philippine nutrition - food and nutrition research institute

Philippine Nutrition

Facts and Figures 2015

2015 Updating of the Nutritional Status of

Filipino Children and Other Population Groups

FOOD SECURITY SURVEY

Food and Nutrition Research Institute

Department of Science and Technology

Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila

December 2016

ISSN 2599-4468

This report summarizes the results of the Updating of the Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and

Other Population Groups (Food Security Survey): Philippines, 2015 undertaken by the Department of

Science and Technology - Food and Nutrition Research Institute (DOST-FNRI).

Additional information about the survey may be obtained from the DOST-FNRI, DOST Compound,

Gen. Santos Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1631.

Tel. Numbers: (632) 837-20-71 local 2282/ 2296; 839-1846

Telefax: (632) 837-2934; 839-1843

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Website: www.fnri.dost.gov.ph

Recommended Citation:

Department of Science and Technology - Food and Nutrition Research Institute (DOST-FNRI). 2016.

Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures 2015: Food Security Survey. FNRI Bldg., DOST Compound,

Gen. Santos Avenue, Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

The Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures is published by the Department of Science and

Technology - Food and Nutrition Research Institute (DOST-FNRI).

Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Foreword i

The 2015 Updating Survey Management Team ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Acronyms iv

Operational Definition vi

List of Tables viii

List of Figures xii

List of Appendices xiii

Summary of Findings 1

Introduction 2

Methodology 4

Sampling Design 4

Scope and Coverage 4

Survey Methods 5

Ethical Review 6

PSA Review and Approval 6

Data Processing and Analysis 6

Results 11

Household Food Security using HFIAS 11

Household Dietary Diversity 19

Food Consumption Score 24

Conclusions and Implications 51

References 53

Appendices 56


2


i




FOREWORD

For decades, hunger remains a long-standing problem in most countries including the

Philippines. When the body gets deprived of food for long periods, it can lead to malnutrition which

affects the individual’s function and subsequently affects the family and the entire nation.

The Millennium Development Goals was drafted by the United Nations to address hunger

issue. Through the years, improvements were seen in the hunger status of families worldwide.

Although the Philippines saw a gradual reduction in the number of hunger-stricken households, many

Filipino families still suffer from hunger by the end of the goal deadline in 2015.

As the premiere research agency on food and nutrition in the Philippines, the Food and

Nutrition Research Institute is mandated to conduct studies that define the citizenry’s nutritional

status, determine the causes and effects of nutritional problems, and recommend appropriate solutions

to address the issue of malnutrition. The National Nutrition Survey (NNS) is conducted every five

years followed by the Updating Survey, conducted every three years in between NNS to obtain data

on the current nutritional status of the Filipino people and to keep track on the latest trends in the

nutritional situation of Filipinos. This monograph presents the results of the 2015 Updating Survey

which highlights the changes on the food security status of the Filipino people since the 8th NNS

conducted last 2013.

We hope that this monograph would provide valuable input to help program and policy

makers, both in the private and public sector, formulate effective interventions by identifying

vulnerable populations and understanding the factors that contribute to their vulnerability. We further

hope that our readers would become more aware of the current food security situation in the country,

and how this ultimately affects the nutritional situation of every Filipino. Food security and hunger

are closely related; addressing food security problem would lead to solving hunger issue.

We are calling everyone to join us in our fight against hunger and malnutrition.

MARIO V. CAPANZANA, Ph.D.

Director

ii




2015 UPDATING SURVEY MANAGEMENT TEAM

Mario V. Capanzana, PhD

Project Director

Cecilia Cristina Santos-Acuin, MD, PhD

Project Leader

FINAL REPORT WRITERS

Cristina G. Malabad, MSc

Maria Belina N. Nueva-España, MSc

Paula Joy C. Escanilla, RND

Nafiza Gail P. Welba, RND

EDITORS

Mario V. Capanzana, PhD

Cecilia Cristina Santos-Acuin, MD, PhD

COMPONENT STUDY LEADERS

Marina B. Vargas, PhD (Human Nutrition)

Dietary Component

Ma. Lilibeth P. Dasco, MSAN

Anthropometry Component

Mildred O. Guirindola, MPS-FNP

Maternal Health and Nutrition

and IYCF Components

Chona F. Patalen, MPH

Clinical and Health Component

Cristina G. Malabad, MSPH (Nutrition)

Food Security Component

Milagros C. Chavez

Government Programs Participation Component

(2012 to March 2016)

Charina A. Javier, MDE

Government Programs Participation Component

(April 2016 to present)

DATA MANAGEMENT

Charmaine A. Duante, MSc Epidemiology

(Public Health)

Head, Nutritional Statistics and Informatics

Team

Glen Melvin P. Gironella

Senior Statistician and SES Component Head

Ma. Lynell M. Valdeabella-Maniego

Statistician

Eldridge B. Ferrer, MSAES

Statistician

Apple Joy D. Ducay

Statistician

Jeffrey Y. De Leon, MIT

Senior Programmer and Developer of e-DCS

Mae Ann S.A. Javier

Programmer and Developer of e-DCS

iii




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgement and appreciation are due to the following:

The Department of Health (DOH), Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau, and the DOST-

Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (DOST-PCHRD), through the 2015

Health Systems Research Management, for funding the project titled “Evaluation of the

Attainment of Health-Related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)” integrated in the

2015 Updating Survey;

The Philippine Society of Hypertension (PSH) and the Cardiology Unit and Pediatrics Unit of the

Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for sharing their expertise during the Blood Pressure

Certification Training;

The Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly National Statistics Office) for the technical assistance in

providing the list of sample housing units and sample households;

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Local Government Units (LGUs), the

Governors, Mayors, Barangay Captains, and their constituents for providing direct assistance

in the field survey operations;

The National Nutrition Council of the Department of Health (NNC-DOH), through its Regional

Nutrition Program Coordinators (RNPCs) and Provincial/City and Municipal Nutrition Action

Officers (PNAOs/CNAOs and MNAOs), for sharing their untiring guidance and incessant

support during field data collection;

The Department of Science and Technology Regional Directors (RDs) and Provincial Science and

Technology Directors (PSTDs) for their support, especially during field data collection,

training, and pre-survey coordination in the regions/provinces;

The Centers for Health Development (CHDs) - Department of Health (DOH) through its Regional

Directors and the Provincial/City and Municipal Health Officers (PHOs/CHOs and MHOs)

for their assistance during field data collection;

Dr. Arturo Y. Pacificador, Jr., in his capacity as statistical consultant, for the technical guidance in

sampling design;

The FNRI Finance and Administrative Division (FAD) for their invaluable assistance in the financial

aspect of the survey;

All 42,310 households and 161,577 individuals for their indispensable participation and utmost

cooperation in the survey; and

All FNRI technical and non-technical staff, local researchers, local survey aides, and numerous others

who have provided their inputs, involvement, and contribution to the fruition of the Updating

of Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and Other Population Groups: Philippines, 2015.

iv




LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao

CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, Quezon

CAR Cordillera Administrative Region

CI Confidence Interval

CV Coefficient of Variation

DCS Data Computer System

DDS Dietary Diversity Score

DOST Department of Science and Technology

EA Enumeration Area

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FCS Food Consumption Score

FNRI Food and Nutrition Research Institute

HDD Household Dietary Diversity

HFIAS Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

LFS Labor Force Survey

LL Lower Limit

MS Master Sample

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MIMAROPA Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan

NCR National Capital Region

NNS National Nutrition Survey

PSA Philippine Statistics Authority

PSU Primary Sampling Unit

SD Standard Deviation

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SE Standard Error

v




SOCCSKSARGEN South Cotabato, Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Saranggani, General Santos

UL Upper Limit

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

US HFSSM United States Household Food Security Survey Module

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

vi




OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

Barangay in the Philippines: a village, suburb, or other demarcated neighborhood; a small territorial

and administrative district forming the most local level of government (Oxford University,

2010).

Condiment refers to a food that is generally eaten in a very small quantity, often just for flavor. An

example would be a ‘pinch’ of fish powder, a teaspoon of milk tea, spices, etc. (World Food

Programme [WFP], 2008).

Dietary Diversity Score is defined as the number of different foods or food groups eaten for the

previous seven (7) days (past week), not regarding the frequency of consumption (WFP,

2008).

Enumeration Area (EA) is a delineated geographic area usually consisting of about 150 to 200

households. It could be an entire barangay or part of a barangay (PSA, 2015)

Food Consumption Score is a composite score calculated using the frequency of consumption and

nutritional importance of different food groups consumed by a household during the seven (7)

days before the survey (WFP, 2008).

Food Frequency is defined as the number of days food was consumed at the household level over a

reference period (e.g. number of days of consumption in the past 7 days)

Food Group is defined as a grouping of food items that have similar nutritional properties or

biological characteristics (WFP, 2008).

Food Accessibility refers to access by individuals to adequate resources for acquiring appropriate

foods for a nutritious diet. It encompasses their income, expenditure, and buying capacity

(Philippine Food Security Information System [PhilFSIS], 2014a).

Food Insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or

limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (Life

Sciences Research Office, 1990).

Food Item cannot be split into separate foods. However, generic terms such as ‘fish’ or ‘poultry’ are

generally considered to be food items for the purpose of this analysis (WFP, 2008).

Food Security is the access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food

security includes at a minimum: (1) the ready availability of nutritionally-adequate and safe

foods and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g.,

without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies

(World Food Summit, 1996).

Food Utilization is the ability of the human body to ingest and metabolize food through adequate

diet, clean water, good sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being

where all physiological needs are met (PhilFSIS, 2014b).

vii




Household is a group of persons who may be related or not, who sleep in the same dwelling unit and

have common arrangements for the preparation and consumption of food. A person who lives

alone is also considered as a separate household.

Household Food Access is the ability to acquire sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all

household members’ nutritional requirement for productive lives (Swindale, 2006).

Household Head refers to an adult person, male or female, who is regarded as the head of the

members of the household; responsible for the organization and care of the household.

Hunger is the uneasy or painful sensation caused by a lack of food.

Lack of resources means not having money or the ability to grow or trade for food (Coates, Swindale

& Bilinsky, 2007).

Millennium Development Goals are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing

extreme poverty in its many dimensions – income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate

shelter, and exclusion – while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental

sustainability. These goals are set to be achieved by 2015 (Millennium Project, 2006).

Respondent is the person in the sample household who is responsible for food preparation of the

household the previous day.

Sustainable Development Goals, also known as “Global Goals”, is a set of 17 goals built upon the

success of the Millennium Development Goals, with addition of new areas such as climate

change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption, peace and justice, among

others. It came into effect on January 2016, and is aimed to be fulfilled by the year 2030

(United Nations Development Programme, 2016).

viii




LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1 Food Security: Eligibility and response rate of households 5

2 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Score: Philippines, 2015 6

3 Categories of food insecurity 7

4 FCS standard food group and current standard weights by the WFP 9

5 An example of a completed food consumption score template 10

6 World Food Programme Food Consumption Scores 10

7 Percent distribution of households by food security status and region:

Philippines, 2015

12

8 Percent distribution of households by food security status and socio-

demographic characteristics: Philippines, 2015 (n=41,282)

15

9 Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2015 20

10 Proportion of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS

by region: Philippines, 2015

21

11 Summary of food groups consumed by rank according to the

frequency of consumption: Philippines, 2015 22

12 Percent distribution of households by dietary diversity score:

Philippines, 2015

22

13 Proportion of households by intake of the nine (9) food groups and

region: Philippines, 2015

25

14 Mean number of days of consumption of the nine food groups by


26

15 Percent distribution of households by sources of the 16 food groups:

Philippines, 2015

27

16 Percent distribution of households consuming cereals by source and


28

ix





17 Percent distribution of households consuming Vitamin A-Rich

vegetables and tubers by source and region: Philippines, 2015

29

18 Percent distribution of households consuming white tubers and roots

by source and region: Philippines, 2015

30

19 Percent distribution of households consuming dark green leafy

vegetables by source and region: Philippines, 2015

30

20 Percent distribution of households consuming other vegetables by

source and region: Philippines, 2015

31

21 Percent distribution of households consuming Vitamin A-rich fruit by


31

22 Percent distribution of households consuming other fruits by source

and region: Philippines, 2015

32

23 Percent distribution of households consuming meats by source and


32

24 Percent distribution of households consuming organ meats by source


33

25 Percent distribution of households consuming eggs by source and


33

26 Percent distribution of households consuming fish and shellfish by


34

27 Percent distribution of households consuming legumes, nuts, and seeds


35

28 Percent distribution of households consuming milk and milk products


35

29 Percent distribution of households consuming oils and fats by source


36

30 Percent distribution of households consuming sugars and sweets by


36

31 Percent distribution of households consuming spices, condiments, and

beverages by source and region: Philippines, 2015

37

x





32 Percent distribution of households by frequency of cereal consumption


38

33 Percent distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich

vegetable and tuber consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

39

34 Percent distribution of households by frequency of white tuber

consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

39

35 Percent distribution of households by frequency of dark green leafy

vegetable consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

40

36 Percent distribution of households by frequency of other vegetable

consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

40

37 Percent distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich fruit


41

38 Percent distribution of households by frequency of other fruit


41

39 Percent distribution of households by frequency of meat and meat

product consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

42

40 Percent distribution of households by frequency of organ meat


42

41 Percent distribution of households by frequency of egg consumption

per region: Philippines, 2015

43

42 Percent distribution of households by frequency of fish and shellfish


43

43 Percent distribution of households by frequency of legumes, nuts, and

seeds consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

44

44 Percent distribution of households by frequency of milk and milk

product consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

44

45 Percent distribution of households by frequency of oil and fat


45

46 Percent distribution of households by frequency of sugar and sweets

consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

45

xi





47 Percent distribution of households by frequency of beverage,

condiments, and spices consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

46

48 Percent distribution of households by food consumption category per


47

49 Percent distribution of poorest households by food consumption

category per region: Philippines, 2015

48

50 Percent distribution of poor households by food consumption category


49

51 Percent distribution of middle income households by food

consumption category per region: Philippines, 2015

49

52 Percent distribution of rich households by food consumption category


50

53 Percent distribution of richest households by food consumption

category per region: Philippines, 2015

50

xii




LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Percent distribution of households by food security status:

Philippines, 2015

11

2 Proportion of food secure households by region: Philippines, 2015 13

3 Proportion of food secure households and the 95% confidence

interval by region: Philippines, 2015

13

4 Proportion of food secure households and the 95% confidence

interval by province: Philippines, 2015

14

5 Proportion of food secure households by socio-demographic

characteristics: Philippines, 2015

16

6 Percent distribution of households by frequency of experience based

on the HFIAS questionnaire: Philippines, 2015

17

7 Proportion of food secure households: Philippines, 2001-2015 18

8 Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2015 19

9 Proportion of households consuming the 12 food groups of the

HDDS: Philippines, 2015

20

10 Percent distribution of households by dietary diversity score:

Philippines, 2015

23

11 Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile:

Philippines, 2015

23

12 Proportion of households by intake of nine (9) food groups:

Philippines, 2015

24

13 Percent distribution of households by source of foods consumed:

Philippines, 2015

28

14 Percent distribution of households by food consumption category per


47

15 Percent distribution of households by wealth quintile and food

consumption category: Philippines, 2015

48

xiii




LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No. Title Page No.

1 Proportion of food secure households with standard error, confidence

interval, and coefficient of variation by region and province:

Philippines, 2015

56

2 Proportion of mildly food insecure households with standard error,

confidence interval, and coefficient of variation by region and

province: Philippines, 2015

58

3 Proportion of moderately food insecure households with standard

error, confidence interval, and coefficient of variation by region and


60

4 Percent distribution of severely food insecure households with

standard error, confidence interval, and coefficient of variation by

region and province: Philippines, 2015

62

5 Percent distribution of households who worry about food by region

and province: Philippines, 2015

64

6 Percent distribution of households who are unable to eat preferred

food by region and province: Philippines, 2015

66

7 Percent distribution of households who only ate a few kinds of food

by region and province: Philippines, 2015

68

8 Percent distribution of households who eat foods they do not really

want to eat by region and province: Philippines, 2015

70

9 Percent distribution of households with members who reduced the

size of meal consumed by region and province: Philippines, 2015

72

10 Percent distribution of households with members who ate fewer

meals by region and province: Philippines, 2015

74

11 Percent distribution of households who experienced having no food

of any kind in the household by region and province: Philippines,

2015

76

12 Percent distribution of households with members who experienced

going to sleep hungry by region and province: Philippines, 2015

78

13 Percent distribution of households with members who experienced

going a whole day and night without eating anything by region and


80

xiv




Appendix No. Title Page No.

