Contextual Background: Brazilian Cultural Context and Urban Poverty

Poverty. In the rural poverty context, Voola et al. (2018) argue that food marketing does not appear to influence FWB, considering that their research did not return any data related to this theme.

Regarding the hunger context, Bublitz et al. (2019) give another tone to the food marketing domain of the Pinwheel of FWB in Hunger. Bublitz et al. (2019) position food marketing as contributing to FWB-related problems among those in poverty. The marketing increases the desire for out-of-reach food products, making low-income consumers more susceptible to predatory pricing strategies. Concurrently, Bublitz et al. (2019) encourage marketers to improve the FWB of those in hunger and change food marketing’s role under public and scholars’

opinion.

Finally, Frentz (2020) comments tangentially on marketing’s role in her framework. Regarding the FWBC, Frentz (2020) argues that the framework is in line with the contemporary social marketing concept, which posits market exchanges that enhance consumers’ and society’s well-being. However, Frentz (2020) does not explicitly comment on food marketing’s role in the FWBC, only demonstrating how this framework is positioned within the marketing field.

Thus far, this literature review section has provided an overview of FBW literature. Firstly, I described how the FWB concept emerged within marketing literature, adding a novel understanding of how food relates to well-being. Furthermore, I presented a timeline explaining how the marketing scholars are advancing the FWB framework. Then, to summarize the discussion, I added a critical perspective to understand the theory development of FWB. From a critical perspective, I aimed to demonstrate the primary research approaches applied in FWB literature, how the studies understand the dimensions of the FWB concept and domains of FWB frameworks, the interrelationship between FWB and food insecurity, and the diverse food marketing domain’s role within FWB literature.

in this direction, in 2010, the Brazilian Government established the Organic Law of Food and Nutritional Security (LOSAN, acronym in Portuguese) and the National Policy of Food and Nutritional Security (PNSAN, acronym in Portuguese). These two food policies go beyond establishing adequate food as a human right fundamental to citizenship. They oblige the Government to inform, monitor, and evaluate its effectiveness (IBGE, 2014). In this sense, food and nutritional security in Brazil include more than access to adequate food and knowledge production and access to information (IBGE, 2014).

A successful attempt to ensure the effectiveness of food security as a human right in Brazil was the Zero Hunger Program (Fome Zero, in Portuguese). Through this program, launched in 2003, Brazil reduced in one-third the proportion of people living in hunger (FAO, 2011). Zero Hunger was a cross-sector strategy because it combined public interventions with a broad social mobilization, involving a wide range of stakeholders, from Government to civil society (Chmielewska & Souza, 2011; Oxfam, 2010). This cross-sector strategy is based on three main policy pillars. The first pillar, (i) food access, resorted mainly to the Bolsa Família, a cash transfer program, to ensure income for families. Moreover, the food access pilar included other food programs, such as free school meals every day, vitamin A and iron distribution, food and nutrition education, and quality water (cisterns). The second pillar was the (ii) strengthening of family agriculture through the stimulation of small-scale and family-based agriculture, aiming to increase the quality and quantity of food supply while increasing income for rural households. The third pillar was the (iii) articulation, mobilization, and social control to ensure the program’s achievements through social control committees, donations, social mobilization, and partnerships with enterprises and entities (Chmielewska & Souza, 2011; Oxfam, 2010). To conclude, Zero Hunger was an acknowledged multi-sector food program that expressively improved the hunger scenario in Brazil.

However, this period of food and nutrition improvement in Brazil began to decelerate partially due to the 2015’s financial crisis (Neves et al., 2021). Since 2015, the unemployment rate has increased among the Brazilian population, and it has been accelerating because of the crisis generated by the Covid-19 pandemic (Galindo et al., 2021; Neves et al., 2021). Considering that FWB is strongly related to family income (Clark-Barol et al., 2021; Cuevas et al., 2021), the one year and a half of the pandemic in Brazil have decreased the FWB levels of the families, especially the poor ones. In an attempt to ensure the right to food, in April 2020, the Brazilian Government conceded a basic emergency income of 600 BRL (Brazilian Reais) to the vulnerable groups during the pandemic. However, due to the Government's late response and

the difficulty accessing this emergency program, the right to food was harmed (Galindo et al., 2021; Neves et al., 2021).

