à jour le 22 juillet 2021.

https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/ressources-et-methodes/le-dispositif-de-suivi-de-laide-alimentaire-en-france Drees/Insee (2021). Aide alimentaire : une hausse prononcée des volumes

distribués par les associations en 2020. Communiqué de presse du 26 juillet 2021.

https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/communique-de-presse/aide-alimentaire-une-hausse-prononcee-des-volumes-distribues-par-les Dubois C., Gaigi H., Perignon M., Maillot M., Darmon N.

(2018). Co-construction et évaluation d’un programme de promotion de la santé pour conjuguer nutrition et budget au quotidien : les ateliers Opticourses. _Cahiers de Nutrition et de

Diététique_ 53 : 161–170. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02790346/document Familles Rurales (2021). Observatoire des prix des fruits et légumes 2021,

https://www.famillesrurales.org/observatoire-familles-rurales-prix-fruits-et-legumes-2020 FAO (2021). Le droit à l’alimentation autour du globe. Reconnaissance constitutionnelle du droit à

une alimentation adéquate, http://www.fao.org/right-to-food-around-the-globe/fr/ FFBA (2019). Rapport d’activité 2019.

https://www.banquealimentaire.org/sites/default/files/2020–07/Rapport%20annuel%20Banques%20Alimentaires%202019%20BD.pdf FEAD (2019). Programme opérationnel français FEAD (PO1) 2014–2020.

Rapport d’exécution 2019, https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rae_2019_publie.pdf Fischler C., Masson E. (2008). _Manger : Français, Européens et Américains face à l’alimentation_.

Paris : Editions Odile Jacob. France Stratégie (2021). _Comité d’évaluation de la stratégie nationale de prévention et de lutte contre la pauvreté. _Rapport mars 2021. Friot B. (2012). Un

droit fondateur de la démocratie économique, in _Le sujet dans la cité_ n° 3, pp 92–107. Friot B. (2018). Ne nous laissons pas voler la Sécu ! _Pratiques, Cahiers de la médecine utopique_.

N° 81 – avril 2018. https://pratiques.fr/Ne-nous-laissons-pas-voler-la-Secu Gentilini U., Grosh M., Rigolini J., Yemtsov R. (eds). (2020). _Exploring __Universal Basic Income: A Guide to

Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices. _Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978–1–4648–1458–7 Gittelsohn J., Trude A.C.B., Kim H. (2017). Pricing Strategies to Encourage

Availability, Purchase, and Consumption of Healthy Foods and Beverages: A Systematic Review. _Prev Chronic Dis._ 2 (14):E107. doi: 10.5888/pcd14.170213; Grange D., Castetbon K., Guibert G.,

Vernay M., Escalon H., Delannoy A., Féron V., Vincelet C. (2013). Alimentation et état nutritionnel des bénéficiaires de l’aide alimentaire. In ABENA2 (2013). Gundersen C. (2021). Viewpoint:

A proposal to reconstruct the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a universal basic income program for food. _Food Policy_, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodpol.2021.102096

Insee (2021)._ Revenus et patrimoine des ménages_, Insee Références, Edition 2021. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5371304 ISF-Agrista (2020). Pour une sécurité sociale de

l’alimentation. https://www.isf-france.org/sites/default/files/2020.05.10_pour_une_securite_sociale_de_lalimentation.pdf Inserm (2014). _Inégalités sociales de santé en lien avec

l’alimentation et l’activité physique_. Collection Expertise Collective, 747. Lang, T. (1998). Toward food democracy in _Consuming passions: food in the age of anxiety_, Griffiths, S.,

Wallace, J. (eds), Manchester University Press, pp13–23. Le Morvan F., Wanecq F. (2019). _La lutte contre la précarité alimentaire – Evolution du soutien public à une politique sociale,

agricole et de santé publique._ Rapport IGAS N° 2019–069R. décembre 2019. http://www.igas.gouv.fr/spip.php?article754 Maillot M., Vieux F., Delaere F., Lluch A., Darmon N. (2017). Dietary

changes needed to reach nutritional adequacy without increasing diet cost according to income: An analysis among French adults. _PLoS One_ 12: e0174679. Marajo-Petitzon E., Paturel D.,

Chiffoleau Y. (2015). La précarité alimentaire des agriculteurs _Pour_ 2015/1 (225): 77–81,  https://www.cairn.info/revue-pour-2015–1-page-77.htm Marmot M. (2010). Fair society, healthy

lives. Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010. _The Marmot Review_, February 2010. Marty L., Dubois C., Gaubard M.S., Maidon A., Lesturgeon A., Gaigi H., Darmon N.

(2015). Higher nutritional quality at no additional cost among low income households: insights from food purchases of ‘positive deviants’. _American Journal of Clinical Nutrition_ 102:

190–198. McFadden A., Green J.M., Williams V. _et al._ (2014). Can food vouchers improve nutrition and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young children: a multi-method

evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England. _BMC Public Health_ 14, 148,  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471–2458–14–148 Ministère

de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (2019). Évaluation de l’application des dispositions de la loi du 11 février 2016 relative à la lutte contre le gaspillage alimentaire, et du décret

d’application du 28 décembre 2016, Synthèse, novembre 2019, https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/116049?token=64c9ae982aa4ecfc0030dc6cb70e1e91ab932aa03aae821b26671efb73ecc3cd Mousty A.

(2020). Envie, besoin, limite de la participation dans le diagnostic alimentaire de territoire. in _Le droit à l’alimentation durable en démocratie, _ Paturel D, Ndiaye P (eds), Nîmes :

Champ Social. MSA (2020). Note de conjoncture n° 52, MSA Février 2020. https://statistiques.msa.fr/publication/note-conjoncture-n52-economie-agricole-sante-at-prime-dactivite-rsa-2/ Ndiaye

P., Paturel D. (2020). _Le droit à l’alimentation durable en démocratie_. Nîmes : Champ Social, pp 17–47. ObEpi (2012). _Enquête épidémiologique nationale sur le surpoids et l’obésité_.

http://www.roche.fr/content/dam/corporate/roche_fr/doc/obepi_2012.pdf . OECD (2017). Basic income as a policy option: can it add up? _Policy Brief on the Future of Work_, Paris. OFCE (2020).