14 Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile and


82

15 Proportion of households consuming the 16 food groups by region:

Philippines, 2015

84

16 Percent distribution of households by food consumption category by


85

17 Proportion of households with poor food consumption score with

standard error, confidence interval, and coefficient of variation by


87

18 Proportion of households with borderline food consumption score

with standard error, confidence interval, and coefficient of variation


89

19 Proportion of households with acceptable food consumption score

with standard error, confidence interval, and coefficient of variation


91

20 Percent distribution of households by food security status and socio-

demographic characteristics: Philippines, 2015 93

21 Household food security questionnaire 94

22 Household dietary diversity and food frequency questionnaire 96

1




SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

As of 2015, one out of three or 33.9% of Filipino households were food secure. More than

half (60.8%) of Filipino households never or rarely worried about obtaining enough food, however,

13.7% frequently experienced the opposite. About 11.4% of households often were unable to eat

foods they prefer, while 8.0% of households often eat food they do not really want. There were 33.9%

of households who limit the variety of food consumed on some occasions. To stretch limited food

supply, some households have members who reduced the size of meals eaten (27.2%), or ate fewer

meals (15.5%). In severe cases, some households experienced not having any food at home (6.8%),

had a member who went to sleep hungry (5.5%), or went through a day without eating anything

(2.8%).

The regions with the largest proportion of food secure households were CALABARZON

(44.4%) and Central Luzon (43.3%). On the other hand, ARMM had the highest rate of severely food

insecure households (44.5%) and the lowest number of food secure households (15.0%).

Households with less than five members (37.8%), resides in an urbanized location (40.1%),

and has a female household head (38.5%) were more food secure than their counterparts. Also,

households headed by professionals (67.4%) and college graduates (67.7%) were more food secure

than households headed by those working in the fisheries and agriculture sector (21.8%) and had low

or did not have any educational attainment (15.9%).

Households whose wealth category were in the highest tiers were found to be more food

secure compared to households in the poorest wealth category. Rich households comprised 42.6% of

the food secure population, while those in the richest category comprised 71.6% of the food secure

households in the country. Wealthy households tend to have the most diverse diets as well. Mean

dietary diversity scores for the middle-income (9.4 points), rich (9.7 points), and the richest (10.2

points) households were among the country’s highest.

The food groups that were consumed by most households in the Philippines include cereals

and cereal products (99.8%); meat and fish (98.8%); vegetables (97.9%); spices, beverages, and

condiments (95.8%); and oils (90.4%). Majority of households acquired their consumed food groups

such as spices, condiments, and beverages (98.5%); oils and sweets (both 98.4%); milk (98.1%) eggs

(93.7%); and fish (92.2%) by purchasing. Some households who consume food groups such as dark

green leafy vegetables (46.0%), vitamin A-rich fruits (31.6%), and other vegetables (21.0%) obtained

their supply mostly through own production. Though a vast majority of the Filipino population still

rely on purchases, self-produced rice were consumed the most in Cagayan Valley (25.3%) and CAR

(24.1%).

2




INTRODUCTION

Food security ensures that the basic human need for sustenance is met by enabling everyone

to have a stable access to various foods that are of good quality, safe, affordable, and in sufficient

quantities; and that it is utilized well. Freedom from hunger is a fundamental human right; however,

805 million people worldwide still go hungry each day (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014).

The global community made a commitment to lessen the number of hungry people through

the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Since its launch in the year 2000, the world has seen

more and more populations whose living conditions had improved through the years that followed.

The year 2015 is the target period set to achieve these goals. According to the United Nation’s

Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, the proportion of undernourished people in the

developing regions has fallen by almost half since 1990. However, despite the best efforts poured in

by numerous government and non-government agencies, the Philippines failed to meet the MDG 1,

which was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

In succession to the MDG, the United Nations drafted a new set of targets called the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Not only do these goals cover what the MDG is yet to

achieve; they also aim to make sure that the world sustains enough resources and remain habitable for

future generations. Major targets of SDG were to end hunger, promote food security and sustainable

agriculture, among others.

For years, the Food and Nutrition Research Institute has committed itself to a mission of

providing accurate, reliable, and timely information in food, health, and nutrition for every Filipino

citizen through the development of the National Nutrition Survey (NNS) every five years, and the

Updating Survey of the Nutritional Status of Filipino Children every 2-3 years in between. This

monograph presents the results of the Food Security component of the 2015 Updating Survey of the

Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and Other Population Groups. Data on household food security

status using experienced-based scale will be used to complement dietary data to assess progress on

dietary adequacy under MDG 1. Likewise, this can serve as baseline information for the MDG

successor which is the SDG.

From 2001-2011, FNRI used the Radimer-Cornell tool to assess food insecurity, and was

replaced by the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) in the succeeding surveys. To

assess the dietary diversity of Filipino households, the Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) and food

frequency questionnaire through the use of Food Consumption Score (FCS) were utilized upon the

recommendation and support of the World Food Programme (WFP).

The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) was first used in the United States to

estimate the prevalence of food security, and was later found out to be a feasible and useful approach

in developing countries as well. The nine generic questions identified by the Food and Nutrition

Technical Assistance (FANTA) and its partners from the U.S. Household Food Security Survey

Module (US HFSSM) generally represent the domains of household food insecurity and can be used

to categorize the household based on the severity of food insecurity, and provides information on the

prevalence and magnitude of food insecurity at the household level (Coates, et al., 2007).

3




The Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) and food frequency questionnaire aim to estimate

whether the household is able to access items from the basic food groups in their habitual diet (FNRI,

2015). They also provide information on the household’s economic access to food, and at the same

time, describe the food access of households in terms of type or variety, frequency, and mechanism on

how food was accessed (FNRI, 2013).The Food Consumption Score represents the dietary diversity

and nutrient value of the food that the household eats, and is based on the number of food groups the

household consumed over a period of time, the number of times a specific food group is consumed,

and its relative nutritional importance (WFP, 2009).

4




METHODOLOGY

Sampling Design

The 2015 Updating of Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and Other Population Groups

covered 17 Regions and 80 provinces including NCR. The province of Batanes was excluded for

logistic reasons. Data collection was conducted from July 20, 2015 to November 30, 2015.

The survey adopted the Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly the National Statistics

Office, NSO) Master Sample (MS) which utilized the 2015 Labor Force Survey (LFS) Households.

The statistical design employed a stratified three-stage sampling. The first stage of the

sampling was the selection of the Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) which consisted of one barangay or

contiguous barangays with at least 500 households each. From these PSUs, enumeration areas (EAs)

with 150-200 households were identified from which housing units were randomly selected. The third

and final stage was the random selection of the households, which became the ultimate sampling unit

(Barcenas, 2004). Overall, about 42,310 sample households were covered in the survey.

The detailed sampling design and coverage is presented in the Overview of the 2015

Updating of Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and Other Population Groups.

Scope and Coverage

For this component, all of the four replicates of the Master Sample were covered with a total

of 48,178 eligible households, out of which, 41,282 households were respondents for food security.

Households who purchased and consumed food outside the home, which totaled to 389, were

excluded from the Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) and Food Frequency questionnaires. Hence,

only 40,893 households participated in the HDD and Food Frequency questionnaires. Overall, the

Food Security Survey had 85.7% response rate as shown in Table 1. Northern Mindanao had the

highest response rate (96.3%) while ARMM had the lowest (65.6%).

5




Table 1. Food Security: Eligibility and response rate of households

Region Eligible

(No. of households)

Response

(No. of respondent households) % Response

Philippines 48,178 41,282 85.7

NCR 4,628 3,307 71.5

CAR 2,032 1,704 83.9

Ilocos Region 2,649 2,367 89.4

Cagayan Valley 2,473 2,308 93.3

Central Luzon 3,971 3,450 86.9

CALABARZON 4,882 4,328 88.7

MIMAROPA 1,469 1,316 89.6

Bicol 2,872 2,633 91.7

Western Visayas 3,323 3,141 94.5

Central Visayas 3,094 2,301 74.4

Eastern Visayas 2,720 2,461 90.5

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,996 1,745 87.4

Northern Mindanao 2,258 2,175 96.3

Davao 2,590 2,222 85.8

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,497 2,163 86.6

ARMM 2,644 1,734 65.6

CARAGA 2,080 1,927 92.6

Survey Methods

Two sets of pre-tested questionnaires were used in assessing food security status of

households: (1) Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), and (2) Household Dietary

Diversity and Food Frequency Questionnaire (See attached questionnaire in Appendix 21 and 22).

Both questionnaires were available in Tagalog, English, and other local dialects such as Cebuano,

Ilocano, and Bisaya. The questionnaires were administered by professionally-trained field researchers

(nutritionist-dietitians, nurses) through face-to-face interviews using the Data Collection System

(DCS) software installed in computer netbooks (e-DCS).

The respondent was identified as the person responsible mainly for food preparation of the

household. If that person was not available at the moment of interview, another adult member who

was present and also plays a role in food preparation of the household was selected to substitute for

the main respondent. Collected data were checked for completeness and correctness by the team

leader before data was transmitted to FNRI.

In the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) questionnaire, nine occurrence

questions were asked based from the household’s food consumption during the previous month,

followed by questions on how often the conditions were experienced by the household.

In the Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) and Food Frequency Questionnaire, the frequency

of consumption of 16 food groups and the most commonly consumed food item per food group were

asked based on a 7-day recall period. Foods included were those prepared and consumed at home; or

prepared at home and consumed outside; or purchased or gathered outside and consumed at home.

However, foods both purchased and consumed outside the home were excluded. Respondents were

also asked about the primary source or means of procuring foods categorized as follows: a)

purchased/bought; b) own produce; c) hunted, fished or gathered; d) borrowed (when there is an

intention to pay back the food in cash or in kind); e) exchanged for labor (Food for Work); f) bartered

(in exchange for another food item); g) received as gift or as food aid; or h) given for free.

6




Probing questions were asked for special foods given to children or lactating/pregnant women

and for added foods such as sugar in tea, or oil in mixed dishes or fried foods. If a mixed dish was

eaten, all the ingredients of the dish eaten were asked and recorded.

Ethical Review

The project entitled “2015 Updating of Nutritional Status of Filipino Children and Other

Population Groups” was granted approval by the FNRI Institutional Ethics and Review Committee

(FNRI-IERC) last July 20, 2015.

Written consent to participate in the 2015 Survey was obtained from the respondents and

subjects (through the mother or guardian for children six years old and below prior to the interview

and other measurements). An assent form was also given for children ages six to 12 years old. The

Informed Consent and Assent Form explained the background and objectives of the survey, the data

collection procedures, involved risks (any undesirable effect that may result or invasion

circumstances, e.g., expected duration of the interview with respondent) and benefits of participation,

confidentiality of information, option to withdraw without penalty or consequences, and the

respondent’s written consent.

PSA Review and Approval

The Philippine Statistics Authority granted clearance for the 2015 Updating Survey – Food

Security Questionnaires last July 15, 2015 (See 2015 Updating Survey Overview Monograph).

Data Processing and Analysis

Data were cleaned and validated upon reception. Analysis was done using STATA version

13. Different scoring and categories were used to gauge the level of food insecurity of the Filipino

households.

The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) provides information on the

prevalence and magnitude of food insecurity at the household level. The standard procedure for

scoring is shown in Table 2; the total HFIAS score for each household could range from 0 (food

security) to 27 (maximum food insecurity). The higher the score, the more food insecure the

household becomes (Coates et al., 2007).

Table 2. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Score: Philippines, 2015

Frequency of Occurrence Scoring (pts.)

Never occurred (0 times) 0

Rarely (1-2 times) 1

Sometimes (3-10 times) 2

Often (>10 times) 3

*Reference period used was past 30 days.

7




The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale is categorized into four levels: food secure,

mildly, moderately, and severely food insecure. The households increase their level of food insecurity

when they experience adverse conditions more severely or more frequently.

As illustrated in Table 3, a food secure household does not experience any of the conditions

or just rarely worries about food. A household becomes mildly food insecure if it sometimes or often

worries about food, and/or is unable to eat preferred foods, and/or rarely experiences having to eat

less varied foods, and/or eat foods they really do not want to eat. A moderately food insecure

household sacrifices food quality, as it sometimes or often eats a less varied diet and/or undesirable

foods, and starts to cut back on the quantity of foods by reducing the meal portion or the number of

meals, rarely or sometimes, but it does not experience the three most severe conditions. A severely

food insecure household often cuts back the quantity of foods and experiences the three most severe

conditions (running out of food, going to sleep hungry and not eating for the whole day). Any

household which experiences any of the three severe conditions is already considered severely food

insecure (Coates et al., 2007).

Table 3. Categories of food insecurity1

Situation(s) experienced in the past month

Frequency

Rarely 1-2x

Sometimes 3-10x

Often >10x

1. Worry about food

2. Unable to eat preferred foods

3. Eat just a few kinds of foods

4. Eat foods they really do not want to eat

5. Eat a smaller meal

6. Eat fewer meals in a day

7. No food of any kind in the household

8. Go to sleep hungry

9. Go a whole day and night without eating

The Diet Diversity questionnaire provides a better understanding of the access of households

to various food items as well as the quality of food access in terms of diversity and food frequency

using the Food Consumption Score (FCS) which was developed by World Food Programme (WFP).

1 Households Food Insecurity Access Scale Indicator Guide, v.3

Legend: Food Secure Mild Moderate Severe

1 Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Indicator Guide, v.3

8




Sixteen (16) food groups were used to measure the diversity of food consumed by the

household as shown in the illustration below2:

2 Sources of images:

FNRI-DOST

Google Images

9




As cited by Nueva España, et al. (2014), “the higher the diet diversity score, the more varied

the diet and the higher the possibility that different nutrients will be met because no single food could

provide all nutrients needed by the body”, as “each particular food group contains nutrients that

complement the nutrients contained in other foods”.

The FCS is a frequency-weighted diet diversity score calculated using the frequency of

consumption of different food groups consumed by a household during the seven days before the

survey. The FCS were calculated based on the diversity of household’s consumption of nine food

groups – main staples, vegetables, fruits, meat and fish, oils, condiments, sugar, milk and pulses.

These were weighted according to the quality of nutrients that it brings to the diet, multiplied by the

frequency (number of days) of consumption. This weighing gives more importance to foods such as

meat and fish because they have the highest quality protein, and easily absorbable micronutrients;

while it gives lesser importance to food such as sugar because it only contains calories and is usually

consumed in small quantities.

To compute for the FCS, the frequency of consumption is multiplied by the weight assigned

to each specific food group as shown in Table 4. For example, for the past seven (7) days, the

household consumed rice and oil on a daily basis (7 days), consumed meat for three (3) days, and

consumed vegetables for two (2) days. These frequencies are multiplied by the corresponding weight

of the food group, and then these scores are summed into one composite score (Table 5.) FCS scores

are divided into three categories: 0-28 points indicate poor food consumption, more than 28-42 points

indicate borderline food consumption, and more than 42 points indicate acceptable food consumption.

A score beyond 42 implies that all food groups were consumed every day for the past seven days. The

composite score was then compared to the pre-established threshold that indicates the household’s

food consumption status (Table 6).

Table 4. FCS standard food group and current standard weights by the WFP

Food Items (examples) Food Groups (Definitive)

Weight (Definitive)

1

Rice, bread, noodles, biscuits, cookies or any rice and cereal products like biko, suman (malagkit), puto, noodles/pasta, porridge (arrozcaldo/champorado) and others Main Staples 2

Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers and plantains

2 Beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds or foods made from these like pork and beans, guisantes de lata and others

Pulses 3

3 Vegetables, leaves Vegetables 1

4 Fruits Fruit 1

5 Beef, goat, poultry, eggs, fish, and shellfish Meat and Fish 4

6 Milk, yogurt and other dairy Milk 4

7 Sugar and sugar products, honey Sugar 0.5

8 Oils, fats, and butter Oil 0.5

9 Spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish powder, small amounts of milk for tea

Condiments 0

10




Table 5. An example of a completed food consumption score template

Food Items (examples)

Food Groups (Definitive)

Weight (A)

Number of days eaten in the past

7 days (B) Score A x B

1

Rice, bread, noodles, biscuits, cookies or any rice and cereal products like biko, suman (malagkit), puto, noodles/pasta, porridge (arrozcaldo/champorado) and others

Main Staples 2 7 14

Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers and plantains

2 Beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds or foods made from these like pork and beans, guisantes de lata and others

Pulses 3 0 0

3 Vegetables, leaves Vegetables 1 2 2

4 Fruits Fruit 1 0 0

5 Beef, goat, poultry, eggs, fish, and shellfish Meat and Fish 4 3 12

6 Milk, yogurt and other dairy Milk 4 0 0

7 Sugar and sugar products, honey Sugar 0.5 0 0

8 Oils, fats, and butter Oil 0.5 7 3.5

9 Spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish powder, small amounts of milk for tea

Condiments 0 0 0

Composite Score 26

Households with scores below 28 are considered to have poor food consumption. Those with

scores between 28 and 42 have borderline food consumption, while scores above 42 were considered

to have acceptable food consumption (Table 6).

