Report

Study into the food disparities, challenges and disruptions experienced by disadvantaged groups in the UK during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Research exploring experiences of accessing, purchasing and consuming food during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown in the UK.
Download PDF
Supermarket shelves UK
  • Authors:
    Emily Sawdon Imogen Martin
    Amelia Benson
    Frances Shipsey
    Rosemary Davidson
    Karen Windle
  • Publishing date:
    5 December 2025

Summary

The University of Oxford commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to undertake research exploring experiences of accessing, purchasing and consuming food during the first months of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown in the UK. The research took place as part of the ‘Data, Disruptions and Disparities in the UK Food System’ project (the ‘d3food project’). The overall aim was to study the UK food system, how it responds to adverse or unexpected events, and to ensure a reliable flow of healthy and sustainable food that is accessible and affordable for the UK population, particularly for disadvantaged groups. 

The findings in this report are generated from four focus groups held in July 2020 with 30 participants from across England, Scotland and Wales. Findings encompass: changes to shopping and eating habits; challenges with sourcing food during lockdown; adapting to these challenges; and feedback on ‘feeding the nation’ policies and government assistance. 

About the study

The overall aim of the focus groups was to gain insight into public experiences of the UK food system during the first months of the Covid-19 pandemic. More specifically, the research had the following aims:

  1. Identify the challenges that disadvantaged groups face in relation to food procurement for their household due to Covid-19:
    1. Explore what would have eased any difficulties during the lockdown;
    2. Gather feedback on any government or local authority assistance that was received; and
    3. Assess the perceived impact of retailers’ Covid-19 ‘feeding the nation’ policies.
  2. Learn how individuals attempted to adapt to these challenges:
    1. Identify whether any behavioural changes resulted in unintended and/or unexpected behaviours.
  3. Assess whether there were any factors relating to the lockdown that facilitated a healthy diet:
    1. Explore whether there were any factors relating to the lockdown that promoted a less healthy diet; and
    2. What could have been done to help people exploit any lockdown difficulties and use them as an opportunity to improve their diet.
  4. Explore whether there were any factors relating to Covid-19 that modified the environmental impact of their diet (such as reducing the use of plastic; changes in the consumption of meat and dairy products, or eating more locally sourced foods).
  5. Examine the longevity of changes resulting from lockdown:
    1. Which changes would participants like to sustain; and
    2. Which changes would participants like to end.
  6. Identify individuals’ expectations of the food system over the next 12 months.

Findings

During the lockdown, online shopping increased, particularly among older adults and those with health conditions. Respondents used a wider variety of shops, including smaller supermarkets and farm shops, partly to support local businesses and avoid larger supermarkets.

Participants reported temporary shortages of certain food items. Cooking at home increased, while takeaway consumption decreased. Food expenditure rose for some due to the unavailability of cheaper products.

Respondents suggested measures to ease food sourcing difficulties, such as better data sharing on stock and busier periods, childcare for lone parents, and more online delivery slots. 

Participants reported an increase in home cooking and buying local but also in the use of plastic packages and food wastage (partly due to bulk buying and supermarket’s inappropriate online substitutions). 

Healthy eating habits improved for some due to more home cooking and an increased prioritisation of health, while others struggled with the unavailability of staples and higher prices for fresh produce. Snack and alcohol consumption increased due to convenience and boredom. 

Health priorities shifted, with a focus on immunity and weight management for some, while others used food for comfort. Support to improve diets varied, with some needing better access to fresh produce and more information.

Many respondents aimed to maintain positive changes from lockdown, such as online shopping and healthier cooking routines, though some wanted to reduce alcohol consumption and return to socialising. 

Methodology

We identified four main social groups who are more likely to experience greater disadvantage and difficulties accessing and affording food:

  • Older adults;
  • Low-income individuals and families;
  • Single parent families; and
  • Those from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups.

To recruit the focus group participants, we drew on respondents to the NatCen Panel, a research panel of approximately 15,000 people who have agreed to take part in social research on an on-going basis.

Potential participants were invited via email and those showing their interest were contacted over the phone to go through a short briefing and complete a screening to confirm their eligibility. They were also asked to complete a short online questionnaire to provide some further details about their living situation and understanding of healthy food and sustainable diets

A total of 30 participants were recruited to take part in one of the four focus groups organised. Each focus group of six to nine persons consisted of either single parents, older adults, people of Black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) identity, or those on low incomes.

Focus groups were conducted via the online platform Zoom, and each group was facilitated by two NatCen researchers. Sessions were structured around a topic guide. 

We analysed the focus group transcripts using a thematic analysis approach.

This research was approved by both NatCen’s and the University of Oxford’s Research Ethics Committees.