L’expérimentation finlandaise de revenu universel. https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/blog/peut-on-tirer-des-enseignements-de-lexperimentation-finlandaise-de-revenu-universel/ et

https://www.kela.fi/web/en/basic-income-experiment ONPES (2014). _Budgets de référence ONPES_. Étude réalisée par le Credoc et l’Ires à la demande de l’Observatoire national de la pauvreté

et de l’exclusion sociale (ONPES). Rapport final. Juillet 2014. Paturel D. (2013). _Aide alimentaire et accès à l’alimentation_. https://inra.academia.edu/DominiquePATUREL Paturel D. (2017).

Insécurité alimentaire et précarité alimentaire. _Etats Généraux de l’Alimentation_, Atelier 12, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation. Paris. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02791270

Paturel D. (2019). Reprendre la main sur l’alimentation passe par des processus démocratiques, in _Revue Européenne de Droit de la Consommation_, n° 2, pp 43–58. Paturel D. (2020). _De

l’aide alimentaire à l’aide humanitaire. Récit d’un dérapage social._ https://utaa.fr/2020/05/18/de-laide-alimentaire-a-laide-humanitaire-recit-dun-derapage-social/ Perignon M., Dubois C.,

Gazan R., Maillot M., Muller L., Ruffieux R., Gaigi H., Darmon N. (2017). Co-construction and evaluation of a nutrition prevention programme _Current Developments in Nutrition, _ 1 (10) 

e001107;  doi.org/10.3945/cdn.117.001107.S Ramel M., Boissonnat Pelsy H., Sibué-de-Caigny C., Zimmer M.F. (2016)._ Se nourrir lorsqu’on est pauvre – Analyse et ressenti de personnes en

situation de précarité_. ATD Quart Monde Ed., https://www.atd-quartmonde.fr/produit/se-nourrir-lorsquon-est-pauvre-analyse-et-ressenti-de-personnes-en-situation-de-precarite/ Régnier F.,

Masullo A. (2009). Obésité, goûts et consommation. Intégration des normes d’alimentation et appartenance sociale. _Revue Française de Sociologie_ 50(4) : 747–773. République Française

(2017). LOI no 2017–86 du 27 janvier 2017 relative à l’égalité et à la citoyenneté. Journal Officiel de La République Française.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf?id=0yxRDEjbo8W8kePWERoji4iX_erjixoTD_Jy3A Rey-Lefebvre I., Gagnebet P., Rof G., Schittly R., Keltz B., Pouille J. (2020). Covid-19 : la crise

sanitaire a fait basculer un million de Françaises et de Français dans la pauvreté, _Le Monde_, 6 octobre 2020. Rummo P.E., Noriega D., Parret A., Harding M., Hesterman O., Elbel B.E.

(2019). Evaluating A USDA program that gives SNAP participants financial incentives to buy fresh produce in supermarkets. _Health Affairs _38 (11)_,

_https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00431 Secours Catholique (2020). _Sans contreparties – pour un revenu minimum garanti.

_https://www.secours-catholique.org/sites/scinternet/files/publications/rapport_revenusans_contreparties.pdf Secours Populaire Français & IPSOS. (2019). _Résultats du 15e Baromètre de la

pauvreté_. Edition 2021. https://www.secourspopulaire.fr/atom/21949 SSA (2021). _Les trois piliers du mécanisme de SSA_.

https://securite-sociale-alimentation.org/la-ssa/les-trois-piliers-du-mecanisme-de-ssa/ Stettinger V., Danet M. (2021). Comment la pandémie fragilise les enfants pauvres, _The Conversation_,

11 avril 2021https://theconversation.com/comment-la-pandemie-fragilise-les-enfants-pauvres-150404  Tharrey M., Sachs A., Perignon M., Simon C., Mejean C., Litt J., Darmon N. (2020).

Improving lifestyles sustainability through community gardening: results and lessons learnt from the JArDinS quasi-experimental study_. __BMC Public Health_ 20: 1798. Tharrey M., Darmon N.

(2021). Les jardins partagés peuvent-ils promouvoir des modes de vie plus durables ? _So What ?_ Policy Brief N° 13, Chaire UNESCO Alimentations du monde.

https://www.chaireunesco-adm.com/No13-Les-jardins-partages-peuvent-ils-promouvoir-des-modes-de-vie-plus-durables Tharrey M., Darmon N. (2021). Participation à un jardin collectif urbain et

santé : revue systématique de la littérature. _Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique_ 56(5) : 300–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnd.2021.04.002 Tharrey M., Ghestem F., Darmon N. (2022).

Transformer les jardins collectifs en outils de promotion de la santé. in _Comprendre, accompagner et outiller les acteurs de l’agriculture urbaine -Contributions de la recherche_. C. Aubry,

G. Giacchè, F. Maxime, C. Soulard (coord.), Collection « Savoir Faire » Editions QUAE. Tronto J. (2009). _Un monde vulnérable. Pour une politique du care_. Paris : Editions de la

Découverte. Trostiansky O., Joseph D. (2021). _Crise sanitaire et inégalités de genre_. Avis du Conseil Economique et Social, 24 mars 2021.

https://www.lecese.fr/travaux-publies/crise-sanitaire-et-inegalites-de-genre Walker R.E., Keane C.R., Burke J.G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review

of food deserts literature, _Health & Place_ 16: 876–884. Wresinski, J. (1987). _Grande pauvreté et précarité économique et sociale_. Avis et rapports du Conseil Economique et Social,

séance des 10 et 11 février, JO n° 6, p. 6. 6. LIST OF BOXES, TABLES AND FIGURES BOXES Box 1: Health crisis and food insecurity in France (summary of the findings of Opinion No. 89 of the

CNA (National Food Council)) Box 2: The anti-waste law of 10 February 2020 for a circular economy Box 3: Proposed criteria for a scheme conducive to sustainable food security Box 4:

Opticourses, a food and budget-based health promotion programme Box 5: As part of the feedback from the first lockdown, the CNA called for the establishment of a right to sustainable diet

TABLES Table 1. Distribution of food, by origin, in 2018, for the four incumbent operators in the food aid sector (data calculated from information in the IGAS report, Le Morvan and Wanecq,

2019). Table 2. Reasons for non-compliance in the implementation of FEAD budgets (adapted from the IGAS report, Le Morvan and Wanecq, 2019) Table 3. Classification of schemes according to

their main action target (acts on what?) and eligibility criteria (intended for whom?) Table 4. General and food-targeted intervention schemes: implementation criteria and effects FIGURES

Figure 1. Food aid and public policies to combat food insecurity in France and Europe Figure 2. Guiding principles for a scheme and policy context conducive to sustainable food security (and

definitions) Figure 3. Schematic representation of the Social Security of Food Figure 4. Social Security for Food in terms of public health 7. ANNEXES 7.1. ANNEX 1. THE UNITERRES PROGRAMME:

FOOD INSECURITY AMONG USERS OF SOCIAL GROCERY SHOPS COMPARED TO INSECURITY IN FARMERS A few social experiments have taken place where the objective was both to supply food aid schemes with

local fruit and vegetables and to support local production (supply of the _Restos du Cœur_ in l’Hérault since 2011). Unlike some food aid schemes[92], the aim is to support existing

production and even to take into account the insecure situation of some farmers. This approach was at the heart of the Uniterres programme, the objective of which was to distribute products

to the ANDES network of social grocery stores from market gardens produced by farmers in difficulty, for reasons such as they were starting up, converting to organic farming, or because of

the fragility of the farm’s economic model. The insecurity of these farmers[93] was thus compared to that of the recipients of the food aid distributed in the grocery stores and that of the

volunteers who were also economically insecure. When we analysed what was happening to the farmers mobilized by Uniterres, we assumed that this was a care-based scheme: care for the farmers

and care for the grocery store users. The elements analysed gave an idea of the views of the farmers, but not the users. _Farmers’ concern and support for the needs of food aid users_ The

hypothesis that farmers’ investment in the Uniterres programme is based on a relationship of care for the users of the solidarity grocery stores implies clarifying the way in which they

consider the food needs of these actors, this consideration being, as Tronto (2009) points out, one of “_the most difficult elements to establish in practice”_, and recognizes the need to

respond to these needs in the context of their work and the exercise of their profession. Three types of solidarity were identified as forms of engagement in the farmers and an overall

resilience index was created. The first form of solidarity, which we call _distant solidarity_, is not characterized by a concern for the needs of the users of the solidarity grocery stores.

Commitment to the programme is based on consideration of the needs of other actors who are themselves involved in the programme. Farmers are not involved in the programme out of moral

concern for the needs of the beneficiaries, although they recognize the need to address these in more general terms. It is about supporting other actors who are part of their work relations

system. It is a question of supporting a peer in their professionalism and demonstrating the professional approach with which links have been built beforehand. In addition, the results of

the study show that the participation of other farmers in the Uniterres programme is based on a concern and care for the needs of disadvantaged people who use food aid. They show concern for

the problem of access to good quality food for disadvantaged people, and recognition of a response to this problem through a transformation of work in agriculture. The second form is what

we have termed _reciprocal solidarity_: the farmers note the unmet food needs of disadvantaged people. The problem of access to good quality food is addressed by farmers on the basis of

professional and personal concerns related to this problem in the exercising of their profession. Firstly, the farmers, whose agricultural activities come into the category of professional

organic farming, attest to the existence of inequalities in access to the consumption of their produce, which they consider necessary, even essential, for human health. The configuration of

their marketing networks contributes to the creation of these inequalities. The short supply chains they develop and favour, such as open-air markets or associations for the maintenance of

local farming (AMAP), limit access to the consumption of the food they produce to people in the affluent middle classes. The choice of this type of configuration is described as necessary.

The economic and social dependence on these social categories of consumers is a means of reducing the fragility of their agricultural activities, and thus of meeting their professional and

personal needs through work. However, the sale prices of their production result in the exclusion of disadvantaged people from these channels. Their discourses and debates about increasing

the consumption of organically produced food among the general population reveal that addressing the needs of disadvantaged people – including food aid users – can be achieved through a

redefinition of organic agriculture, including a reconfiguration of their networks of relationships with consumers. It is about opening up these networks to those in need, who face hunger

and food dissatisfaction due to poverty and insecurity. Investing in the Uniterres programme makes it possible to carry out this inflection in organic agriculture, and to build a new

relationship between agriculture and food aid based on care. Secondly, the expression of a feeling of shared vulnerability on the part of farmers towards food aid users reveals an awareness

of the existence of food needs in disadvantaged people. From their point of view, these needs exist and need to be addressed. The socio-professional trajectories of farmers – in the case of

reciprocal solidarity, these are trajectories of professional conversion to and qualification in organic farming – are characterized by a weakening of their ability to provide for their own

personal needs through work. Like food aid users, the increased vulnerability of farmers, whether past or present, is characterized by the emergence of the problem of food insecurity.

However, as farmers point out, their profession allows them to have food resources through the consumption of their production and forms of exchange with their peers. Food insecurity is less

about deprivation and absence than about reduced food choices. Farmers experience vulnerability through the impairment of their ability to meet their personal needs, which contributes to

their awareness and care for the needs of the users of solidarity grocery stores. Involvement in the Uniterres programme is a concrete way of responding to this. However, in the third form

that we have termed _close solidarity_ in this programme, concern and the care for the needs of the users of the solidarity grocery stores are rooted in an experience of the most prevalent

insecurity, linked to the phenomenon of social exclusion that characterizes their socio-professional trajectories, and their status as beneficiaries of the food aid provided by the ANDES

(national association for the development of solidarity grocery stores). The problem of access to food is experienced directly by farmers who rely on solidarity grocery stores. Concern for