Table 6. World Food Programme Food Consumption Scores

Score Food Consumption Groups

0-28 Poor Food Consumption

>28 to 42 Borderline Food Consumption

>42 Acceptable Food Consumption

11




RESULTS

Household Food Security using HFIAS

Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to

sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active

and healthy life (World Food Summit, 1996). This definition embodies the four pillars of food

security: (1) physical availability of food; (2) economic and physical access to food; (3) food

utilization; and, (4) stability of these three dimensions over time (FAO, 2008).

Nationwide, there were 33.9% households that were food secure, with CALABARZON

(44.4%) and Central Luzon (43.3%) being the two regions with the largest proportions (Figure 2). On

the other hand, 21.9% of households in the Philippines were severely food insecure, with ARMM as

the region having the highest proportion of severely food insecure households at 44.5% (Table 7). The

rates of moderately food insecure households in most regions were almost equal to the proportions of

food secure households, and the number of severely food insecure homes surpasses the number of

mildly food insecure households by 9.6% (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percent distribution of households by food security status: Philippines, 2015

33.9%

12.3% 31.9%

21.9% Food Secure

Mildly Food Insecure

Moderately Food Insecure

Severely Food Insecure

ONE out of THREE, or 33.9%

of households in the

Philippines are food secure

12




Among the seventeen regions in the Philippines, CALABARZON had the largest proportion

of food secure households (44.4%), followed by Central Luzon (43.3%), CAR (39.3%), and NCR

(36.1%) (Figure 2). ARMM, on the other hand, had the country’s smallest population of food secure

households at only 15.0%. Armed conflict is one of the major challenges faced in the development of

this region, coupled with heavy flooding during rainy seasons. These incidences leave several families

displaced with unfavorable living conditions (World Food Programme, 2016). Fairly high rates of

moderate food insecurity were seen in Caraga (41.4%), Western Visayas (40.3%), Bicol (38.3%),

Zamboanga Peninsula (37.9%), Eastern Visayas (37.8%), and SOCCSKSARGEN (37.5%) (Table 7).

Table 7. Percent distribution of households by food security status and region: Philippines,

2015

Region n

Food Security Status

Food Secure Mildly Food

Insecure Moderately

Food Insecure Severely Food

Insecure

Philippines 41,282 33.9 12.3 31.9 21.9

NCR 3,307 36.1 11.2 23.5 29.2

CAR 1,704 39.3 19.3 29.8 11.6

Ilocos 2,367 32.6 14.6 30.0 22.8

Cagayan Valley 2,308 29.4 14.4 34.7 21.4

Central Luzon 3,450 43.3 14.0 27.6 15.1

CALABARZON 4,328 44.4 12.6 24.0 19.0

MIMAROPA 1,316 30.1 11.7 32.2 26.0

Bicol 2,633 29.7 14.2 38.3 17.8

Western Visayas 3,141 23.8 13.4 40.3 22.5

Central Visayas 2,301 31.7 12.0 35.2 21.1

Eastern Visayas 2,461 27.7 12.2 37.8 22.4

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,745 33.2 13.3 37.9 15.7

Northern Mindanao 2,175 35.8 8.5 34.3 21.4

Davao 2,222 33.3 12.7 36.0 18.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,163 29.5 9.5 37.5 23.6

ARMM 1,734 15.0 5.8 34.7 44.5

Caraga 1,927 27.7 10.3 41.4 20.6

13




Figure 2. Proportion of food secure households by region: Philippines, 2015

On a 95% confidence interval, the regions of CALABARZON, Central Luzon, and Cordillera

Administrative Region had significantly higher proportion of food secure households than the national

estimate of 33.9%. Conversely, ARMM, Western Visayas, Eastern Visayas, and CARAGA had the

lowest significant proportions of food secure households compared to the national estimate (Figure 3).

Among provinces, Bataan had a significantly higher proportion of food secure households, while

Lanao del Sur had the significantly lowest estimate (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Proportion of food secure households and the 95% confidence interval by region: Philippines, 2015

27.7 15.0

29.5 33.3

35.8 33.2

27.7 31.7

23.8 29.7 30.1

44.4 43.3

29.4 32.6

39.3 36.1

33.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

CaragaARMM

SOCCSKSARGENDavao

Northern MindanaoZamboanga Peninsula

Eastern VisayasCentral Visayas

Western VisayasBicol

MIMAROPACALABARZONCentral Luzon

Cagayan ValleyIlocos

CARNCR

Philippines

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50 Philippines: 33.9%

14




Figure 4. Proportion of food secure households and the 95% confidence interval by province: Philippines, 2015

The socio-demographic characteristics of a household contribute to its food security. It has

been found that households with more than five (5) members were more likely to be severely food

insecure (26.3%) compared to households with fewer than five members (19.7%) (Table 8). A larger

proportion of food secure households were found among those residing in urban areas (40.1%), and

among the rich (42.6%) and richest (71.6%) wealth quintiles (Table 8 and Figure 5). The proportion

of food secure households headed by a female is 5.9% greater than those headed by a male (Table 8).

The occupation of the household head can also be an indicator to the household’s food

security status; a better job means more income, thus more budget allowance for food. Households

headed by professionals such as doctors, lawyers, etc. were the most food secure (67.4%), followed

by members of the armed forces (62.9%), and managers such as farm managers, project managers,

administrative services managers, corporate managers, etc. (59.6%). Households headed by clerical

support workers (51.1%), and technicians and associate professionals (50.9%) were also fairly food

secure. On the other hand, households with heads whose occupations involved elementary jobs

(19.8%) and those involved in agricultural, forestry, and fisheries (21.8%) were the least food secure.

Meanwhile, the number food secure household heads that has no occupation which also includes

pensioners was 20.7% greater than those with elementary jobs (Table 8 and Figure 5).

A rising trend in the rates of food secure households can be observed as the educational

attainment of the household head increases. Household heads who graduated college were mostly

food secure (67.7%), compared to those without any educational attainment (15.9%) (Table 8 and

Figure 5).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ph

ilip

pin

esL

anao

del

Su

rS

ulu

Mag

uin

dan

aoN

egro

s O

ccid

enta

lM

ou

nta

in P

rovi

nce

Neg

ros

Ori

enta

lM

asb

ate

So

rso

go

nS

uri

gao

del

Su

rC

apiz

Eas

tern

Sam

arA

klan

Ag

usa

n d

el S

ur

No

rth

Co

tab

ato

Qu

irin

oC

om

po

stel

la V

alle

yS

ult

an K

ud

arat

Occ

iden

tal M

ind

oro

Zam

bal

esW

este

rn S

amar

An

tiq

ue

Sar

ang

ani

Siq

uijo

rS

ou

ther

n L

eyte

Ori

enta

l Min

do

roN

ort

her

n S

amar

Taw

i-ta

wi

Dav

ao O

rien

tal

Gu

imar

asIlo

iloIs

abel

aZ

amb

oan

ga

del

No

rte

Ley

teC

agay

anB

uki

dn

on

Iloco

s N

ort

eP

alaw

anK

alin

ga

La

Un

ion

Cam

arin

es N

ort

eIf

ug

aoC

atan

du

anes

Su

rig

ao d

el N

ort

eZ

amb

oan

ga

Sib

ug

ayP

ang

asin

anA

bra

Ag

usa

n d

el N

ort

eA

lbay

Cam

arin

es S

ur

Lan

ao d

el N

ort

eD

avao

del

No

rte

Ceb

uZ

amb

oan

ga

del

Su

rB

asila

nN

CR

Dav

ao d

el S

ur

Tar

lac

Nu

eva

Viz

caya

Mar

ind

uq

ue

Iloco

s S

ur

Bo

ho

lA

pay

aoM

isam

is O

rien

tal

Ro

mb

lon

So

uth

Co

tab

ato

Qu

ezo

nM

isam

is O

ccid

enta

lB

ilira

nN

uev

a E

cija

Pam

pan

ga

Bat

ang

asC

avit

eR

izal

Bu

laca

nL

agu

na

Ben

gu

etC

amig

uin

Au

rora

Bat

aan

15




Table 8: Percent distribution of households by food security status and socio-demographic characteristics: Philippines, 2015 (n=41,282)

Socio-demographic Characteristics


Food Secure Mildly Food

Insecure Moderately Food

Insecure Severely Food

Insecure

Philippines 33.9 12.3 31.9 21.9

Household Size

>5 25.9 12.0 35.8 26.3

≤5 37.8 12.5 30.0 19.7

Place of Residence

Rural 28.0 12.3 36.6 23.2

Urban 40.1 12.4 27.0 20.6

Wealth Quintile

Poorest 11.5 8.5 40.9 39.1

Poor 18.0 11.7 41.0 29.3

Middle 25.8 15.0 37.7 21.5

Rich 42.6 15.5 28.2 13.7

Richest 71.6 11.1 11.7 5.7

Sex of Household Head

Male 32.6 12.5 32.7 22.2

Female 38.5 11.8 28.8 20.9

Occupation of Household Head

Armed forces 62.9 12.3 18.4 6.5

Managers 59.6 10.8 20.2 9.4

Professionals 67.4 11.7 15.2 5.7

Technicians and associate professionals

50.9 13.7 22.5 12.9

Clerical support workers 51.1 12.4 22.7 13.8

Service and sales workers 35.4 13.6 30.9 20.1

Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

21.8 11.6 39.4 27.2

Craft and related trades workers 29.0 14.4 34.7 22.0

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

35.9 13.4 30.5 20.3

Elementary occupations 19.8 12.3 38.1 29.8

No Occupation 40.5 11.8 27.3 20.4

Educational Attainment of Household Head

No Grade Completed 15.9 6.8 34.0 43.3

Elementary Undergraduate 19.6 10.4 37.9 32.1

Elementary Graduate 25.8 13.0 36.6 24.6

HS Undergraduate 27.2 12.3 36.6 24.0

HS Graduate 34.7 14.1 32.3 18.8

Vocational Undergraduate 43.3 12.4 27.4 17.0

Vocational Graduate 46.1 15.2 26.7 12.0

College Undergraduate 50.5 12.8 24.5 12.2

College Graduate 67.7 11.3 13.5 7.5

16




Pro

po

rtio

n o

f fo

od

se

cu

re h

ou

seh

old

s b

y s

ocio

-de

mo

gra

ph

ic c

hara

cte

risti

cs:

Ph

ilip

pin

es, 2

015

17




Figure 6 shows the percentage of households who experienced food insecurity based on nine

occurrence questions of the HFIAS. Around 60.8% of Filipinos never or rarely worried about

obtaining the next meal to eat, while 13.7% often experienced the opposite. The proportion of

households who were unable to eat preferred food on occasion was 25.4%, while 33.9% sometimes or

often limited the variety of food consumed, usually to what was only available on hand.

Occurrence Questions

1. Did you worry that your household would not have enough food?

2. Were you or any household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you prefer because of lack of resources?

3. Did you or any household member has to eat a limited variety of foods due to lack of resources?

4. Did you or any household member had to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of lack of resources to obtain other types of food?

5. Did you or any household member had to eat smaller meal than you felt needed because there was not enough food?

6. Did you or any household member had to eat fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food?

7. Was there ever no food of any kind in your household because of lack of resources to get food?

8. Did you or any household member goes to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food?

9. Did you or any household member goes a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food?

Figure 6. Percent distribution of households by frequency of experience based on HFIAS questionnaire: Philippines, 2015

Optimum food security does not only include having a steady access to a wide assortment of

foods. Aside from variety, foods must be desirable as well. During the survey, there were 7.8% of

households who often eat unwanted food, mostly due to lack of income or other means to obtain

better type or quality of food (Figure 6).

More than one-fourth or 27.2% of households reduced the amount of food taken in a meal

occasionally or often, for reasons such as insufficient food supply, inadequate means to acquire ample

amounts of food, or just so other family members could obtain a fair share of the day’s meal.

Meanwhile, 15.5% of households sometimes or often ate fewer than the typical number of meals in a

day for the very same reasons (Figure 6).

A segment of the population (1.6%) frequently experienced having empty food stocks at

home. There were households who had at least one member who sometimes (4.3%) or often (1.2%)

went to bed on an empty stomach. While the vast majority (93.0%) of households did not go about the

whole day without eating any food, the remaining 7.0% had experienced this situation at least once

(Figure 6).

93.0

87.5

84.9

71.8

54.6

51.7

45.8

40.9

37.6

4.3

7.0

8.3

12.7

18.1

19.3

20.3

22.3

23.2

4.3

5.2

11.4

20.1

21.2

23.9

25.4

25.5

0.7

1.2

1.6

4.1

7.1

7.8

10.0

11.4

13.7

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Frequency of Experience

No Yes, rare Yes, sometimes Yes, often

18




The attainment of food security for all Filipinos made a slow progress. A steady, gradual

increase in the proportion of food secure households was observed from 2001 (15.6%) to 2013

(34.1%). A minor decline of 0.2%, although not statistically significant, was observed in 2015 at

33.9% (Figure 7). The decline may be attributed, among other factors, to the series of natural

calamities such as strong typhoons that devastated the Philippines few years prior, leaving negative

impact on the social and economic conditions of the people in affected areas. Note that a different

assessment tool and reference period was used in previous surveys.

Figure 7. Proportion of food secure households: Philippines, 2001-2015

15.6

23.0

27.3

30.7

34.1 33.9

0

10

20

30

40

2001 2003 2008 2011 2013 2015

Year

Reference period for food security: 2001-2003: past 6 months, Radimer/Cornell Tool 2008-2011: past 3 months, Radimer/Cornell Tool 2013 and 2015: past month (30 days), HFIAS

Perc

an

tag

e

19




Household Dietary Diversity

Dietary diversity represents the number of food groups consumed by a household over a

given period, and for this survey, it refers to the previous week or previous seven (7) days prior to the

interview. A score or point is given for every food group consumed by the household. This score is a

proxy measure of household’s food access and the quality of their diet.

Also included were information on how consumed food groups were accessed, the frequency

of consumption, and mechanisms on how these food groups were obtained.

Figure 8. Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2015

Filipinos generally consume around nine different food groups per week (Table 9 and Figure

8). Among the regions, households in Cagayan Valley and Central Luzon has the most varied diet,

both having the highest mean dietary diversity score of 9.8 points. On the other hand, ARMM scored

the lowest at only 7.8 points, which implies that households in this region likely consume monotonous

diets. This was followed by Eastern Visayas (8.7) and MIMAROPA (8.9) (Table 9).

9.3

7.8

9.1

9.5

9.1

9.2

8.7

9.2

9.7

9.3

8.9

9.4

9.8

9.8

9.5

9.4

9.6

9.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Caraga

ARMM

SOCCSKSARGEN

Davao

Northern Mindanao

Zamboanga Peninsula

Eastern Visayas

Central Visayas

Western Visayas

Bicol

MIMAROPA

CALABARZON

Central Luzon

Cagayan Valley

Ilocos

CAR

NCR

Philippines

Percentage

20




Table 9. Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2015

Region n

Dietary Diversity Score

Mean SE 95% CI

CV LL UL

Philippines 40,893 9.4 2.3 9.3 9.4 0.2

NCR 3,213 9.6 5.3 9.5 9.7 0.5

CAR 1,706 9.4 8.6 9.2 9.6 0.9

Ilocos 2,363 9.5 10.2 9.3 9.7 1.1

Cagayan Valley 2,304 9.8 6.5 9.6 9.9 0.7

Central Luzon 3,427 9.8 4.8 9.7 9.9 0.5

CALABARZON 4,269 9.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 0.9

MIMAROPA 1,293 8.9 10.5 8.7 9.1 1.2

Bicol 2,632 9.3 7.2 9.2 9.4 0.8

Western Visayas 3,135 9.7 6.6 9.6 9.8 0.7

Central Visayas 2,275 9.2 9.4 9.0 9.3 1.0

Eastern Visayas 2,353 8.7 10.7 8.5 8.9 1.2

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.4 1.0

Northern Mindanao 2,171 9.1 13.8 8.8 9.3 1.5

Davao 2,217 9.5 8.1 9.4 9.7 0.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 9.1 8.1 9.0 9.3 0.9

ARMM 1,727 7.8 14.4 7.5 8.1 1.8

Caraga 1,921 9.3 10.1 9.1 9.5 1.1

The results for the weekly food recall reveals that the most commonly consumed food groups

were cereals, cereal products, and grains (99.7%) such as rice, bread, biscuits, noodles, corn, and other

similar products (Figure 9). Majority of households also consumed vegetables (97.9%), followed by

beverages, spices, and condiments group (95.8%), fish and other seafood (90.8%), and oils and fats

(90.4%).

Figure 9. Proportion of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS: Philippines,

2015

Based on the national estimates (Table 10), cereals were the most common food group

consumed by almost all households (99.7%), followed by vegetables, which were consumed by

97.9%, and spices, condiments, and beverages as consumed by 95.8% of households. The least

consumed food groups were legumes, nuts and seeds (39.7%) with Eastern Visayas having the lowest

proportion (24.7%) of consumers. On the other hand, white tubers and roots, and dairy products, were

consumed by about 5 in every 10 households. Among all regions, ARMM has the lowest proportion

of households consuming almost all of the food groups.