Another acknowledged public initiative promoted in Brazil to ensure adequate food was the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population, first published in 2006 and the second edition in 2015. Through these guidelines, the Brazilian Ministry of Health establishes a set of recommendations for the population, aiming to improve health and well-being (Ministry of Health of Brazil, 2015). The most recent version of the guidelines presents five principles. The first one establishes a broad understanding of food, assuming that (i) diet is more than intake of nutrients. In other words, the cultural and social dimensions influence food preparation and eating, affecting health and wellbeing. The second principle argues that (ii) the dietary recommendations must be tuned to their times. Here is the importance to update regularly the guidelines. The third principle assumes that (iii) healthy diets are derived from socially and environmentally sustainable food systems, including both production and distribution.

Moreover, (iv) the guidelines are based on multiple knowledge sources to contemplate the complex relationship between diets and population health and well-being. Finally, (v) the guidelines attempt to ensure a broad autonomy in food choices, allowing people to pursue their right to adequate food (Ministry of Health of Brazil, 2015). Considering these principles, we conclude that the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population assume an understanding of food as a source of nutrients. Beyond the dietary properties of food, the guidelines also consider the cultural and social role that food plays in our lives (Block et al., 2011; Scott & Vallen, 2019).

The cultural and social roles of food are not recent. For example, the discovery of Brazil was motivated by the willingness of the Portuguese to have more spices and become a leader in this global food market. One document that relates these discovery days is Pero Vaz de Caminha’s letter to Portugal. At the time of the discovery of Brazil, Caminha described the food as a powerful symbol that distinguished civilized from uncivilized people (Dodman, 2015). In this sense, food worked as a form of group identification and status (Fischler, 1988). The Portuguese used food for domestication and conversion of the indigenous through food exchanges, meals, and manners (Dodman, 2015). Moreover, Caminha portrayed Brazil as a land of abundant food, which could feed entire Portugal (Dodman, 2015). This overwhelming and self-sufficiency of food scenario contrasts with the present Brazilian scenario, where more than 50% of the population lives in a situation of food insecurity in some degree (Galindo et al., 2021).

Specifically, Brazil is an instigating paradoxical setting to examine FWB. Firstly, the country is one of the biggest food producers worldwide, corresponding to 18.2% of the total food amount exported to 190 countries (Brazilian Association of the Food Industry, 2020). On the other hand, 59.4% of Brazilian households face food insecurity and 15% severe food insecurity (Galindo et al., 2021). Secondly, 26.8% of Brazilians over 20 years are obese (IBGE, 2020).

Although the conventional wisdom suggests that obesity is a consequence of food surplus, this global epidemic also is a consequence of inadequate food consumption, especially among low-income consumers (Connell et al., 2017; Parkinson et al., 2017). These two paradoxical examples are simplistic stereotypes because they do not consider the multifaceted causes involved in these issues (e.g., food availability, food access, food policy). In this sense, Brazil is an adequate and intriguing locus to examine FWB to unravel these paradoxical stereotypes.

Regarding food insecurity, the most widely accepted measurement scale in Brazil is the Brazilian Scale of Food Insecurity (EBIA, acronym in Portuguese) (IBGE, 2020). This scale assumes that food security occurs when the family has regular and permanent access to food in both quality and quantity, not compromising their other basic needs. EBIA classifies the household’s food insecurity into three degrees when food insecurity occurs. The (i) mild food insecurity occurs when there is uncertainty about future food access and/or inadequate food quality resulting from coping strategies not to compromise the food quantity. The (ii) moderate food insecurity occurs when there is food reduction among adults and/or shocks in food consumption due to the lack of food among adults. Finally, (iii) severe food insecurity occurs when there is a significant reduction in food among children, which means a shock in food consumption among all the family members. In this stage, hunger starts to be an experience among all the family members, not only the adults (IBGE, 2020). In this sense, EBIA is under the progressive understanding of food insecurity (Bublitz et al., 2019; Hendriks, 2015), which considers hunger as a sequence of events, not only a unique experience.