“others” and concern for “oneself” overlap because of a shared status of beneficiaries of solidarity grocery stores. Care_ _for others is also partly care for oneself. The results of the

study show the possibility of a conflict between a role as a provider of nutritional care for vulnerable people on the one hand, and as a recipient of that same care as an individual facing

increased vulnerability on the other. _Farmers in the Uniterres programme: self-care and care for their needs_ This study was based on a second research hypothesis, according to which the

participation of farmers in the Uniterres programme is based on a self-care relationship. The results show that not all farmers engage in the Uniterres programme to meet their own

requirements. Self-care differs depending on whether or not they define themselves as “farmers in difficulty”, a central category in the definition of the Uniterres programme. The existence

of needs differs according to whether or not they are, from their point of view, in a situation of increased vulnerability, i.e. a significant deterioration in their ability to provide for

themselves through work. Such farmers do not engage with the scheme in the same way to meet their needs. The results show that farmers who do not consider themselves to be farmers in

difficulty become involved in the Uniterres programme in order to affirm their sense of identity. In the reciprocal solidarity model, farmers in the process of professional qualification and

conversion to organic farming, for whom increased vulnerability is a thing of the past – but still remains a risk in the exercise of their profession – take advantage of the Uniterres

programme to replace sales channels that do not meet the normative requirement of “local” i.e. geographical and social proximity to consumers, with the sale of part of their agricultural

production to solidarity grocery stores in the Midi-Pyrénées region. It can be considered that it is less a question of needs than of expectations in terms of professional identity. The

Uniterres programme is a means of putting into practice an ideology of the farming profession in which the “local” standard constitutes a professional standard. The substitution does not

affect their economic resources. The prices negotiated with the Uniterres programme organizers guarantee them an economic value that is considered satisfactory. The substitution does not

affect the configuration of their marketing networks either, as the priority sales channels are preserved. In addition, other farmers who do not define themselves as farmers in difficulty

participate in the Uniterres programme to meet expectations relating to their work organization. The aim is to improve their working conditions through various changes in practices. The

replacement of sales channels that have constraints in terms of travel, by sales to solidarity grocery stores via the Uniterres programme can reduce farmers’ workloads. One logistical aspect

of the Uniterres system that enables them to make this substitution is that Uniterres coordinators take care of the delivery and invoicing of their production. Another change of practice

consists in creating new production on their farm, not only to meet demand from the programme actors – thus the needs of the solidarity grocery stores – but also to increase their economic

resources. This can help to smooth their cash flow or to reduce their workload due to the coordinator taking over certain tasks. For those farmers who define themselves as farmers in

difficulty, their focus is on meeting_ _basic needs. Participating in the Uniterres programme is a way to increase their economic resources to meet needs that relate to self-protection

and/or the operation of their farm. Although the study does not allow this aspect to be clearly highlighted, it can be assumed that these additional resources are mobilized to meet basic

needs, i.e. health care, food, and housing. The weakening process that occurs in the socio-professional trajectories of farmers highlights a relationship between increased vulnerability and

food. This relationship is particularly marked in the case of farmers in the process of social integration through agriculture, and, for some, of professional conversion to agriculture.

Moreover, these additional economic resources obtained through the support of the Uniterres programme contribute to changes in work organization – for example, investment in a plastic

greenhouse for market gardening – to increase their agricultural production, and consequently their economic resources through the sale of their produce. These changes improve or restore

their ability to meet their personal needs through work. In order to address and manage these needs, farmers in difficulty make changes in their practices. When farmers are able to increase

their agricultural production, sales to solidarity grocery stores through the Uniterres programme are added to the other sales channels in their marketing network. When they cannot increase

their production, they replace marketing channels considered to be unstable or unprofitable by sales to solidarity grocery shops. In both cases, participation in the Uniterres programme is

seen as a necessary step to increase their economic resources, but on a temporary basis. In addition, farmers in difficulty use the Uniterres programme to provide cognitive and practical

support. It is a matter, particularly for farmers undergoing professional conversion, of experimenting with production practices to make them more effective. The challenge of participating

in the programme is to improve their crop management skills. To do this, they take advantage of the flexibility of coordinating their production with the supply of solidarity grocery stores.

This type of commitment to the Uniterres programme is part of a concern for oneself and for one’s needs. It aims to increase their ability to meet their needs through work, in particular

being able to make a living from their farming activity. 7.2. ANNEX 2. THE MAIN ACTORS IN FOOD AID IN FRANCE   ACTOR ROLE Public actors European Union FEAD funding (see Annex 4) French State

(DGCS, DGAL, DGS, etc.) Public policies and Funding FranceAgriMer Public contracts related to European funds Local authorities (CCAS& CIAS[94], regional councils, etc.) Local

management, aid to disadvantaged groups and aid to associations Economic actors and individuals  Farmers Agricultural donations Businesses (agri-food, catering, supermarkets) Donations of

goods and skills Social Entreprises dedicated to fight against food waste Intermediation between foodstuff deposits  and associations, distribution of food aid to users Foundations Financial

donations and sponsorship Private individuals Financial donations, food donations during collections, volunteering Charitable associations and integration projects 4 incumbent associations:

FFBA, _Restos du Cœur_, _Secours populaire français_, Red Cross Logistical management and redistribution of foods purchased by FranceAgrimer with European funds (FEAD) 15 accredited

associations nationally, in addition to the 4 incumbent associations Distribution of food to users (from large national associations with their networks of regional and local branches, to

local associations): more than 8,000 local associations Supplier/Wholesaler Associations Supply of food to distributing associations: * FFBA, _Restos du Cœur_, Red Cross, _Secours populaire_

(receive food from the FEAD) * ReVivre: role of wholesaler/logistics provider for associations (does not receive food from FEAD) * Solaal: association whose aim is to facilitate donations

between the agricultural sector and national authorized food aid associations. Two associations of social grocery stores Networks of social grocery shops and integration projects through the

collection of fruit and vegetables in wholesale markets for food aid: – SAF-ANDES: _Solidarité Alimentaire France_, which brings together the grocery stores in the ANDES network (National

Association for the Development of Solidarity Grocery Stores) – UGESS: _Union des Groupements des épiceries sociales et solidaires_ (Union of social and solidarity grocery store

organizations). Non-authorized associations Local associations that cannot receive FEAD funds and cannot enable their donors to benefit from tax exemption for donations 7.3. ANNEX 3.