95.8

81.3

90.4

50.9

39.7

90.8

80.6

78.8

81.2

97.9

48.4

99.7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Spices, condiments beverages

Sweets

Oils and fats

Milk and milk products

Legumes, nuts and seeds

Fish and other seafood

Eggs

Meat

Fruits

Vegetables

White tubers and roots

Cereals

Percentage

Table 10. Proportion of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS by region: Philippines, 2015

Region n

Dietary Diversity Food Group

Cereals

White Tubers

and Roots

Vegetables Fruits Meat Eggs Fish and

Other Seafood

Legumes, Nuts and

Seeds

Milk and Milk

Products

Oils and Fats

Sweets Spices,

Condiments Beverages

Philippines 40,893 99.7 48.4 97.9 81.2 78.8 80.6 90.8 39.7 50.9 90.4 81.3 95.8

NCR 3,213 99.5 58.2 96.7 86.7 93.4 86.7 86.6 39.5 62.1 89.8 74.1 91.3

CAR 1,706 99.8 49.9 97.3 80.8 85.1 75.9 77.2 48.5 47.7 93.5 88.1 97.4

Ilocos 2,363 99.5 48.1 98.8 76.9 84.5 83.7 87.3 49.1 46.7 92.1 84.9 95.8

Cagayan Valley 2,304 99.8 44.7 99.2 87.4 87.8 81.6 85.0 57.5 51.1 93.5 91.0 98.3

Central Luzon 3,427 99.6 50.4 98.6 83.5 91.0 90.4 91.4 45.8 51.6 94.8 82.5 97.4

CALABARZON 4,269 99.8 53.2 96.9 80.9 86.6 85.8 91.0 36.5 52.2 88.8 72.8 94.7

MIMAROPA 1,293 99.3 39.4 98.6 78.4 69.3 73.3 89.9 36.2 45.8 85.1 81.5 95.4

Bicol 2,632 99.4 47.5 98.9 80.5 77.0 75.8 91.0 28.6 58.1 91.6 85.8 96.2

Western Visayas 3,135 99.9 47.8 99.6 85.1 76.7 80.2 94.9 48.2 56.6 94.1 89.7 98.8

Central Visayas 2,275 99.6 38.6 99.1 75.6 73.1 77.2 94.1 40.8 55.5 86.1 81.1 95.3

Eastern Visayas 2,353 99.7 41.1 98.2 67.9 71.1 71.0 95.6 24.7 44.1 85.7 75.6 93.9

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 99.8 49.7 99.1 79.0 68.9 75.2 94.0 42.2 47.1 88.4 82.8 98.0

Northern Mindanao 2,171 99.5 47.4 98.2 81.2 70.0 76.7 90.8 35.9 45.0 89.7 75.4 96.5

Davao 2,217 99.7 43.0 98.7 86.2 76.2 81.5 93.9 41.3 52.4 93.7 87.2 98.2

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 99.8 39.9 99.5 85.4 66.0 75.9 91.6 35.9 40.8 89.7 89.0 98.1

ARMM 1,727 99.9 47.7 87.7 66.7 27.2 56.4 90.0 25.8 17.2 82.5 84.6 94.4

Caraga 1,921 99.7 46.1 98.8 85.7 71.1 79.7 92.0 34.0 51.3 91.6 81.9 96.7

21

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

5

22




To measure the dietary diversity of households, 12 food groups were ranked based on

frequency of consumption, and were divided into three categories (Table 11). Staples, vegetables,

fish, beverages, and spices are often found in every meal, and are classified as the initial group. As a

household’s diet varies, more food groups are included, such as oils, sweets, fruits, and eggs (yellow

highlight). Households who consumed around 6-8 food groups in a week are considered to have

borderline food consumption. A diet including all previously mentioned food groups, with addition of

meat, milk, tubers, and legumes is considered well-diverse, and is therefore categorized to have

“acceptable” food consumption.

Table 11. Summary of food groups consumed by rank according to the frequency of consumption: Philippines, 2015

Dietary Diversity Score Food Groups

Consuming 1- 4 Groups Consuming 5-8 Groups Consuming 9-12 Groups

Staples Staples Staples Vegetables Vegetables Vegetables Fish Fish Fish Beverages, Condiments, Spices Beverages, Condiments, Spices Beverages, Condiments, Spices

Oils Oils Sweets Sweets Fruits Fruits Egg Egg Meat Milk Tubers Legumes

Table 12 shows the percentage distribution of households per region according to the three

Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) categories. Nationwide, seven (7) out of ten (10) households

consumed nine (9) to twelve (12) different types of food groups per week. Among regions (Figure

10), Cagayan Valley (80.0%) had the largest proportion of households who consumed the most

diverse food group category followed by Central Luzon (79.5%) and Western Visayas (77.2%). On

the contrary, ARMM (4.8%) had the highest rates of households who consumed only one to four food

groups in a week, followed by MIMAROPA and Eastern Visayas (both at 3.7%) and Northern

Mindanao (3.3%). ARMM also lagged behind in terms of the number of households consuming nine

to twelve food groups at only 37.5%.

Table 12. Percent distribution of households by dietary diversity score: Philippines, 2015

Region n Dietary Diversity Score Category

1 to 4 Group 5 to 8 Group 9 to 12 Group

Philippines 40,893 1.8 28.0 70.2

NCR 3,213 1.9 22.7 75.3 CAR 1,706 1.1 28.0 71.0 Ilocos 2,363 1.8 25.8 72.5 Cagayan Valley 2,304 0.7 19.3 80.0 Central Luzon 3,427 0.7 19.7 79.5 CALABARZON 4,269 2.0 27.6 70.5 MIMAROPA 1,293 3.7 33.4 62.9 Bicol 2,632 0.8 29.2 70.0 Western Visayas 3,135 0.5 22.4 77.2 Central Visayas 2,275 2.5 31.1 66.4 Eastern Visayas 2,353 3.7 38.8 57.5 Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 1.9 31.0 67.1 Northern Mindanao 2,171 3.3 31.8 64.9 Davao 2,217 0.6 25.0 74.3 SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 1.1 33.5 65.4 ARMM 1,727 4.8 57.7 37.5 Caraga 1,921 1.3 29.8 69.0

23




Figure 10 shows the DDS per region. Wealth or economic status of a household is directly

proportional to diverse diet; as the wealth category of a household increases, household diet becomes

more diverse. In the Philippines, the poorest households had a mean dietary diversity score of 8.4;

middle-income households scored an average of 9.4, while the richest households had the highest

mean dietary diversity score of 10.2.

Figure 10. Percent distribution of households by dietary diversity score: Philippines 2015

The mean dietary diversity score between middle-income households and the rich differed

only by 0.3 points, while the average national dietary diversity scores between the middle-income

households and the poor differed by 0.4 points (Figure 11). Because household income directly affects

the dietary diversity of a household, families that belong to low income groups had a higher risk of

becoming undernourished because they were unable to gain access to a wider range of food groups

and had lower diet quality.

Figure 11. Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile: Philippines, 2015

8.4 9.0

9.4 9.7 10.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

Per

cen

tag

e

Wealth Quintile

1.3

4.8

1.1

0.6

3.3

1.9

3.7

2.5

0.5

0.8

3.7

2.0

0.7

0.7

1.8

1.1

1.9

1.8

0 20 40 60 80

Caraga

ARMM

SOCCSKSARGEN

Davao

Northern Mindanao

Zamboanga Peninsula

Eastern Visayas

Central Visayas

Western Visayas

Bicol

MIMAROPA

CALABARZON

Central Luzon

Cagayan Valley

Ilocos

CAR

NCR

Philippines

1 to 4 Group

29.8

57.7

33.5

25.0

31.8

31.0

38.8

31.1

22.4

29.2

33.4

27.6

19.7

19.3

25.8

28.0

22.7

28.0

0 20 40 60 80

5 to 8 Group

69.0

37.5

65.4

74.3

64.9

67.1

57.5

66.4

77.2

70.0

62.9

70.5

79.5

80.0

72.5

71.0

75.3

70.2

0 20 40 60 80

9 to 12 group

Percentage

24




Food Consumption Score

To assess a household’s food consumption, the identified meal planner of the particular

household was interviewed by food recall. Questions such as the type and frequency of food eaten by

the household, how often in a week these food groups were consumed, as well as how and where

these food groups were acquired was asked from the respondent. In the calculation of the FCS, nine

food groups were weighed according to nutritional density (WFP, 2008).

In the Philippines, the most consumed food groups were the staples (99.8%), which includes

rice, noodles, bread, biscuits, cookies, cereals and cereal products, rice products, and tubers such as

cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes, yam, and other starchy root crops. Meat and fish are the second

most consumed food group (98.8%) followed by vegetables (97.9%), condiments (95.8%), and oil

(90.4%). The least consumed food groups were milk (50.9%) and pulses (39.7%) (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Proportion of households by intake of nine (9) food groups:

Philippines, 2015

Table 13 shows the proportion of households consuming the nine food groups per region.

Main staples, vegetables, meat and fish, oil, and condiments were consumed by the larger part of the

population, while fruits and sugar products were eaten around four to six days per week (Table 14).

In general population, pulses were the least consumed food group in the Philippines, but

among regions, more than half (57.5%) of households in Cagayan Valley incorporated this food group

in their weekly diet. NCR (62.1%) had the highest number of households who consumed milk while

ARMM had the lowest consumption of the said food group (17.2%) (Table 13).

Almost every Filipino household consumed vegetables as part of their daily diet; however,

households in ARMM (87.7%) consumed this food group the least. Fruits were also consumed the

least in ARMM (66.7%) and in Eastern Visayas (67.9%). Cagayan Valley had the highest percentage

of sugar consumers (91.0%), while oils were consumed almost daily by households in Central Luzon

(94.8%) and Western Visayas (94.1%) (Table 13).

95.8

90.4

81.3

50.9

98.8

81.2

97.9

39.7

99.8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Condiments

Oil

Sugar

Milk

Meat and Fish

Fruits

Vegetables

Pulses

Main Staples

Percentage

Table 13. Proportion of households by intake of the nine food groups and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n

Food Group

Main Staples

Pulses Vegetables Fruits Meat and

Fish Milk Sugar Oil Condiments

Philippines 40,893 99.8 39.7 97.9 81.2 98.8 50.9 81.3 90.4 95.8

NCR 3,213 99.7 39.5 96.7 86.7 99.2 62.1 74.1 89.8 91.3

CAR 1,706 99.8 48.5 97.3 80.8 96.0 47.7 88.1 93.5 97.4

Ilocos 2,363 99.8 49.1 98.8 76.9 98.2 46.7 84.9 92.1 95.8

Cagayan Valley 2,304 99.9 57.5 99.2 87.4 99.1 51.1 91.0 93.5 98.3

Central Luzon 3,427 99.7 45.8 98.6 83.5 99.8 51.6 82.5 94.8 97.4

CALABARZON 4,269 99.9 36.5 96.9 80.9 99.7 52.2 72.8 88.8 94.7

MIMAROPA 1,293 99.8 36.2 98.6 78.4 97.3 45.8 81.5 85.1 95.4

Bicol 2,632 99.7 28.6 98.9 80.5 99.4 58.1 85.8 91.6 96.2

Western Visayas 3,135 100.0 48.2 99.6 85.1 99.1 56.6 89.7 94.1 98.8

Central Visayas 2,275 99.7 40.8 99.1 75.6 98.9 55.5 81.1 86.1 95.3

Eastern Visayas 2,353 99.9 24.7 98.2 67.9 98.7 44.1 75.6 85.7 93.9

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 99.9 42.2 99.1 79.0 98.6 47.1 82.8 88.4 98.0

Northern Mindanao 2,171 99.7 35.9 98.2 81.2 98.0 45.0 75.4 89.7 96.5

Davao 2,217 99.7 41.3 98.7 86.2 99.2 52.4 87.2 93.7 98.2

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 100.0 35.9 99.5 85.4 97.8 40.8 89.0 89.7 98.1

ARMM 1,727 100.0 25.8 87.7 66.7 95.4 17.2 84.6 82.5 94.4

Caraga 1,921 99.9 34.0 98.8 85.9 98.5 51.3 81.9 91.6 96.7

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

015

25

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

Table 14. Mean number of days of consumption of the nine food groups in the past 7 days by region: Philippines, 2015

Region

Food Groups

Main Staples

Pulses Vegetables Fruits Meat and

Fish Milk Sugar Oil Condiments

(n = 40,815) (n = 16,261) (n = 40,121) (n = 33,164) (n = 40,320) (n = 20,348) (n = 33,725) (n = 37,005) (n =39,348)

Philippines 6.9 2.3 5.5 4.0 5.9 5.4 5.8 5.0 6.5

NCR 6.9 2.3 5.0 4.2 6.3 5.1 5.2 5.4 6.2

CAR 6.9 2.2 5.1 3.8 5.4 5.4 6.1 5.6 6.6

Ilocos 6.9 2.0 5.5 3.7 5.9 5.4 6.1 5.0 6.5

Cagayan Valley 6.9 1.9 5.7 4.2 5.5 5.6 6.2 5.2 6.6

Central Luzon 6.9 2.3 5.3 4.0 6.3 5.6 6.0 5.3 6.5

CALABARZON 6.9 2.1 5.1 4.0 6.2 5.4 5.7 5.4 6.4

MIMAROPA 6.9 2.0 5.4 3.9 5.8 5.2 6.0 4.5 6.3

Bicol 6.9 2.1 5.0 4.1 5.7 5.6 6.3 4.8 6.6

Western Visayas 7.0 2.1 5.8 4.1 5.8 5.5 5.9 4.5 6.6

Central Visayas 7.0 2.1 6.1 3.6 5.9 5.3 5.6 4.5 6.3

Eastern Visayas 7.0 2.3 5.5 3.6 6.0 5.3 5.9 4.3 6.5

Zamboanga Peninsula 7.0 2.8 6.0 4.0 5.8 5.1 5.7 4.5 6.6

Northern Mindanao 6.9 2.7 6.1 4.0 5.8 5.2 5.7 4.8 6.4

Davao 7.0 2.9 6.2 4.3 6.0 5.5 5.9 4.9 6.6

SOCCSKSARGEN 7.0 2.4 6.0 4.2 5.5 5.5 6.2 4.5 6.7

ARMM 6.9 3.4 5.3 3.7 5.3 5.2 6.3 4.9 6.6

Caraga 6.9 2.7 5.9 4.1 5.8 5.2 5.7 4.7 6.4

26

F

ood

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

5

27




Procurement of Foods by Region

The most common means of acquiring food by all households was through purchasing from

local markets, groceries, and stores, if not taken from own food production. The top five food groups

that were typically bought were spices (98.5%), oils and sweets (both at 98.4%), milk and other dairy

products (98.1%), eggs (93.7%), and fish (92.2%). Legumes and pulses (91.9%), and meat (91.5%)

were also obtained mostly by purchasing (Table 15).

Table 15. Percent distribution of households by sources of the 16 food groups: Philippines, 2015

Food Group Purchased/Bought Own Produce Given/Free Others

Cereals 87.4 9.3 1.9 1.5

Vitamin A-Rich Vegetables & Tubers 83.7 10.8 4.8 0.8

White Tubers & Roots 77.4 15.4 5.8 1.4

Dark Green Leafy Vegetables 42.8 46.0 6.6 4.6

Other Vegetables 72.7 21.0 4.6 1.7

Vitamin A-Rich Fruits 54.3 31.6 9.4 4.7

Other Fruits 72.4 19.4 6.8 1.5

Meats 91.5 3.8 3.8 1.0

Organ Meats 89.7 4.7 4.8 0.9

Eggs 93.7 5.0 0.8 0.5

Fish & Shellfish 92.2 1.8 2.4 3.6

Legumes, Nuts & Seeds 91.9 4.8 2.7 0.6

Milk & Milk Products 98.1 0.7 0.9 0.4

Oils & Fats 98.4 0.9 0.5 0.2

Sweets 98.4 0.5 0.8 0.3

Spices, Condiments & Beverages 98.5 0.7 0.6 0.2

The Philippines abound with fertile soil and natural resources, that is why easily-grown crops

are commonly seen in most household’s backyards and gardens. As such, food groups like green leafy

vegetables were obtained by almost half (46.0%) of Filipino households through own production,

followed by crops such as Vitamin A-rich fruits (31.6%), other vegetables (21.0%), other fruits

(19.4%), and white tubers (15.4%) (Table 15). Cagayan Valley has the country’s highest percentage

of households consuming their own produce of green leafy vegetables (70.7%) (Table 19) and

Vitamin A-rich fruits (55.5%) (Table 21), while CAR was the top region for being both consumer and

producer of other vegetables (37.9%) (Table 20), MIMAROPA for other fruits (36.6%) (Table 22),

and Zamboanga Peninsula for white tubers (31.1%) (Table 18). Figure 13 shows the distribution of

households and their sources of the sixteen food groups.