Food insecurity in Brazil is long-lasting. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, this issue became exceptionally dramatic due to the economic crisis, which reduced the families' income (Galindo et al., 2021). The resource scarcity due to the pandemic crisis affected low-income families more strongly than high-income ones (Bublitz et al., 2020; Hamilton, 2021). These low-income families were already suffering from chronic scarcity, and the pandemic generated yet another type of shorter scarcity (Hamilton, 2021). This study is being undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this sense, the effects of the pandemic crisis on low-income households work as a background of the research.

2.5.2 Urban Poverty Scenario

Although there are several definitions of poverty, Blocker et al. (2011) conceptualize poverty as “deprivation of means, in absolute or relative terms, to live a minimally decent and dignified life as shaped by society and which frequently involves insecurity, powerlessness, absence of choices and opportunities, and social exclusion” (p. 2-3). This definition implies at least two topics that are worth pointing out.

Firstly, poverty might happen in absolute or relative terms. This implies an understanding of poverty that occurs for several individuals but differently for each. For instance, a person living in absolute poverty does not have any economic resources, depending exclusively on others to survive, such as government or charitable organizations. In turn, a person in relative poverty has sufficient food to eat or a small income, but he/she is unable to reach a comfortable lifestyle (Santos et al., 2009). Therefore, poverty is not homogeneous for all individuals. Different poverty levels make it a relative concept strongly attached to sociocultural perceived necessities (Bauman, 2005; Hamilton et al., 2014).

The second point that draws attention to Blocker et al.'s (2011) definition is what they name a

“decent and dignified life.” What defines a decent life is no longer the economic indicators but what society considers normal life (Bauman, 2005). In this sense, poverty entails more than a lack of financial resources but a psychological and social state within the poor are those not able to access a normal life, suffering feelings of powerlessness and social exclusion (Bauman, 2005; Hamilton, 2009; Varman & Vikas, 2007). This perspective assumes the multidimensionality of poverty, considering it relates strongly to the cultural context in which one is embedded (Hamilton et al., 2014; Sridhar, 2015).

Considering poverty is a multidimensional concept, I posit an adjustment of the FWB framework to the urban poverty context in the current research. Consequently, I argue for a distinction between urban and rural poverty. The main reason that distinguishes urban and rural poverty is that the urban poor live embedded in a consumer society (Bauman, 2005; Blocker et al., 2011; Hamilton, 2012). In this sense, low-income consumers are constantly facing disadvantages in the marketplace and do not have access to the consumption of goods considered necessary for a "decent life," suffering exclusion and stigmatization (Hamilton, 2009; Varman & Vikas, 2007).

The restricted access to adequate resources to play a role in the marketplace characterizes the urban poor as vulnerable consumers (Hill & Sharma, 2020). To illustrate, Talukdar (2008) found that suburban residents pay more for everyday grocery items (mostly food category items). This phenomenon is even greater for those who do not have a car to access better prices outside their neighborhood. This vulnerability in the marketplace is a “cost of being poor”

(Talukdar, 2008).

Some argue that the urban poor families are more geographically privileged because the anti-poverty policies reach them more straightforwardly than the rural poor (Sridhar, 2015). Urban poor are more responsive to improvements, indicating that poverty reduction in urban areas could be more feasible than in rural ones (Fay, 2005).

Despite this advantage, the urban poor face vulnerabilities that the rural poor are exempt from.

Considering cities are part of the monetary economy, urban residents depend on stable income to access food and other basic needs (Sridhar, 2015). Therefore, the urban poor families are more sensitive to economic variations, especially unemployment, which directly affects the stability of income (Fay, 2005; Sridhar, 2015).

Moreover, the cost of living in urban regions is higher than in rural ones. Frequently consumers in urban areas have to pay for basic needs free in the rural areas. For example, the urban poor families have to pay for some foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables) that are free for the rural poor (Sridhar, 2015). Beyond the higher cost of living, the urban poor families are exposed to negative externalities, such as inadequate housing, inadequate job opportunities, and violent environments (Fay, 2005; Sridhar, 2015). Considering these specificities within the urban poor, they experience different hardships from the rural poor, hence the need to explore FWB in an urban poverty context.