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE FOOD AID AND SUPPORT SCHEMES CONVENTIONAL SCHEMES Food parcels Distribution of raw or processed foods in the form of parcels or baskets that can be

prepared by the person themselves according to pre-established composition rules or prepared in advance. Unconditional discount and no financial contribution. Social grocery stores (with or

without collective activities) Grocery stores run by a local authority or an association providing food exclusively for people in difficulty (based on financial criteria) in exchange for a

financial contribution, in a place and according to operating principles that are similar to those of a local shop. Access is generally time-limited. Solidarity grocery stores (with or

without collective activities) Grocery stores that operate on the basis of a mixed public and dual pricing (with purchases at the standard retail price or at a higher price to allow others

to benefit from social pricing). Access to the reduced prices is means-tested, and usually time-limited. Cooking workshops Workshop on food preparation (recipes, processing, etc.) and

balanced nutrition, usually followed by a shared meal. Mobile kitchen A kitchen on wheels that can be transported in a utility vehicle, allowing cooking workshops to be held in facilities

that do not have an approved kitchen (e.g. mobile kitchen for Food Banks). Meal distribution Distribution of ready-to-eat food, served in fixed or mobile facilities (travelling vans).

Unconditional discount and no financial contribution. Social restaurants Restaurant accessible on financial criteria, with financial participation. Social and solidarity restaurants

Restaurant open to all, with dual pricing. Access to the “solidarity rate” is means-tested (criteria checked beforehand by the 115, an anti-poverty association, etc.). Personal support

coupons or food service vouchers, food stamps Coupons, tickets or food vouchers allocated on the basis of financial criteria and allowing the purchase of food products in partner shops. Cash

assistance Emergency financial assistance. Alternative schemes Solidarity baskets Food baskets (usually organic) provided in direct partnership with local producers, at a reduced rate for

food-insecure people (referred to this scheme by social structures). Purchasing groups in social priority districts Group purchases of organic (or not) food products (among other products)

through short-supply chains in social priority districts. Orders on a monthly basis. Delivery and repackaging of products organized in each neighbourhood (usually in a community centre) by

and for the inhabitants, e.g. VRAC. Cooperative supermarket Non-profit supermarket, accessible to cooperative members and self-managed, i.e. members participate in financing, management and

all tasks necessary for its operation. Open-air market in social priority districts Open-air market provided mainly by resellers located in municipalities’ QPVs (social priority districts).

Community kitchen A place that provides the necessary equipment for cooking. Themed workshops Workshops to raise awareness, provide information and discussion, to move towards sustainable

diet, e.g. nutrition workshops, Opticourses workshops (balanced diet on a small budget), Démocralim (understanding the food system), workshops on food waste, etc. Community gardens in QPVs A

garden with individual and/or community plots cultivated by gardeners and managed with the support of the municipality and/or a neighbourhood association. Kitchen truck Mobile truck

offering cooking workshops. Mobile social grocery store Mobile social grocery store that serves isolated people, particularly in rural areas. Food-related third-places Third Places[95] are

community spaces that are neither home nor work, that combine manufacturing, services and exchange networks, in a friendly and accessible setting, encouraging social cohesion. Some of the

food-related third places focus on caring for vulnerable groups. Supermarket shopping lists Low-cost, balanced weekly shopping lists proposed by supermarkets (e.g. Leclerc’s proposal of €21 

shopping lists for 21 meals). _Malin_ Program The _Malin_ (smart) programme[96] is a mixed system (outreach, support, financial accessibility, physical accessibility) for children aged 6 to

24 months in food-insecure families and their parents. It is in the process of being rolled out nationwide. School meals with social pricing Means-tested pricing for school meals is not new.

What is new is the attempt to introduce uniformity to these schemes, and to make them more widespread (see Annex 8). 7.4. ANNEX 4. EUROPEAN FUNDING FOR FOOD AID: PEAD (1987–2014), FEAD

(2014–2020) AND ESF+ (SINCE 2021) The European Council created the European Programme for Aid to the Most Deprived (PEAD) in 1987. The PEAD was based on a mechanism for bartering certain

commodities (meat, milk, sugar, rice, etc.) to to absorb the agricultural surpluses of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (intervention stocks). As the CAP reform progressed, European

agriculture generated less surpluses and it became increasingly necessary to compensate with budgets earmarked for the purchase of food for the most deprived. The budget of €100 million in

1987 reached €500 million in 2010, i.e. 0.9% of the CAP budget. In 2011, a European Court of Justice decision (Paturel, 2019) recognized the PEAD as a social action and transferred it to the

European Social Fund. The European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) thus took over from the PEAD in 2014. The FEAD[97] took on the objectives of the PEAD and added basic material

assistance to the most deprived (clothing, shoes, hygiene products, etc.). This material assistance had to be accompanied by non-material assistance and social integration measures,

including counselling and support services to help people escape poverty and integrate into society. For the period 2014–2020, the FEAD was allocated a budget of €3.8 billion. To benefit

from these funds, EU countries commit, among other things, to : * supplementing the FEAD amounts by (at least) 15%. * reporting very accurately on how these budgets are spent. * ensuring

that food (and other products) purchased by the FEAD are never sold to food aid users. * ensuring the traceability of food flows from the FEAD. In France, all EU funds are allocated to

buying food. France initiated a national and regional authorization procedure. To simplify the procedures for controlling the proper use of public funds, the four incumbent associations

(_Restaurants du Cœur_, the French Red Cross, _Secours Populaire Français_ and the French Federation of Food Banks) were authorized at national level to receive public contributions from

European funding. In addition, nine new associations were accredited nationally in 2014 and there were 19 in 2021 (including the four incumbent associations). However, under the FEAD, the

distribution of products (food, hygiene products, clothing, etc.) must be free of charge. The 729 social and solidarity grocery stores existing in 2014, whose objective was to sell at low

cost, were therefore excluded from this funding. France allocated a budget to continue subsidizing them: the _Crédit National Epiceries Sociales_ (CNES) (National Fund for Social Grocery