28




Figure 13. Percent distribution of households by source of foods consumed: Philippines, 2015

Tables 16 to 31 show sources by which each of the sixteen food groups were acquired by

households in every region. The following are most common ways by which foods were obtained by

households: a.) buying from stores, groceries, and markets; b.) production of own crops, products, and

livestock; c.) given free from neighbor’s surplus production, or as gift; and, d.) other means such as

food aid, etc.

Cereals and cereal-based products are consumed by almost all households in the Philippines.

One food item that is notably the most consumed in this food group is rice, which is a staple of a

typical Filipino diet. Table 16 showed that most households obtained this food group through

purchase, but in some regions, a fair percentage of households consumed rice from their own produce.

These regions include Cagayan Valley (25.3%), CAR (24.1%), Western Visayas (19.4%), and

Zamboanga Peninsula (19.0%) (Table 16).

Table 16. Percent distribution of households consuming cereals by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE

Purchased/Bought Own Produce Given/Free Others

Philippines 40,755 87.4 9.3 1.9 1.5

NCR 3,196 96.2 1.8 1.3 0.7 CAR 1,702 71.9 24.1 2.7 1.3 Ilocos 2,352 84.1 12.5 1.9 1.5 Cagayan Valley 2,300 67.5 25.3 3.8 3.5 Central Luzon 3,414 89.1 7.7 2.0 1.2 CALABARZON 4,258 95.4 2.5 1.2 0.9 MIMAROPA 1,283 83.8 12.2 2.3 1.7 Bicol 2,616 85.7 11.2 1.4 1.7 Western Visayas 3,133 75.2 19.4 2.5 2.9 Central Visayas 2,267 89.3 9.2 0.9 0.6 Eastern Visayas 2,345 88.3 8.8 2.0 0.9 Zamboanga Peninsula 1,724 75.9 19.0 2.7 2.5 Northern Mindanao 2,161 89.2 7.6 1.9 1.4 Davao 2,209 90.0 7.1 1.9 1.1 SOCCSKSARGEN 2,154 82.6 11.3 3.0 3.2 ARMM 1,725 91.5 4.7 2.0 1.9 Caraga 1,916 88.5 8.9 1.3 1.3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Spices, Condiments & Beverages

Sweets

Oils & Fats

Milk & Milk Products

Legumes, Nuts & Seeds

Fish & Shellfish

Eggs

Organ Meats

Meats

Other Fruits

Vitamin A-Rich Fruits

Other Vegetables

Dark Green Leafy Vegetables

White Tubers & Roots

Vitamin A-Rich Vegetables & Tubers

Cereals


29




Vitamin A – rich vegetables and tubers are some of the easily-grown crops among areas with

plenty of arable land. The regions of Zamboanga Peninsula (26.3%), CAR (25.1%), ARMM (24.0%),

and SOCCSKSARGEN (20.1%) had highest percentages of households whose consumption of this

food group came from their own produce. On the other hand, households in urbanized areas like NCR

(97.0%), rapidly-developing areas like CALABARZON (92.4%), and areas that specialize in other

crops like Central Luzon (90.8%) vastly obtained vitamin A-rich vegetables and tubers through

purchase due to lack of production area, thus increasing the need to source from other provinces

(Table 17).

Table 17. Percent distribution of households consuming Vitamin A-rich vegetables and tubers by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 29,056 83.7 10.8 4.8 0.8

NCR 2,473 97.0 1.5 1.3 0.2

CAR 976 65.9 25.1 8.2 0.8

Ilocos 1,600 86.6 7.4 5.5 0.6

Cagayan Valley 1,480 78.1 14.4 6.7 0.8

Central Luzon 2,537 90.8 4.7 3.8 0.6

CALABARZON 2,941 92.4 4.3 2.7 0.6

MIMAROPA 849 75.9 16.5 6.8 0.9

Bicol 1,597 80.7 12.6 5.5 1.2

Western Visayas 2,491 79.0 14.1 6.4 0.5

Central Visayas 1,729 84.4 11.4 3.4 0.9

Eastern Visayas 1,499 82.5 11.6 5.3 0.7



Davao 1,785 78.4 14.6 6.7 0.3

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,638 70.1 20.1 7.5 2.4

ARMM 1,003 61.4 24.0 10.8 3.7

Caraga 1,462 77.0 16.2 6.2 0.5

White tubers and roots are hardy crops which are fairly easy to grow and often serve as a

cheap source of carbohydrates. The regions of Zamboanga Peninsula (31.1%), MIMAROPA (30.2%),

Caraga (29.5%), ARMM (28.4%), Eastern Visayas (28.0%), SOCCSKSARGEN (27.5%), Cagayan

Valley (26.6%), and CAR (26.0%) have the highest proportion of consuming households who sourced

their supply of white tubers and roots from own production (Table 18).

30




Table 18. Percent distribution of households consuming white tubers and roots by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 19,259 77.4 15.4 5.8 1.4

NCR 1,858 96.2 1.6 1.4 0.8

CAR 834 61.6 26.0 10.3 2.1

Ilocos 1,139 86.1 7.6 5.0 1.3

Cagayan Valley 1,026 62.1 26.6 9.8 1.4

Central Luzon 1,709 92.3 3.8 3.2 0.7

CALABARZON 2,261 91.0 5.2 3.0 0.9

MIMAROPA 514 56.2 30.2 9.7 3.9

Bicol 1,249 65.1 25.7 7.5 1.8

Western Visayas 1,494 66.4 24.3 8.3 1.0

Central Visayas 865 74.6 18.2 6.2 1.0

Eastern Visayas 967 57.7 28.0 11.5 2.8

Zamboanga Peninsula 851 60.0 31.1 7.3 1.6


Davao 938 68.2 23.7 7.8 0.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 863 62.7 27.5 6.9 2.9

ARMM 782 55.3 28.4 11.1 5.2

Caraga 891 59.4 29.5 10.1 1.1

Fairly high percentages of households in most regions produce their own source of dark green

leafy vegetables. An exception was seen in the region of NCR where only 8.3% of households

consumed leafy vegetables from their own gardens/backyards (Table 19). This is likely due to lack of

arable land or gardening spaces among highly urbanized areas.

Table 19. Percent distribution of households consuming dark green leafy vegetables by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 37,609 42.8 46.0 6.6 4.6

NCR 2,759 86.9 8.3 3.1 1.7

CAR 1,495 39.5 51.7 4.1 4.7

Ilocos 2,169 25.8 62.3 6.8 5.1

Cagayan Valley 2,186 16.8 70.7 8.8 3.8

Central Luzon 3,086 51.4 37.7 6.5 4.4

CALABARZON 3,747 62.3 26.3 7.0 4.5

MIMAROPA 1,193 25.3 56.3 9.5 9.0

Bicol 2,478 29.2 56.3 9.3 5.2

Western Visayas 3,037 29.4 59.2 8.2 3.2

Central Visayas 2,203 36.7 54.2 5.1 4.0

Eastern Visayas 2,142 27.6 56.2 8.5 7.8



Davao 2,097 29.8 62.4 5.9 2.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,066 24.5 60.7 6.2 8.7

ARMM 1,405 37.0 40.1 9.0 13.9

Caraga 1,815 26.3 62.5 6.8 4.4

31




Same as with dark green leafy vegetables, only 1.7% of households in NCR produced their

own source of other vegetables for consumption. The Cordillera Administrative Region was found to

have the highest percentage of households who consumed other vegetables (37.9%) from own

production, followed by Zamboanga Peninsula (35.8%), Cagayan Valley (33.9%),

SOCCSKSARGEN (33.7%), Western Visayas (31.4%), and MIMAROPA (30.7%) (Table 20).

Table 20. Percent distribution of households consuming other vegetables by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 34,337 72.7 21.0 4.6 1.7

NCR 2,564 96.8 1.7 1.2 0.3

CAR 1,351 53.6 37.9 5.8 2.8

Ilocos 2,096 68.2 22.7 7.5 1.5

Cagayan Valley 2,144 57.5 33.9 7.0 1.6

Central Luzon 3,095 80.0 12.6 5.6 1.8

CALABARZON 3,633 85.8 9.1 3.6 1.5

MIMAROPA 1,110 58.8 30.7 6.3 4.2

Bicol 2,121 67.1 25.6 5.5 1.8

Western Visayas 2,726 61.5 31.4 6.0 1.1

Central Visayas 1,836 69.8 26.4 2.6 1.2

Eastern Visayas 1,855 65.0 27.8 4.7 2.5



Davao 1,927 68.2 26.8 4.4 0.7

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,908 59.5 33.7 4.2 2.7

ARMM 1,124 55.5 28.6 8.3 7.7

Caraga 1,620 67.4 26.7 4.5 1.5

For Vitamin A-rich fruits, more than half, or 55.5% of households in Cagayan Valley

obtained this food group from their own production. The region of Cagayan Valley also has the

highest percentage of households who consumed vitamin A-rich fruits that were given free, typically

from friends and neighbors. On the other hand, NCR had the lowest percentage of households who

consumed vitamin A-rich fruits from own production at only 3.5% (Table 21).

Table 21. Percent distribution of households consuming Vitamin A-rich fruit by source and regions: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 16,894 54.3 31.6 9.4 4.7

NCR 1,526 90.8 3.5 4.4 1.3

CAR 674 36.2 46.5 9.0 8.3

Ilocos 892 39.8 42.2 13.0 5.1

Cagayan Valley 1,023 22.8 55.5 15.2 6.6

Central Luzon 1,185 50.1 34.0 10.4 5.4

CALABARZON 1,667 67.3 18.8 8.6 5.3

MIMAROPA 553 36.9 42.3 12.8 8.0

Bicol 1,256 42.2 41.5 10.0 6.4

Western Visayas 1,440 35.9 47.6 12.7 3.9

Central Visayas 773 56.3 30.7 7.0 6.1

Eastern Visayas 707 52.1 30.5 8.4 9.0


Northern Mindanao 896 52.3 34.7 9.6 3.4

Davao 1,036 57.0 33.2 8.3 1.6

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,011 46.0 40.0 9.5 4.5

ARMM 606 40.5 36.1 13.6 9.8

Caraga 913 52.6 35.1 9.7 2.6

32




The region of MIMAROPA was found to have the highest percentage of households who

consumed other fruits from own produce at 36.6%, followed by CAR (35.0%), and Zamboanga

Peninsula (33.5%). Meanwhile, only 1.6% of households in NCR consumed other fruits from own

production (Table 22).

Table 22. Percent distribution of households consuming other fruits by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 30,084 72.4 19.4 6.8 1.5

NCR 2,601 95.4 1.6 2.4 0.6

CAR 1,206 54.0 35.0 9.0 1.9

Ilocos 1,567 70.3 19.8 8.3 1.7

Cagayan Valley 1,843 54.0 31.5 12.7 1.8

Central Luzon 2,680 86.7 7.6 4.7 1.0

CALABARZON 3,199 82.6 10.5 5.5 1.3

MIMAROPA 897 47.0 36.6 12.1 4.3

Bicol 1,799 58.6 31.7 7.9 1.8

Western Visayas 2,432 60.6 30.4 8.0 1.1

Central Visayas 1,527 69.2 23.8 5.9 1.1

Eastern Visayas 1,415 70.9 20.2 5.6 3.3



Davao 1,733 62.1 27.5 9.8 0.6

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,706 57.7 30.3 8.9 3.2

ARMM 1,100 53.6 28.6 12.7 5.2

Caraga 1,494 69.4 23.7 5.9 1.0

Fresh meat and meat products were often purchased by households in all regions of the

Philippines. The highest percentage of households who consumed own produce of meats was found in

Zamboanga Peninsula at 10.0%. In the region of ARMM, 17.8% of households who consumed meats

had obtained their supply of the food group for free (Table 23).

Table 23. Percent distribution of households consuming meats by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE

Purchased/bought Own produce Given/Free Others

Philippines 31,152 91.5 3.8 3.8 1.0

NCR 2,955 96.4 1.5 1.3 0.8

CAR 1,426 83.7 7.6 7.0 1.7

Ilocos 1,978 91.2 4.5 3.5 0.9

Cagayan Valley 2,000 85.4 8.7 4.2 1.7

Central Luzon 3,086 94.8 1.5 2.8 0.8

CALABARZON 3,646 95.7 1.2 2.4 0.7

MIMAROPA 887 85.3 7.5 5.2 2.0

Bicol 1,987 89.3 5.5 4.3 1.0

Western Visayas 2,354 88.2 5.9 4.9 1.0

Central Visayas 1,616 90.3 4.8 3.8 1.1

Eastern Visayas 1,648 93.5 1.9 3.3 1.2



Davao 1,651 90.2 4.7 4.4 0.7

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,385 84.6 5.8 7.6 2.0

ARMM 531 75.3 5.6 17.8 1.4

Caraga 1,344 90.7 4.1 3.8 1.4

33




Organ meats were also typically bought by most households in the country. The highest

percentage of households who sourced consumed organ meats from own production was found in the

regions of Zamboanga Peninsula (13.4%), MIMAROPA (11.8%), and ARMM (10.6%) (Table 24).

Table 24. Percent distribution of households consuming organ meats by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 5,974 89.7 4.7 4.8 0.9

NCR 647 96.3 1.8 1.2 0.7

CAR 189 82.3 7.6 8.6 1.6

Ilocos 409 90.8 4.2 3.9 1.0

Cagayan Valley 385 86.6 8.1 4.4 1.0

Central Luzon 617 93.4 1.7 3.6 1.3

CALABARZON 723 94.3 1.4 3.7 0.6

MIMAROPA 151 75.3 11.8 11.7 1.3

Bicol 306 82.3 7.4 9.7 0.7

Western Visayas 584 87.0 5.8 6.9 0.3

Central Visayas 286 84.4 9.1 5.5 1.0

Eastern Visayas 231 90.2 3.0 5.2 1.6



Davao 267 81.3 8.4 9.6 0.8

SOCCSKSARGEN 247 81.5 9.5 6.7 2.4

ARMM 108 79.4 10.6 10.0 0.0

Caraga 248 88.0 5.4 5.2 1.4

No less than 87.0% of households nationwide who consumed eggs sourced their intake

through purchasing. Western Visayas had the highest proportion of households who consumed eggs

from own production at 11.4% (Table 25).

Table 25. Percent distribution of households consuming eggs by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 32,545 93.7 5.0 0.8 0.5

NCR 2,788 97.2 1.7 0.5 0.7

CAR 1,287 93.8 4.9 1.0 0.2

Ilocos 1,979 91.6 6.8 1.4 0.3

Cagayan Valley 1,874 90.7 7.9 1.2 0.2

Central Luzon 3,093 95.8 2.6 1.0 0.6

CALABARZON 3,653 97.5 1.7 0.4 0.4

MIMAROPA 952 88.5 9.4 1.1 1.1

Bicol 1,988 91.1 7.4 0.9 0.7

Western Visayas 2,512 87.0 11.4 1.4 0.1

Central Visayas 1,747 91.0 8.2 0.5 0.2

Eastern Visayas 1,670 96.3 3.0 0.4 0.4



Davao 1,800 94.1 4.5 1.2 0.3

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,631 89.4 7.5 1.6 1.5

ARMM 1,078 90.7 6.7 0.8 1.7

Caraga 1,531 95.2 3.8 0.6 0.4

34




For fish and shellfish, 4.5% of households in ARMM had consumed this food group from

their own production, while 13.0% sourced their intake from other means. In Western Visayas, 4.0%

of households obtain their source of fish and shellfish for free (Table 26). These regions are

surrounded by seas, thus fish, shellfish, and other seafood are abundant in the area.

Table 26. Percent distribution of households consuming fish and shellfish by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 37,010 92.2 1.8 2.4 3.6

NCR 2,780 96.5 1.2 1.7 0.6

CAR 1,311 90.1 1.6 2.0 6.3

Ilocos 2,061 89.7 2.0 3.4 5.0

Cagayan Valley 1,959 88.5 2.0 3.2 6.3

Central Luzon 3,129 93.9 1.3 2.7 2.1

CALABARZON 3,899 95.2 1.6 1.7 1.6

MIMAROPA 1,163 84.4 2.5 3.7 9.4

Bicol 2,397 89.8 3.4 2.4 4.5

Western Visayas 2,971 89.8 1.8 4.0 4.5

Central Visayas 2,138 93.3 1.6 1.7 3.4

Eastern Visayas 2,249 88.4 3.4 1.9 6.3



Davao 2,082 92.9 1.0 2.8 3.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,981 93.1 1.4 2.9 2.6

ARMM 1,532 80.1 4.5 2.4 13.0

Caraga 1,770 92.8 1.9 1.3 4.0

The Cordillera Administrative Region ranked on top among regions who consumed self-

produced legumes, nuts, and seeds, followed by Cagayan Valley (14.6%). There are also 6.1% of

households in Cagayan Valley who consumed and sourced intake of legumes, nuts, and seeds for free,

which was the highest proportion in all regions (Table 27).