Stores). The state also retained the principle of funding its decentralized services for associations fighting poverty and social exclusion that were not directly concerned by food aid

funding: for example, the _Centres d’Hébergement et Réinsertion Sociale_ (Accommodation and Social Integration Centres). The budget in 2014 was €15.5 million, divided equally between these

two types of intervention. In each annual FEAD campaign, the funds were distributed among these four associations. They then decided, according to their needs, how to allocate them among the

thirty or so commodities that can be purchased via FranceAgriMer (the French public body responsible for awarding public contracts for “FEAD-approved” products ). These associations then

distribute the food via their own networks or other (local and authorized) associations. Access to this food aid is allocated by social workers employed by the Departmental Councils, CCASs

and CIASs and authorized associations (e.g. _Médecins du Monde_ social workers). In 2021, the FEAD was integrated into the European Social Fund + (ESF+). At the beginning of 2020, the

charitable associations, concerned for the stability of their resources, feared a possible decrease in the amounts allocated, or even that they would be discontinued or transferred to other

forms of action. The Covid crisis and its current and especially future impacts on food insecurity led to the choice of maintaining a specific programme within the ESF+ dedicated to food aid

and support for the most deprived, under objective 11, “addressing material deprivation through food and/or basic material assistance to the most deprived, and providing accompanying

measures”. Ultimately_,_ the amounts allocated have risen significantly. With an allocation of 869 million euros over the period 2021–2027, France’s funding has increased by around 50%[98].

It was decided to replicate the organization and management of these funds[99]. 7.5. ANNEX 5. WOMEN RESIDENTS AND SOCIAL WORKERS’ VIEWS ON FOOD INSECURITY IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD Many ideas

are currently being discussed to improve access to sustainable diet for all, but the debates often do not involve enough of the people concerned and do not take territorial realities into

account. The objective of the _Sécalim_ project was to give these people a voice: the issue of the fight against food insecurity was the subject of collective reflection within discussion

groups organized in February and March 2021 in two municipalities in the Aix-Marseille-Provence Metropolis[100]. The women participants[101] discussed the issue of access to food in their

neighbourhood and the means, existing or to be created, to fight against food insecurity. We felt it was important to report on the serious situations of food insecurity and indignity

highlighted in these focus groups. In Marseille, the meetings were held in the neighbourhood called “Frais-Vallon”. One group was made up of professionals from the social sector and two

groups were formed of local women residents. Frais-Vallon is a social priority district in the north-east of Marseille with  the size of a small town with 6,000 inhabitants. It is one of the

poorest areas of the city, with more than half of the inhabitants living below the poverty line. The health crisis has impacted daily life for more than a year, however, both the residents

and the social workers spontaneously went back more than ten years to explain the deterioration in access to food in their neighbourhood. There used to be a discount store in the base of one

of the residential buildings, but it closed in 2008 and the premises have remained vacant since. It is this lack of a local shop offering a diversified range of food (and hygiene) products

– at prices considered affordable for the majority of inhabitants – that was spontaneously cited on several occasions as a major problem in terms of access to food in Frais-Vallon. The lack

of food shops primarily affects the elderly, single mothers with children, and those without personal means of transport. This is reminiscent of the Anglo-Saxon “food dessert” concept

(Walker _et al_., 2010), but this term should not obscure the fact that access to food is not the only service lacking in poor neighbourhoods. In a recent report on the attractiveness of

social priority neighbourhoods (_Cour des Comptes_, 2020), the _Cour des Comptes_ mentions a “devitalization” of the economic and commercial fabric of these neighbourhoods, which has been

very marked in recent years. The high concentration of poor households and the lack of “marketability factors” expected by operators (visibility from main roads, pedestrian and car

accessibility, openness to public spaces, etc.) discourage investors. The report explicitly states: “While the development of supermarkets potentially meets the expectations of local

residents, the low purchasing power of the area and the persistence of acute security issues make them unprofitable for large retailers”. In answer to the question “what is accessible in

terms of food in Frais-Vallon?”, residents describe the existence of food distribution in the street, on the ground or from the “back of a lorry”. Some of these distributions are food aid,

others are not (resale of products bought in supermarkets at the base of residential buildings, for example), but in all cases, what is striking and what is unanimously denounced in the

discussion groups is the lack of premises suited to these activities, and the indignity of these practices: _“And then it’s not decent. Items are dumped on the ground. They stick to the tar.

It looks like it’s for animals. It’s not for humans. And that is degrading. When I see this, it makes me want to cry.” (Resident)._ The social workers underline the lack of transparency in

these practices (_“That’s the problem, it’s far too opaque to say exactly what it is going on”)_. Some of these street vendors go through the classic route of purchases from the _Marché

d’Intérêt National_, but others sell products that are donated to them (by distributors such as Casino or Carrefour or “large companies”) because of their approval with a food aid

association. These products are often end-of-life or out-of-date, and not much cheaper than the entry-level products in the supermarket. In the street, there are also free distributions. But

the residents describe practices that are at worst opaque, and at best disorganized. Information is sometimes posted, but more often it works by word of mouth. A resident reports: _“They

even give to those who are not from the neighbourhood. You could see everyone collecting the parcels. We asked what it was. There was no reply. Afterwards, a young man said to us: “But why

don’t you go too?” So he took our phone number and called someone.”_ Several others confirm this lack of transparency: _“We don’t get told anything.” “We never know what’s going on.” _Many

denounce a form of favouritism: _“I can tell you, they’ve got their people. It’s always the same ones because they have their phone numbers, 10 or 15 women. It’s always the same faces. And

it’s first come, first served.” _Another person interjects:_ “Not, it’s not the first to come! It’s the first they know.” _Another adds:_ "We’re sick of it. They don’t help the right

people_.” The criticism of the conditions in which these distributions take place is unmistakable: it is disorganized (_“The first to arrive, they choose, that’s how it works”_._ “We wait

from 9am until 1pm and we get nothing. The system is no good.” _resident), it is not fair (_“Some people take 10 packs of milk, and then there’s none left”, _resident), there is no privacy