35




Table 27. Percent distribution of households consuming legumes, nuts, and seeds by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 16,261 91.9 4.8 2.7 0.6

NCR 1,261 96.3 1.7 1.1 0.9

CAR 833 72.9 21.1 4.8 1.3

Ilocos 1,164 90.8 5.1 3.6 0.6

Cagayan Valley 1,321 77.9 14.6 6.1 1.4

Central Luzon 1,565 95.0 1.7 2.7 0.7

CALABARZON 1,553 96.7 1.4 1.7 0.2

MIMAROPA 471 90.5 5.3 2.9 1.2

Bicol 757 90.6 5.9 2.3 1.3

Western Visayas 1,508 88.4 7.2 4.3 0.1

Central Visayas 911 93.4 4.4 2.0 0.2

Eastern Visayas 576 96.1 2.2 1.6 0.2



Davao 916 92.8 4.1 2.6 0.5

SOCCSKSARGEN 792 89.7 6.2 3.3 0.8

ARMM 493 89.4 5.4 4.6 0.7

Caraga 657 90.4 6.6 2.3 0.7

Intake of milk and milk products were sourced by 98.1% of Filipino households through

purchase. The highest percentage of households who consumed milk from own production was found

in NCR at only 1.4% (Table 28).

Table 28. Percent distribution of households consuming milk and milk products by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 20,348 98.1 0.7 0.9 0.4

NCR 1,996 97.1 1.4 0.8 0.7

CAR 795 97.5 0.7 1.7 0.1

Ilocos 1,100 97.9 0.4 1.3 0.5

Cagayan Valley 1,174 97.4 0.9 1.6 0.2

Central Luzon 1,753 97.4 0.9 1.2 0.5

CALABARZON 2,207 98.4 0.4 0.7 0.4

MIMAROPA 594 97.2 0.9 1.4 0.5

Bicol 1,529 98.3 0.5 0.8 0.4

Western Visayas 1,777 98.6 0.3 0.9 0.3

Central Visayas 1,254 98.7 0.3 0.9 0.1

Eastern Visayas 1,033 99.1 0.2 0.7 0.1



Davao 1,151 98.6 0.5 0.8 0.2

SOCCSKSARGEN 877 97.8 0.7 1.0 0.5

ARMM 339 98.6 0.8 0.4 0.2

Caraga 980 98.9 0.5 0.4 0.2

36




Oils and fats were obtained by most households in all regions through purchasing, summing

up to 98.4% nationwide. Very few percentage of households were found to consume this food group

from their own production, where only 2.6% was found to be the highest in the region of

MIMAROPA (Table 29).

Table 29. Percent distribution of households consuming oils and fats by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 37,005 98.4 0.9 0.5 0.2

NCR 2,881 98.0 1.2 0.5 0.3

CAR 1,592 97.9 0.9 1.1 0.2

Ilocos 2,176 98.4 0.6 0.8 0.2

Cagayan Valley 2,152 98.7 0.6 0.6 0.1

Central Luzon 3,247 98.8 0.4 0.6 0.2

CALABARZON 3,790 98.7 0.7 0.4 0.2

MIMAROPA 1,100 96.8 2.6 0.3 0.4

Bicol 2,409 97.0 2.4 0.4 0.3

Western Visayas 2,948 99.1 0.5 0.4 0.0

Central Visayas 1,956 98.9 0.4 0.5 0.2

Eastern Visayas 2,012 99.1 0.5 0.4 0.0



Davao 2,073 98.7 0.8 0.5 0.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,938 97.5 1.6 0.8 0.2

ARMM 1,493 96.3 2.2 0.8 0.6

Caraga 1,766 98.9 0.5 0.3 0.2

Sugars and sweets were sourced by almost all Filipinos through purchasing, with a proportion

of 98.4% nationwide (Table 30). There were very few households who reported to have obtained their

intake of sweets and sugars through own produce, given free as gift or favor, or by other means.

Table 30. Percent distribution of households consuming sugars and sweets by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 33,725 98.4 0.5 0.8 0.3

NCR 2,377 97.5 1.0 0.8 0.8

CAR 1,506 98.0 0.6 1.0 0.4

Ilocos 2,008 97.7 0.7 1.3 0.3

Cagayan Valley 2,099 97.8 0.8 1.2 0.2

Central Luzon 2,833 98.2 0.6 1.0 0.2

CALABARZON 3,120 98.9 0.3 0.6 0.2

MIMAROPA 1,057 97.9 0.8 0.9 0.4

Bicol 2,259 98.6 0.6 0.5 0.3

Western Visayas 2,812 99.0 0.4 0.5 0.1

Central Visayas 1,843 98.9 0.3 0.7 0.2

Eastern Visayas 1,780 99.1 0.3 0.6 0.1



Davao 1,944 98.4 0.7 0.7 0.1

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,930 98.7 0.2 1.0 0.1

ARMM 1,518 98.3 0.6 0.7 0.5

Caraga 1,577 98.9 0.5 0.4 0.1

37




Consumed spices, condiments, and beverages were obtained by 98.5% of Filipino households

nationwide through purchase. In the Cordillera Administrative Region, 4.6% of households obtained it

from own production; this proportion being the highest among regions. There were also 1.4% of

households in the aforementioned region who obtained their source of spices, condiments, and

beverages for free (Table 31). The Cordillera Administrative Region is famous for producing coffee

and various fruit wines which explains why the area is more likely to be self-sustaining in terms of

obtaining spices, condiments, and beverages for own consumption.

Table 31. Percent distribution of households consuming spices, condiments, and beverages by source and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n SOURCE


Philippines 39,348 98.5 0.7 0.6 0.2

NCR 2,930 98.6 0.6 0.5 0.3

CAR 1,665 93.7 4.6 1.4 0.4

Ilocos 2,264 98.0 0.7 1.2 0.2

Cagayan Valley 2,263 98.2 0.8 0.9 0.1

Central Luzon 3,335 98.9 0.4 0.6 0.2

CALABARZON 4,045 98.9 0.5 0.5 0.1

MIMAROPA 1,234 98.4 0.6 0.8 0.3

Bicol 2,532 98.8 0.4 0.5 0.3

Western Visayas 3,096 99.0 0.5 0.4 0.1

Central Visayas 2,167 98.4 1.0 0.5 0.2

Eastern Visayas 2,209 99.1 0.1 0.8 0.1



Davao 2,179 98.1 1.2 0.7 0.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,124 97.9 1.4 0.5 0.1

ARMM 1,663 97.4 1.0 0.8 0.9

Caraga 1,856 99.1 0.4 0.2 0.3

Frequency of Consumption

Tables 32 to 47 present the frequency of consumption of the 16 food groups in each region.

The food groups that were eaten by most households everyday were cereals, beverages, spices, and

condiments.

Cereals were regularly consumed by most households in Western Visayas (98.6%) and

Central Luzon (98.1%) (Table 32). Although majority of households purchase their own supplies of

cereal and similar products in both Western Visayas and Central Luzon regions, Western Visayas had

more households who rely on their own produce as food supply (19.4%) than in Central Luzon (7.7%)

(Table 16). Along with Cagayan Valley, these two regions are among the top three rice-producers in

the country, with Central Luzon as the leading producer having a volume of 3,765,150 metric tons

production3, followed by Cagayan Valley (2,514,934 metric tons), and Western Visayas (2,052,574

metric tons) as of 2014.

3 Philippine Statistics Authority: Major Crops Statistics of the Philippines, 2010-2014

38




White tubers are also among the country’s top produce and an essential ingredient to most

native delicacies. Sometimes, white tubers serve as a cheaper rice substitute and are utilized by some

households when access to rice is limited. Majority of households in the Philippines incorporate white

tubers in their diet two to three times a week at most (Table 34). Among regions, ARMM had the

most households who consumed white tubers (10.2%), and among these consumers, 28.4% sourced

their white tubers from own production. This is expected as ARMM is the region which produces the

greatest volume of cassava4.

Another product widely utilized in the Philippines is the sugar cane, processed into sugars and

sweets, which were consumed by most households regularly. Despite being a major crop in Western

Visayas5 and most regions in the Philippines, results of the survey showed that this food group was

often acquired through purchasing. This is because sugar cane still need to undergo processing to

obtain its consumable form.

Among the 16 food groups, organ meats, white tubers, vitamin-A rich fruits, and legumes

were consumed the least on a weekly basis.

Table 32. Percent distribution of households by frequency of cereal consumption and region:

Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week

Two to Three Times a Week

Four to Six Times a Week

Everyday

Philippines 40,893 0.3 0.4 1.0 2.0 96.3

NCR 3,213 0.5 0.7 2.1 3.0 93.7

CAR 1,706 0.2 0.2 1.0 3.7 94.9

Ilocos 2,363 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.6 96.6

Cagayan Valley 2,304 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.7 96.4

Central Luzon 3,427 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.1 98.1

CALABARZON 4,269 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.6 97.4

MIMAROPA 1,293 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.9 95.5

Bicol 2,632 0.6 0.5 1.6 1.4 96.0

Western Visayas 3,135 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.8 98.6

Central Visayas 2,275 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.4 97.5

Eastern Visayas 2,353 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 97.8



Davao 2,217 0.3 0.0 0.9 2.2 96.6

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.5 97.8

ARMM 1,727 0.1 1.2 4.4 4.5 89.9

Caraga 1,921 0.3 0.4 1.0 2.8 95.7

4 ARMM – 1,045,233 metric tons (Philippine Statistics Authority: Major Crops Statistics of the Philippines, 2010-2014) 5 Western Visayas – 14,523,886 metric tons (Philippine Statistics Authority: Major Crops Statistics of the Philippines, 2010-2014)

39




Table 33. Percent distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich vegetable and tuber consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 28.1 23.5 38.8 5.7 4.0

NCR 3,213 22.6 24.5 42.7 6.4 3.9

CAR 1,706 42.2 20.4 31.5 3.8 2.2

Ilocos 2,363 32.3 25.7 35.7 4.3 2.0

Cagayan Valley 2,304 35.0 27.7 31.9 3.4 2.0

Central Luzon 3,427 25.5 28.4 40.6 4.0 1.5

CALABARZON 4,269 30.8 25.4 36.2 5.2 2.4

MIMAROPA 1,293 33.5 26.4 34.2 3.2 2.7

Bicol 2,632 39.6 23.1 32.1 3.1 2.2

Western Visayas 3,135 20.2 24.2 42.3 7.3 6.1

Central Visayas 2,275 23.2 19.7 42.3 7.9 6.9

Eastern Visayas 2,353 35.9 23.2 32.6 4.7 3.5



Davao 2,217 19.2 18.0 45.3 9.8 7.8

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 24.0 19.7 44.2 6.7 5.5

ARMM 1,727 45.6 15.7 27.7 5.9 5.2

Caraga 1,921 24.1 20.2 43.6 6.8 5.3

Table 34. Percent distribution of households by frequency of white tuber consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 51.5 21.0 22.2 3.1 2.3

NCR 3,213 41.5 23.2 29.3 4.4 1.8

CAR 1,706 50.1 16.0 27.2 4.1 2.6

Ilocos 2,363 51.7 22.2 22.2 2.5 1.4

Cagayan Valley 2,304 55.1 23.4 17.6 2.3 1.6

Central Luzon 3,427 49.5 23.4 23.8 2.1 1.3

CALABARZON 4,269 46.7 23.9 24.3 3.6 1.5

MIMAROPA 1,293 60.0 16.3 18.5 2.7 2.5

Bicol 2,632 52.4 20.5 21.8 2.3 3.0

Western Visayas 3,135 52.1 23.2 20.5 2.1 2.0

Central Visayas 2,275 61.2 19.8 15.7 2.0 1.3

Eastern Visayas 2,353 58.5 17.6 19.2 2.3 2.5



Davao 2,217 56.9 17.9 20.3 2.5 2.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 60.1 15.5 18.6 2.9 2.9

ARMM 1,727 52.2 10.9 18.2 8.5 10.2

Caraga 1,921 53.9 21.4 19.3 3.0 2.5

40




Table 35. Percent distribution of households by frequency of dark green leafy vegetable consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 8.8 16.0 42.7 16.1 16.4

NCR 3,213 13.6 22.7 45.7 11.8 6.2

CAR 1,706 12.7 19.2 42.0 15.5 10.6

Ilocos 2,363 8.4 15.7 42.3 17.0 16.7

Cagayan Valley 2,304 5.1 15.0 45.1 19.0 15.8

Central Luzon 3,427 10.0 19.7 49.9 13.2 7.3

CALABARZON 4,269 12.4 23.2 42.9 14.1 7.5

MIMAROPA 1,293 7.9 16.4 45.6 16.5 13.7

Bicol 2,632 6.0 21.1 48.5 13.6 10.9

Western Visayas 3,135 3.2 12.7 43.8 16.2 24.1

Central Visayas 2,275 3.2 7.7 34.7 21.5 32.9

Eastern Visayas 2,353 9.2 12.4 40.2 19.8 18.5



Davao 2,217 5.5 8.8 36.2 20.0 29.5

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 4.4 10.7 39.8 18.6 26.5

ARMM 1,727 25.7 9.6 33.6 14.6 16.4

Caraga 1,921 5.6 11.8 39.8 17.0 25.8

Table 36. Percent distribution of households by frequency of other vegetable consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 16.2 23.7 45.1 9.7 5.4

NCR 3,213 20.0 29.9 41.2 6.6 2.3

CAR 1,706 21.1 20.9 41.8 10.4 5.8

Ilocos 2,363 11.4 23.0 48.6 11.6 5.4

Cagayan Valley 2,304 6.8 21.5 52.5 12.8 6.4

Central Luzon 3,427 9.8 27.0 49.9 9.2 4.2

CALABARZON 4,269 15.0 29.2 44.1 8.6 3.0

MIMAROPA 1,293 13.7 23.7 47.2 9.8 5.5

Bicol 2,632 19.3 28.9 42.9 6.0 2.9

Western Visayas 3,135 12.9 22.3 47.3 10.7 6.8

Central Visayas 2,275 18.8 18.5 45.1 10.4 7.2

Eastern Visayas 2,353 20.8 22.8 42.2 8.8 5.5



Davao 2,217 12.9 15.4 46.8 14.2 10.8

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 11.5 17.4 47.5 13.4 10.3

ARMM 1,727 40.1 14.0 30.7 9.6 5.6

Caraga 1,921 15.7 21.3 45.6 9.5 7.9

41




Table 37. Percent distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich fruit consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 58.8 15.5 17.7 3.2 4.9

NCR 3,213 52.2 16.7 21.9 4.4 4.8

CAR 1,706 61.1 14.5 16.3 2.9 5.2

Ilocos 2,363 62.4 13.6 16.3 2.9 4.8

Cagayan Valley 2,304 55.3 16.1 18.2 4.4 6.0

Central Luzon 3,427 65.2 13.9 14.5 2.3 4.1

CALABARZON 4,269 60.9 15.4 15.8 3.3 4.6

MIMAROPA 1,293 57.3 14.3 17.9 4.3 6.2

Bicol 2,632 52.3 17.0 19.1 3.9 7.7

Western Visayas 3,135 54.0 17.5 18.5 2.9 7.2

Central Visayas 2,275 64.9 14.2 15.5 2.5 3.0

Eastern Visayas 2,353 69.7 14.3 11.7 1.8 2.6



Davao 2,217 53.2 14.8 23.3 3.8 4.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 53.7 17.0 20.2 3.8 5.4

ARMM 1,727 67.2 11.9 15.5 2.8 2.7

Caraga 1,921 52.1 18.4 20.1 3.2 6.3

Table 38. Percent distribution of households by frequency of other fruit consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 25.9 16.5 31.4 9.6 16.6

NCR 3,213 18.7 15.7 35.4 11.9 18.4

CAR 1,706 29.1 16.9 29.3 8.7 15.9

Ilocos 2,363 33.4 17.4 28.9 7.7 12.5

Cagayan Valley 2,304 19.7 17.2 31.4 12.1 19.7

Central Luzon 3,427 21.5 17.0 33.3 9.5 18.8

CALABARZON 4,269 25.0 16.5 30.5 9.8 18.3

MIMAROPA 1,293 30.4 18.6 29.7 8.7 12.6

Bicol 2,632 31.5 17.1 27.9 7.7 15.7

Western Visayas 3,135 22.1 17.5 32.4 10.4 17.6

Central Visayas 2,275 32.3 16.6 32.5 8.3 10.4

Eastern Visayas 2,353 39.4 16.6 26.0 7.5 10.5



Davao 2,217 21.8 14.0 32.0 10.9 21.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 21.1 16.7 33.0 9.0 20.3