(_“There are twenty people waiting_,_ all clumped together, waiting for the truck, we need a proper space”, _resident), and dignity is not respected (_“Children go by and they see their

parents queuing up to collect stuff”_, social worker). Hygiene (_“People are jammed together next to the rubbish bins…” _resident) and safety (_“Sometimes we have no choice, even if it’s out

of date, we’re glad to have it”, _ resident) are not guaranteed. These practices have intensified as a result of the health crisis, particularly as a result of the first lockdown in

March-April 2020, but they have existed for a long time, and seem to have developed “in response” to the closure of the discount food shop in 2008. The social workers express a lot of

frustration at not being able to respond to the inhabitants’ problems. They are caught in an uncomfortable dilemma: should they denounce these dubious practices at the risk of aggravating

the problems of the families who use them (_“But at the same time, it provides a real service”_._ “We don’t have an alternative”. “My question is what could be organized so that the

inhabitants can buy with dignity, and at low prices, that’s the question, but I don’t get any answers_!”). One social worker summed up the situation with regard to what she qualified as

“wild sales” (i.e., unauthorized resale), as follows:_ “In fact, it has become a trade, a business, and someone who needs a small food parcel for 3 euros… well, that no longer exists in this

neighbourhood”_ (social worker)_. _An association that has recently moved into the premises of the community centre (a municipal facility) distributes parcels to its members, but membership

(which also gives access to other services) is not free. _“The problem is there are people who cannot pay, for example the membership is 33 euros, to go and get a parcel once a month. Let

them ask for memberships for the remainder.” _(resident). Another association gives parcels from time to time, but it is one-off, random aid. “_It depends on what they have. Sometimes it’s a

lot, sometimes nothing. You can’t count on it, ”_ (resident). As far as traditional food aid is concerned, the director of the social centre where the _Sécalim_ discussion groups took place

in Martigues sums up the problem in one word: “mismatch”. There is a time mismatch, as the help often arrives too late in relation to people’s needs, and there is a content mismatch, as

what is given does not always meet people’s needs and/or situations. Packages may not be suitable for the size of the household, or may contain products that are not part of people’s dietary

repertoire, or that they are not able to store or prepare. She also cites the case of “schemes that do not match their target groups”, particularly for certain innovative initiatives: for

example, an AMAP (Association for the maintenance of local farming) was set up in front of the social centre in Martigues, but it did not last. In Frais-Vallon, a social worker confirms:_

“There are a great many forms to be filled out to benefit from food aid, it has really been designed for people who are already in aid systems_._ Migrants and Roma are excluded from these 

systems”_. Students and day labourers are also less likely to receive food parcels. These mismatches and this inappropriateness are one of the reasons for non-recourse to food aid. Some

people who need it are not entitled to it because of restrictive administrative criteria (_“Les Restos du Cœur is well organized, but you just have to be entitled to it, and that’s

complicated”, _resident). The impression that aid does not concern you, the lack of information, the difficulties of access (distance, limited opening hours and periods, etc.) also explain

non-recourse (AREAS, 2016). However, another obstacle, explicitly mentioned by several women in the focus groups, is simply shame:_ “I’m not the only one. They have much less than I do.

That’s why I leave it. I’m ashamed to use things like that.” “In any case, people who don’t have means, they don’t go anywhere. They are ashamed. That’s how I see it. They are ashamed.”_ In

fact, the many reasons for non-recourse to food aid and the unsuitability of this aid to the diverse needs and situations of food-insecure people have been known for a long time and have

been the subject of detailed analyses and recommendations, notably in 2014 in the context of a study financed by the ministerial programme of the Ministry of Agriculture, Agri-Food and

Forestry (MAAF) and by FranceAgriMer (Badia _et al., _ 2014). But it has to be said that these recommendations were not followed up in France’s regions, as shown by the case – perhaps

emblematic, but certainly not isolated – of Frais-Vallon. Faced with a system that undermines people’s dignity and autonomy, professionals have expressed their revolt:_ “Today we are in a

state of extreme culpability: OK, you get Earned Income Support (Revenu de Solidarité active, in French), so you have to show that you deserve it… but we’re talking about fairness!”_ One

concludes that this problem should be approached in a radically different way, from a rights perspective: “_Even the word ‘aid’… ‘we will aid you’… no, the aim is to restore rights to people

who are in great difficulty, due to multiple factors!”._ 7.6. ANNEX 6. THE NOTION OF EMPOWERMENT Based on the work of Baqué and Biewener (2013), we proposed a definition of empowerment as

the process by which an individual or group acquires the means to strengthen their powers to be, to decide, to act, and thus, to emancipate themselves. This definition follows a historical

vision and critique of the way different actors and sectors appropriate this notion. Historically, the notion of empowerment appeared in the middle of the 19th century and meant both the

description of power relationships and actions to access power. Power is central to the notion of empowerment, and “is accompanied by a socio-political process that articulates an individual

dynamic of self-esteem and development of skills with a collective commitment and transformative social action” (Bacqué and Biewener, p. 144)_._ The appropriation of this notion in a

multiplicity of fields, in North America, Latin America, South-East Asia, South Africa and Europe (including France), have blurred its boundaries. However, the foundation of empowerment is

power and the process of achieving it. This notion thus has a proven historical trajectory, particularly in social struggles (civil rights in the United States, national and transnational

feminist movements, the landless workers movement in Brazil, etc.). This updating of the concept from the 1970s onwards places it in a “chain of equivalence” depending on the actors

appropriating it, i.e. social action, public policy and international development. The assimilation of the notion of empowerment by public policy and international development injects a

managerial approach that formalizes the process, which thus becomes a series of procedures for achieving empowerment. These procedures allow institutions and public policies to define

intervention methodologies: for example, user participation is required as a way to assess the relevance and impact of social programmes. Participation and the participatory approach are

thus quantified in order to summarize empowerment, but at the same time weaken its content. Empowerment is then seamlessly invoked by the institutional actors of public policies, preventing

conflictual relations linked to social relationships such as that of volunteers distributing food aid to its users. In the name of power to act, it is rather a question of the “power to do”

for the populations and certainly not of “power over” a chosen access to food and its reconnection with the conditions of its production. Moreover, when this “power over” is highlighted by

associations or semi-public structures, it is a matter for the recipients of accepting the intermediaries and delegation is imposed on them. While all so-called empowerment approaches

recognize individual (or personal) reappropriation, it is never about political power encompassing economic power, i.e. making collective decisions about the conditions for satisfying basic

needs (eating, housing, health care, transport, etc.). 7.7. ANNEX 7. SCHOOL MEALS: A SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUE? _Based on the bibliographic introduction to the PhD thesis manuscript of Ms Romane

Poinsot. “The role of vegetarian food in school catering as a means to reconcile nutrition and the environment: the French case”. Thesis under the supervision of Nicole Darmon, presented by

Romane Poinsot on 30 September 2021. UMR MOISA, GAIA Doctoral School, University of Montpellier._ In France, since 27 January 2017, access to school canteens must be ensured for all

children, according to article L. 131–13 of the Education Code, which states that “Enrolment in the primary school canteen, where this service exists, is a right for all children attending

school. There can be no discrimination on the basis of their situation or that of their family”. (French Republic, 2017). The problem is that 40% of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds do

not eat at the canteen, compared with 22% of children from privileged backgrounds and 17% of the very privileged (CNESCO, 2017). It should be noted, however, that non-use of the canteen is

not only due to financial reasons. According to a study on food consumption and nutritional intakes in collective catering in France based on data from the INCA3 study, only 8.7% of children

who did not eat lunch in canteens (in nursery and primary schools) did not do so because their parents considered the price to be too high (ANSES, 2021). The most common reasons for

non-attendance were the presence of a parent at home, the distance from the school, the availability of grandparents, etc. (but the study does not specify how these answers are distributed

according to the socio-economic status of the children). Social pricing of school meals, which allows children to benefit from meals at a cost that depends on their parents’ income, is a

valuable tool to fight health inequalities (even if, as indicated above, budgetary constraints are not the only reason for not eating at school canteens). Indeed, if social pricing were

generalized with homogeneous implementation procedures across all regions, it could meet the principle of proportionate universalism (cf note 12, p.13). A study by the Association of Mayors

of France (AMF) revealed that three quarters of municipalities with less than 10,000 inhabitants still did not have social pricing in 2020 (AMF, 2020). Since April 2019, a new policy has

been initiated by the state to encourage the implementation by communes of social pricing measures for canteens: for each meal charged €1 (or less) to families of children in kindergarten

and elementary school, the state pays a subsidy of €2 to communes eligible for the _péréquation_ (“balancing adjustment”) element of the rural solidarity grant that request it (_Délégation

interministérielle à la prévention et à la lutte contre la pauvreté_ (Interministerial delegation for the prevention and fight against poverty), 2021a). The school catering price scale must

have at least three levels, one of which is less than €1 and one of which is more than €1, and this social pricing should be set for a fixed or unlimited duration on the basis of a formal

decision. In January 2021, the subsidy was increased from €2 to €3 per meal. The €1 meals are part of the prevention strategy in the fight against poverty. By May 2021, one in five communes

had introduced social pricing for canteens and 1.4 million meals at €1 or less were served to 18,000 pupils in 241 communes (_Délégation interministérielle à la prévention et à la lutte

contre la pauvreté_, 2021b). It should be noted that the roll-out was delayed by the health crisis and that this initiative has encountered some obstacles in small communes where management

can be difficult and families do not always wish to communicate their income. 8. LIST OF ACRONYMS AFSSA: _Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments_ (French Food Safety Agency)

ANSES: _Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail_ (National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) BSN:

_Baromètre santé nutrition_ (Nutrition Health Barometer) CCAS/CIAS: _Centre communal/intercommunal d’action sociale_ (Municipal/Intermunicipal Social Action Centre) CNA: _Conseil national de

l’alimentation_ (National Food Council) CNES: _Crédit national des épiceries sociales_ (National Fund for Social Grocery Stores) CSG: _Contribution sociale généralisée (Generalized Social

Contribution)_ _CRDS__: Contribution au remboursement de la dette sociale (Contribution to reimbursement of social debt)_ COCOLUPA: _Comité national de coordination de la lutte contre la

précarité alimentaire_ (National Coordination Committee for the Fight against Food Insecurity) DGAL: _Direction générale de l’alimentation _(General Directorate for Food) DGCS: _Direction

générale de la cohésion sociale (General Directorate for Social Cohesion)_ _DGS__: Direction Générale de la Santé (General Directorate for Health) _ DREES: _Direction de la recherche, des

études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques _(Department for research, studies and evaluation of statistics) DRIHL: _Direction Régionale et Interdépartementale de l’Hébergement et du

Logement (Regional and Interdepartmental Directorate of Accommodation and Housing)_ FEAD: and EAPN _Fonds européen d’aide aux plus démunis_ (Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived) FES+:

_Fonds européen de solidarité +_ (European Solidarity Fund+) FFBA: _Fédération française des banques alimentaires_ (French Federation of Food Banks) GLAD: and IGAS, INSEE, _Groupements

locaux d’alimentation durable_ (Local sustainable food groups) IGAS: _Inspection générale des affaires sociales _(General Inspection Office for Social Affairs) INSEE: _Institut national de

la statistique et des études économiques _(National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies) MIN: _Marché d’intérêt national_ (French wholesale market of national interest) PAT: _Projet

alimentaire territorial_ (Territorial Food Project) PEAD: _Plan européen d’aide aux plus démunis_ (European Programme for Aid to the Most Deprived) PNNS: _Programme national nutrition

santé_ (National Nutrition and Health Programme) SSA: _Sécurité sociale de l’alimentation_ (Social Security for Food) UNCCAS: _Union Nationale des Centres Communaux et intercommunaux

d’Action Sociale _(National Union for Municipal and Intermunicipal Social Action Centres)