ARMM 1,727 41.5 15.4 25.2 6.7 11.3

Caraga 1,921 22.2 16.0 34.2 10.0 17.6

42




Table 39. Percent distribution of households by frequency of meat and meat product consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 22.0 27.0 34.6 10.3 6.2

NCR 3,213 7.8 17.7 42.4 20.0 12.0

CAR 1,706 15.6 25.0 41.5 11.2 6.8

Ilocos 2,363 16.1 28.6 39.8 9.2 6.3

Cagayan Valley 2,304 12.9 30.6 42.2 8.9 5.5

Central Luzon 3,427 9.8 22.6 46.8 13.7 7.1

CALABARZON 4,269 14.1 22.3 40.9 14.8 8.0

MIMAROPA 1,293 30.6 31.9 27.1 6.4 3.9

Bicol 2,632 24.2 36.5 29.9 5.6 3.8

Western Visayas 3,135 24.7 34.1 31.1 6.2 3.9

Central Visayas 2,275 27.7 31.3 27.5 8.5 5.1

Eastern Visayas 2,353 29.2 36.6 25.2 4.8 4.2



Davao 2,217 24.5 29.2 30.2 9.2 6.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 34.9 28.5 27.9 5.2 3.5

ARMM 1,727 73.5 14.4 9.8 1.4 0.9

Caraga 1,921 29.7 33.6 26.3 7.0 3.4

Table 40. Percent distribution of households by frequency of organ meat consumption and


Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 84.7 10.8 3.9 0.4 0.2

NCR 3,213 79.6 14.1 5.4 0.7 0.2

CAR 1,706 88.9 8.2 2.7 0.1 0.1

Ilocos 2,363 82.7 11.8 5.1 0.2 0.2

Cagayan Valley 2,304 83.0 12.9 3.9 0.2 0.0

Central Luzon 3,427 81.9 13.3 4.3 0.4 0.2

CALABARZON 4,269 82.7 12.4 4.1 0.5 0.3

MIMAROPA 1,293 88.0 8.7 2.9 0.2 0.2

Bicol 2,632 88.5 8.7 2.5 0.2 0.2

Western Visayas 3,135 81.4 13.3 4.5 0.4 0.4

Central Visayas 2,275 87.2 8.6 4.1 0.1 0.1

Eastern Visayas 2,353 90.0 7.3 2.5 0.2 0.1



Davao 2,217 88.0 8.4 3.0 0.3 0.3

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 88.7 7.6 3.1 0.3 0.4

ARMM 1,727 95.1 2.8 1.5 0.3 0.4

Caraga 1,921 87.0 8.7 4.1 0.2 0.1

43




Table 41. Percent distribution of households by frequency of egg consumption and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 19.3 15.0 37.8 13.9 14.0

NCR 3,213 13.1 11.8 37.4 19.2 18.5

CAR 1,706 24.0 16.1 35.0 13.2 11.7

Ilocos 2,363 16.2 13.6 41.0 14.4 14.8

Cagayan Valley 2,304 18.3 16.0 40.9 11.6 13.1

Central Luzon 3,427 9.6 11.7 40.5 18.6 19.6

CALABARZON 4,269 14.2 11.4 39.0 16.7 18.8

MIMAROPA 1,293 26.0 15.7 39.8 9.6 9.0

Bicol 2,632 24.1 17.4 36.8 10.2 11.5

Western Visayas 3,135 19.7 22.0 39.1 10.9 8.4

Central Visayas 2,275 22.7 16.8 37.8 12.6 10.0

Eastern Visayas 2,353 28.7 17.7 34.5 10.2 9.0



Davao 2,217 18.5 15.7 37.4 13.5 14.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 23.9 19.4 37.0 9.2 10.4

ARMM 1,727 43.6 14.1 28.7 7.1 6.6

Caraga 1,921 20.3 16.8 37.4 11.6 13.9

Table 42. Percent distribution of households by frequency of fish and shellfish consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 9.2 15.7 39.5 16.1 19.6

NCR 3,213 13.2 17.0 42.9 16.6 10.2

CAR 1,706 22.6 27.0 38.1 7.3 5.0

Ilocos 2,363 12.7 18.1 43.8 13.0 12.4

Cagayan Valley 2,304 14.9 29.9 40.3 9.3 5.6

Central Luzon 3,427 8.5 18.4 47.3 14.8 11.0

CALABARZON 4,269 8.9 14.8 41.5 18.4 16.5

MIMAROPA 1,293 9.9 13.6 31.1 17.0 28.5

Bicol 2,632 9.0 13.7 41.1 15.0 21.2

Western Visayas 3,135 5.2 15.3 36.0 14.3 29.3

Central Visayas 2,275 5.8 12.5 35.8 17.5 28.4

Eastern Visayas 2,353 4.4 9.2 30.3 19.3 36.8



Davao 2,217 6.0 12.0 39.0 17.9 25.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 8.4 16.1 41.3 15.1 19.2

ARMM 1,727 10.0 12.9 28.1 17.5 31.5

Caraga 1,921 7.9 14.8 36.3 14.7 26.4

44




Table 43. Percent distribution of households by frequency of legumes, nuts, and seeds consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 60.2 18.9 14.3 2.9 3.8

NCR 3,213 60.3 19.9 12.3 3.5 4.0

CAR 1,706 51.5 20.8 20.9 3.8 3.1

Ilocos 2,363 50.7 25.0 19.7 2.5 2.1

Cagayan Valley 2,304 42.4 29.1 24.5 2.6 1.4

Central Luzon 3,427 54.1 22.9 14.3 4.2 4.6

CALABARZON 4,269 63.3 19.8 11.3 2.6 3.1

MIMAROPA 1,293 62.7 21.2 12.3 1.5 2.4

Bicol 2,632 71.4 13.2 11.9 1.7 1.9

Western Visayas 3,135 51.8 23.5 19.4 1.8 3.5

Central Visayas 2,275 58.7 20.6 16.1 2.3 2.4

Eastern Visayas 2,353 74.8 12.6 8.4 1.3 2.9



Davao 2,217 58.6 14.9 14.9 4.3 7.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 64.1 15.6 14.3 2.4 3.7

ARMM 1,727 74.2 7.7 8.4 3.3 6.5

Caraga 1,921 66.0 14.7 11.7 2.1 5.5

Table 44. Percent distribution of households by frequency of milk and milk product consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 48.9 4.8 9.9 4.4 32.0

NCR 3,213 37.5 6.9 13.6 6.8 35.2

CAR 1,706 52.2 3.6 10.5 4.1 29.6

Ilocos 2,363 53.2 4.1 8.6 4.2 29.9

Cagayan Valley 2,304 48.7 4.4 8.4 3.8 34.6

Central Luzon 3,427 48.2 4.6 8.5 3.5 35.3

CALABARZON 4,269 47.6 5.0 9.7 4.6 33.0

MIMAROPA 1,293 53.2 5.0 9.8 4.4 27.6

Bicol 2,632 41.7 4.0 10.9 4.2 39.2

Western Visayas 3,135 43.3 4.9 10.5 4.5 36.8

Central Visayas 2,275 44.1 4.5 12.0 6.1 33.4

Eastern Visayas 2,353 55.6 3.8 9.5 3.5 27.6



Davao 2,217 47.5 4.8 9.1 4.0 34.6

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 59.2 3.5 7.5 3.1 26.8

ARMM 1,727 82.8 1.8 3.1 2.8 9.6

Caraga 1,921 48.7 4.9 12.0 4.4 30.1

45




Table 45. Percent distribution of households by frequency of oil and fat consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 9.6 5.3 24.9 17.4 42.7

NCR 3,213 10.1 4.3 18.1 18.0 49.4

CAR 1,706 6.6 3.3 16.6 16.7 56.9

Ilocos 2,363 7.9 4.1 27.3 17.5 43.3

Cagayan Valley 2,304 6.4 5.1 21.8 16.7 49.9

Central Luzon 3,427 5.1 3.8 18.5 22.9 49.7

CALABARZON 4,269 11.2 3.0 18.9 16.2 50.7

MIMAROPA 1,293 14.5 7.7 28.0 16.2 33.6

Bicol 2,632 8.4 4.9 30.0 16.3 40.5

Western Visayas 3,135 5.8 8.1 33.7 16.1 36.3

Central Visayas 2,275 13.9 7.3 29.5 17.5 31.8

Eastern Visayas 2,353 14.3 7.9 33.1 16.3 28.4



Davao 2,217 6.3 5.4 29.4 14.9 44.0

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 10.2 7.3 32.2 15.1 35.2

ARMM 1,727 17.5 7.3 21.8 13.6 39.7

Caraga 1,921 8.4 5.8 31.6 16.3 37.9

Table 46. Percent distribution of households by frequency of sugar and sweets consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 18.5 4.0 11.9 7.0 58.5

NCR 3,213 25.5 6.5 15.9 9.3 42.8

CAR 1,706 11.9 2.8 9.7 8.4 67.2

Ilocos 2,363 14.9 2.5 10.5 6.2 66.0

Cagayan Valley 2,304 8.9 3.4 8.7 7.0 71.9

Central Luzon 3,427 17.4 3.6 10.4 6.8 61.8

CALABARZON 4,269 27.1 4.7 12.3 6.0 50.0

MIMAROPA 1,293 18.2 2.9 11.6 5.8 61.6

Bicol 2,632 14.1 2.7 7.9 5.2 70.2

Western Visayas 3,135 10.2 4.8 12.5 6.9 65.6

Central Visayas 2,275 18.7 4.1 15.0 9.8 52.4

Eastern Visayas 2,353 24.2 2.9 11.4 6.6 54.9



Davao 2,217 12.6 3.9 12.6 6.0 64.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 10.9 2.8 9.3 5.2 71.7

ARMM 1,727 15.4 1.5 7.7 7.4 67.9

Caraga 1,921 18.0 4.5 13.6 6.4 57.5

46




Table 47. Percent distribution of households by frequency of beverage, condiments, and spices consumption per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


Did not consume

Once a Week



Everyday

Philippines 40,893 4.2 1.5 6.0 7.6 80.8

NCR 3,213 8.6 2.8 8.7 10.1 69.8

CAR 1,706 2.6 0.7 5.0 7.3 84.5

Ilocos 2,363 4.2 0.8 6.7 5.8 82.6

Cagayan Valley 2,304 1.7 1.2 4.6 5.9 86.6

Central Luzon 3,427 2.6 1.0 5.0 8.2 83.3

CALABARZON 4,269 5.3 1.8 7.0 8.6 77.3

MIMAROPA 1,293 4.6 1.7 8.6 7.5 77.7

Bicol 2,632 3.7 1.3 4.8 5.3 84.9

Western Visayas 3,135 1.2 0.8 4.3 6.4 87.3

Central Visayas 2,275 4.7 1.5 7.4 9.4 77.1

Eastern Visayas 2,353 6.1 1.7 5.7 7.4 79.2



Davao 2,217 1.8 1.1 4.9 5.0 87.2

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 1.9 1.0 3.8 4.2 89.1

ARMM 1,727 5.6 1.8 4.3 5.8 82.5

Caraga 1,921 3.2 1.3 6.7 8.6 80.2

Food Consumption Categories

Based on a cut-off score of 426, a vast majority of Filipino households had acceptable food

consumption. This indicates food security in terms of variety and nutritional adequacy. However,

ARMM had the highest rates of households with borderline (22.6%) and poor (6.5%) food

consumption compared with other regions (Figure 14 and Table 48). MIMAROPA comes next to

having the highest rates of households with poorly-diverse diets at 5.0%.

6 The threshold of 42 was established through research conducted in other, mostly African countries.

47




Figure 14. Percent distribution of households by food consumption category per region:

Philippines, 2015

The wealth quintile in which a household belongs also affects its dietary diversity; as the

household’s wealth category increases, the more diverse the diet becomes. More households within

the acceptable food consumption category were found among middle-income to the richest

households, while households with the most number of poor food consumption were found among the

poorest wealth categories (Figure 15). Despite having lower than average income, poor households

mostly have acceptable food consumption at 83.2% than borderline (14.4%) or poor (2.5%) food

consumption.

Table 48. Percent distribution of households by food consumption category per region: Philippines, 2015

Region n Poor (0-28)

Borderline (>28-42)

Acceptable (>42)

Philippines 40,893 2.3 10.7 87.0

NCR 3,213 2.2 6.5 91.4

CAR 1,706 3.3 15.2 81.5

Ilocos 2,363 2.6 11.5 85.9

Cagayan Valley 2,304 1.4 11.6 87.0

Central Luzon 3,427 0.9 6.9 92.1

CALABARZON 4,269 1.5 8.7 89.9

MIMAROPA 1,293 5.0 12.7 82.3

Bicol 2,632 2.5 11.8 85.7

Western Visayas 3,135 1.7 11.5 86.8

Central Visayas 2,275 2.5 9.7 87.8

Eastern Visayas 2,353 3.7 12.7 83.6

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 3.0 11.0 86.0

Northern Mindanao 2,171 2.8 13.7 83.4

Davao 2,217 1.0 9.1 89.9

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 2.7 16.3 81.0

ARMM 1,727 6.5 22.6 70.9

Caraga 1,921 2.5 11.8 85.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Caraga

ARMM

SOCCSKSARGEN

Davao

Northern Mindanao

Zamboanga Peninsula

Eastern Visayas

Central Visayas

Western Visayas

Bicol

MIMAROPA

CALABARZON

Central Luzon

Cagayan Valley

Ilocos

CAR

NCR

Philippines

Percentage

Poor FCS (0-28) Borderline FCS (>28-42) Acceptable FCS (>42)

48




Figure 15 shows that majority of Filipino households have acceptable food consumption even

among the poorest. The rich (93.8%) and the richest (96.8%) quintiles have the country's largest

proportion of households with acceptable food consumption. Meanwhile, the poorest (21.8%) and the

poor (14.4%) have the most number of households with insufficiently diverse diets, or borderline food

consumption (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Percent distribution of households by wealth quintile and food consumption category: Philippines, 2015

Table 49 shows that the highest percentage of households with poor food consumption was

observed among the poorest in the regions of NCR (16.5%) and MIMAROPA (13.9%). On the other

hand, middle-income households have generally acceptable (88.8%) food consumption, which

suggests that Filipino households with even an average purchasing capacity could sustain having a

well-diverse diet (Table 51).

Table 49. Percent distribution of poorest households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2015

Region

POOREST QUINTILE

n Poor

(0-28) Borderline

(>28-42) Acceptable

(>42)

Philippines 9,405 6.1 21.8 72.1

NCR 45 16.5 14.9 68.6

CAR 380 9.8 28.6 61.7

Ilocos 221 6.1 22.7 71.2

Cagayan Valley 305 4.7 27.8 67.5

Central Luzon 164 3.6 17.6 78.9

CALABARZON 294 5.1 23.3 71.6

MIMAROPA 382 13.9 24.2 62.0

Bicol 743 5.7 18.7 75.6

Western Visayas 917 3.4 21.1 75.5

Central Visayas 607 6.2 18.1 75.7

Eastern Visayas 712 6.9 19.3 73.8

Zamboanga Peninsula 697 6.3 17.6 76.1

Northern Mindanao 696 6.8 23.7 69.5

Davao 652 2.5 17.1 80.4

SOCCSKSARGEN 813 6.4 30.5 63.1

ARMM 1,129 8.2 25.6 66.2

Caraga 648 4.8 15.8 79.4

6.1 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.5

21.8 14.4

9.6 5.2 2.8

72.1

83.2 88.8

93.8 96.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poorest(n=9,405)

Poor(n=9,023)

Middle(n=8,100)

Rich(n=7,359)

Richest(n=6,987)

Poor (0-28) Bordeline (>28-42) Acceptable (>42)

49




Table 50. Percent distribution of poor households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2015

Region

POOR QUINTILE

n Poor

(0-28) Borderline

(>28-42) Acceptable

(>42)

Philippines 9,023 2.5 14.4 83.2

NCR 265 4.3 13.7 82.1

CAR 388 4.0 22.5 73.5

Ilocos 531 2.5 17.3 80.2


Central Luzon 412 2.7 14.2 83.1

CALABARZON 598 3.1 17.5 79.4

MIMAROPA 297 2.7 14.5 82.9

Bicol 708 2.3 13.0 84.7






Davao 550 0.9 10.3 88.8


ARMM 385 5.2 21.4 73.5

Caraga 576 2.1 14.0 83.9

Table 51. Percent distribution of middle income households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2015

Region

MIDDLE QUINTILE

n Poor (0-28)

Borderline (>28-42)

Acceptable (>42)

Philippines 8,100 1.6 9.6 88.8

NCR 657 3.2 11.1 85.7

CAR 312 1.2 14.7 84.1

Ilocos 619 3.7 13.8 82.5


Central Luzon 732 1.4 8.9 89.7

CALABARZON 934 1.5 11.2 87.3

MIMAROPA 265 1.5 8.4 90.1

Bicol 591 1.1 9.7 89.2






Davao 411 0.5 6.1 93.4


ARMM 123 0.0 10.5 89.5

Caraga 316 0.9 10.7 88.4

50




Table 52. Percent distribution of rich households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2015

Region

RICH QUINTILE

n Poor

(0-28) Borderline

(>28-42) Acceptable

(>42)

Philippines 7,359 1.0 5.2 93.8

NCR 1,045 2.0 5.6 92.3

CAR 348 0.5 6.8 92.6

Ilocos 522 1.5 6.3 92.2


Central Luzon 1,076 0.3 4.3 95.4

CALABARZON 1,161 1.1 5.6 93.3

MIMAROPA 191 0.0 5.4 94.6

Bicol 317 0.6 6.8 92.6






Davao 298 0.0 2.7 97.3


ARMM 56 0.0 8.8 91.2

Caraga 212 0.5 4.2 95.4

Table 53. Percent distribution of richest households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2015

Region

RICHEST QUINTILE

n Poor

(0-28) Borderline

(28-42) Acceptable

(>42)

Philippines 6,987 0.5 2.8 96.8

NCR 1,195 0.8 3.1 96.1

CAR 277 0.4 2.7 96.9

Ilocos 470 1.1 2.9 96.0


Central Luzon 1,041 0.3 3.9 95.7

CALABARZON 1,281 0.3 3.0 96.7

MIMAROPA 157 0.8 2.4 96.8

Bicol 273 0.4 1.8 97.8






Davao 305 0.3 3.0 96.7


ARMM 31 0.0 0.0 100.0

Caraga 169 1.2 2.3 96.5

51




CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of the 2015 Updating Survey presented in this monograph lead to the following

conclusions:

Only one out of three, or 33.9% Filipino households were found to be food secure. There was

a slight decline of 0.2% compared with the values obtained in 2013.

Among the regions, CALABARZON had the most percentage of food secure households

(44.4%), followed by Central Luzon (43.3%) and Cordillera Administrative Region (39.3%).

On the other hand, the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) had the least

number of food secure households (15.0%).

An increasing trend was observed in the percentage of households considered food secure

from 15.6% in 2001 to 33.9% in 2015. However, the increase was inadequate since majority

of households or two-thirds of the population still suffers from food insecurity.

About 37.8% of households with less than or equal to five members were considered more

food secure (p-value ≤0.05) compared to households with more than five members (25.9%).

Thus, household size significantly affects food security status.

Households with female heads were significantly more food secure (38.5%) compared to

households headed by males (32.6%) (p-value ≤0.05).

Food insecurity and wealth quintile had an inverse relationship. Households belonging to the

richest quintile have the largest proportion of food secure households (71.6%), while those

belonging to the poorest quintile have the smallest ratio at 11.5%.

Majority of households in all regions consumed nine to 10 different types of food groups each

week, which depicts good diversity in the Filipino diet. Cereals (99.7%), vegetables (97.9%),

condiments and beverage (95.8%), fish and other seafood (90.8%), and oils and fats (90.4%)

comprise the largest bulk of a typical Filipino diet.

Filipino households sourced their food mainly through purchasing or buying, followed by

own-production. Hence, purchasing capacity of the household greatly affects food security

status.

Green leafy vegetables (46.0%), vitamin A-rich fruits (31.6%), and other vegetables (21.0%)

are the food groups with the highest proportion of households who obtain their supply from

own produce.

Almost all households in all regions were classified to have an “Acceptable” food

consumption level which indicates food security in terms of dietary diversity and nutritional

adequacy.

The generally acceptable food consumption scores and wide variety of food groups eaten in a

week by most households in majority of the regions in the Philippines indicate a fair level of food

security in the country. However, energy needs are still insufficiently met, and some households still

experience severe levels of food insecurity. It is also possible that the tools used to asses these

parameters may need to be modified to fit the Philippine setting better, as these tools were initially

applied by researchers in the African population, therefore some factors may not have been classified

appropriately.

52




The Philippines, admittedly, has a long way to go when it comes to improving food security.

Although there was a notable increase in the number of food secure households over the years, the

rate of growth was not enough to completely eradicate hunger by the end of the Millennium

Development Goal deadline. Programs that are aimed to improve food security should be amplified

and highly vulnerable areas such as the regions of ARMM and parts of Visayas and MIMAROPA, as

well as populations in the lowest wealth categories should be given utmost priority. With sufficient,

timely, and properly-addressed interventions, among other factors, complete food security in the

country can be fully achieved.

53




REFERENCES

Books/Journals:

Barcenas, M.L. (2004). The Development of the 2003 Master Sample (MS) for Philippine Household

Surveys. 9th National Convention on Statistics.

Coates, J., Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2007). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for

Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v.3). Washington D.C.:FHI

360/Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2015). Regional Overview of Food Insecurity Asia

and the Pacific: Towards a Food Secure Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: FAO.

FAO, IFAD and WFP. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014: Strengthening

the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). Food Security Information for Action

Practical Guides: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. EC-FAO

Food Security Programme.

Food and Nutrition Research Institute – Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST).

(2015). Food Security: Training Manual for Participants. Taguig City: FNRI-DOST.

Food and Nutrition Research Institute – Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST).

(2013). 8th National Nutrition Survey, 2013, Manual of Instructions. Taguig, Philippines:

Author

Ingram, J. (2011). A food systems approach to researching food security & its interactions with global

environmental change. Food Security, 3(4), 417-431. Doi 10.1007/s12571-011-0149-9.

Kennedy, G., Ballard, T., & Dop, M., (2011) Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual

Dietary Diversity. Rome, Italy: United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organization.

Life Sciences Research Office, S.A. Andersen, ed., (1990) "Core Indicators of Nutritional State for

Difficult to Sample Populations," The Journal of Nutrition 120:1557S-1600S, 1990.

Nueva España, M.B.N., Agdeppa, I.A., & Capanzana, M.V. (2014). Assessing Household Food

Insecurity in the Regions of Mindanao using the WFP Food Consumption Score Tool. 8th

National Nutrition Survey: Terminal Report. FNRI-DOST. (unpublished).

Philippine Statistics Authority (2015). Major crops statistics of the Philippines: 2010-2014. Quezon

City: PSA.

Philippine Statistics Authority (2015). Yearbook of labor statistics 2015.. Manila: PSA. pp. 387.

Swindale, A. and P. Bilinsky (2006). Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of

Households Food Access: Indicator Guide. 2nd

ed. Washington D.C.: Food and Nutrition

Technical Assistance Project (FANTA) Academy for Educational Development

United Nations. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York: United

Nations.

World Food Programme. (2009). Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines.

First edition. Rome, Italy: UN-WFP.

54




Websites:

Food and Agriculture Organization (1996). World Food Summit Plan of Action. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

“Barangay, n.”. Oxford Dictionary of English. 3rd

ed. 2010. Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford

University Press. http://en.oxforddiactionaries.com/definition/barangay

Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance. (2015). Household Food Insecurity Access Scale

(HFIAS) for Measurement of Food Access: Indicator Guide. Retrieved from:

http://www.fantaproject.org/monitoring-and-evaluation/household-food-insecurity-

access-scale-hfias

Millennium Project. (2006). Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals

Philippine Food Security Information System. (2014a). Food Accessibility. Retrieved from

http://philfsis.psa.gov.ph/index.php/id/13.

Philippine Food Security Information System. (2014b). Food Utilization. Retrieved from

http://philfsis.psa.gov.ph/index.php/id/14

World Health Organization (2010). Food Security. Retrieved from

www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en.

United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html

World Food Programme. (2016). The republic of the Philippines: Current issues and what the World

Food Programme is doing. Retrieved from https://www.wfp.org/countries/philippines

Photograph Credits:

Butter: ponce_photography (2016). Butter [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://pixabay.com/en/butter-ingredient-yellow-cooking-1449453/

Cheese: Schulenberg, F. (2014). Cowgirl creamery point Reyes - red hawk cheese [digital image].

Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cowgirl_Creamery_Point_Reyes_-

_Red_Hawk_cheese.jpg

Coffee: shixugang (2012). Coffee [digital image]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/coffee-

coffee-beans-afternoon-tea-563797/

Honey: hansbenn (2016). Honey extractors [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://pixabay.com/en/honey-extractors-honey-sweet-1568943

Ice Cream: (2013) Sorbetes [digital image]. Retrieved from

http://pinoyinfo101.blogspot.com/2013/11/top-pinoy-dishes-you-like-to-eat.html

Ketchup: idealisms (2010). Ketchup [digital image] Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ketchup-01.jpg

55




Lemon tea: stevepb (2015). Lemon tea [digital image]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/lemon-

tea-tea-cup-of-tea-lemon-937245/

Mayonnaise: jules (2012). Mayonnaise [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mayonnaise_(1).jpg

Milk: (2011). Retrieved from http://www.preparednesspro.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/03/powdered-milk-photo-co-at-taufiq91-blogspot-com.jpg

Mussels: Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mussels_at_Trouville_fish_market.jpg

Olive Oil: margenauer (2005). Olive oil [digital image]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/olive-

oil-greek-oil-olive-bottle-356102/

Salmon: Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/smoked-salmon-salmon-fish-71100/

Soft Candy Bears: pixel1 (2015). Soft candy bears [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://pixabay.com/en/soft-candy-bears-sour-sweet-food-1014623/

Spices: Taken (2014). Spices [digital image]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/spices-white-

pepper-nutmeg-cloves-541974/

Yogurt: Takeaway (2014). Turkish strained yogurt [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turkish_strained_yogurt.jpg



56




APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Proportion of food secure households with standard error, confidence interval,

and coefficient of variation by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n

FOOD SECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Philippines 41,282 33.9 0.4 33.0 34.7 1.3

NCR7 3,307 36.1 1.3 33.5 38.7 3.6

District I 442 37.4 2.9 31.9 43.3 7.8

District II 1,169 36.4 2.5 31.8 41.4 6.7

District IIII 861 36.0 2.3 31.7 40.6 6.3

District IV 835 34.9 2.3 30.4 39.6 6.7

CAR 1,704 39.3 2.0 35.5 43.2 5.0

Abra 282 33.0 5.4 23.4 44.2 16.3

Benguet 693 49.4 3.0 43.6 55.2 6.0

Ifugao 203 31.6 7.1 19.5 46.9 22.6

Kalinga 209 30.9 3.8 24.0 38.9 12.3

Mountain Province 200 20.9 5.3 12.4 33.2 25.4

Apayao 117 37.7 6.7 25.7 51.4 17.7

Ilocos 2,367 32.6 1.4 29.9 35.4 4.3

Ilocos Norte 315 30.4 3.2 24.4 37.0 10.6

Ilocos Sur 307 37.4 6.2 26.2 50.2 16.6

La Union 440 31.2 2.7 26.2 36.7 8.6

Pangasinan 1,305 32.4 1.7 29.1 35.8 5.3

Cagayan Valley 2,308 29.4 1.7 26.3 32.8 5.7

Cagayan 795 29.7 2.6 24.8 35.1 8.9

Isabela 1,115 28.0 2.3 23.7 32.7 8.2

Nueva Vizcaya 277 36.8 5.9 26.1 49.0 16.1

Quirino 121 23.2 7.4 11.7 40.6 32.0

Central Luzon 3,450 43.3 1.5 40.3 46.3 3.6

Bataan 236 58.4 4.8 48.8 67.4 8.2

Bulacan 973 46.4 3.4 40.0 53.1 7.2

Nueva Ecija 795 42.5 3.3 36.2 49.1 7.8

Pampanga 713 42.6 3.2 36.5 49.1 7.6

Tarlac 451 36.8 3.9 29.5 44.7 10.6

Zambales 216 24.9 2.8 19.9 30.7 11.2

Aurora 66 56.5 7.4 42.0 70.1 13.0

CALABARZON 4,328 44.4 1.3 41.8 47.1 3.0

Batangas 793 43.7 2.8 38.3 49.2 6.4

Cavite 1,076 44.0 2.9 38.4 49.7 6.6

Laguna 989 46.8 2.9 41.3 52.4 6.1

Quezon 735 40.3 3.3 34.1 46.8 8.1

Rizal 735 46.3 3.1 40.3 52.5 6.7

MIMAROPA 1,316 30.1 2.0 26.4 34.2 6.6

Marinduque 167 37.2 4.0 29.8 45.3 10.7

Occidental Mindoro 204 24.5 4.8 16.3 35.1 19.6

Oriental Mindoro 368 26.7 3.8 19.9 34.7 14.2

Palawan 418 30.4 4.0 23.2 38.7 13.1

Romblon 159 38.2 4.8 29.4 47.9 12.4

Bicol 2,633 29.7 1.5 26.7 32.8 5.2

Albay 590 33.5 3.4 27.1 40.5 10.2

Camarines Norte 285 31.4 5.3 22.0 42.6 16.9

Camarines Sur 822 33.6 2.5 28.9 38.6 7.4

Catanduanes 132 31.9 8.9 17.3 51.1 28.0

Masbate 405 21.4 3.9 14.7 30.0 18.3

Sorsogon 399 21.7 3.0 16.5 28.1 13.6

57




Continuation…Appendix 1

Region/Province n

FOOD SECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Western Visayas 3,141 23.8 1.1 21.7 26.0 4.6

Aklan 195 22.3 4.2 15.1 31.6 18.9

Antique 217 25.7 4.8 17.4 36.3 18.8

Capiz 388 22.0 3.4 16.1 29.4 15.5

Iloilo 1,083 27.9 1.9 24.4 31.7 6.7

Negros Occidental 1,193 20.5 1.6 17.5 23.9 8.0

Guimaras 65 27.7 10.0 12.6 50.5 36.1

Central Visayas 2,301 31.7 1.6 28.7 34.9 5.0

Bohol 516 37.6 2.8 32.3 43.2 7.4

Cebu 1,167 34.2 2.5 29.5 39.2 7.3

Negros Oriental 553 21.3 2.6 16.6 26.9 12.4

Siquijor 65 26.2 3.2 20.3 32.9 12.3

Eastern Visayas 2,461 27.7 1.6 24.7 30.8 5.6

Eastern Samar 273 22.1 3.9 15.3 30.7 17.8

Leyte 1,195 28.6 2.3 24.3 33.3 8.0

Northern Samar 291 26.9 4.4 19.2 36.3 16.3

Western Samar 372 25.1 3.6 18.7 32.8 14.3

Southern Leyte 205 26.7 3.3 20.8 33.6 12.3

Biliran 125 42.4 12.2 21.6 66.3 28.9

Zamboanga Peninsula8 1,745 33.2 2.3 28.8 37.8 6.9

Zamboanga del Norte 570 28.6 3.3 22.6 35.6 11.6

Zamboanga del Sur 816 35.4 3.4 29.0 42.4 9.7

Zamboanga Sibugay 305 32.3 6.0 21.8 44.9 18.6


Bukidnon 633 30.1 3.3 24.0 36.9 11.0

Camiguin 51 52.9 20.1 18.8 84.5 37.9

Lanao del Norte 465 33.8 5.0 24.8 44.1 14.7

Misamis Occidental 262 42.0 5.6 31.5 53.1 13.3

Misamis Oriental 764 38.1 4.6 29.6 47.5 12.0

Davao 2,222 33.3 1.8 29.8 37.0 5.5

Davao del Norte 406 33.9 3.3 27.7 40.7 9.8

Davao del Sur 1,221 36.5 2.6 31.6 41.7 7.1

Davao Oriental 272 27.6 7.1 16.0 43.3 25.7

Compostela Valley 323 23.4 2.9 18.2 29.7 12.5

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 29.5 1.9 25.9 33.3 6.3

North Cotabato 720 22.9 2.6 18.2 28.5 11.5

South Cotabato 799 38.9 3.6 32.1 46.1 9.2

Sultan Kudarat 410 23.8 3.3 17.9 30.9 13.9

Sarangani 234 25.7 4.6 17.7 35.7 18.0

ARMM10 1,734 15.0 1.8 11.7 18.9 12.2

Basilan11 129 35.6 6.5 21.7 52.6 18.3

Lanao del Sur 581 7.7 1.6 5.1 11.4 20.3

Maguindanao 627 15.9 2.4 11.8 21.1 14.8

Sulu 258 10.6 3.8 5.1 20.8 36.4

Tawi-Tawi 193 27.3 6.8 16.1 42.4 24.9

Caraga 1,927 27.7 1.8 24.4 31.4 6.5

Agusan del Norte 551 33.0 3.7 26.2 40.5 11.2

Agusan del Sur 441 22.4 3.3 16.6 29.4 14.7

Surigao del Norte 488 32.0 4.4 24.0 41.2 13.8

Surigao del Sur 447 21.9 2.5 17.4 27.2 11.4

7 National Capital Region includes all the four districts and cities therein

District I – Manila District III – Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela

District II – Quezon City, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, San Juan District IV – Makati, Pateros, Taguig, Las Piñas, Parañaque, Pasay 8 Although administratively Isabela City is the capital province of Basilan, it is not part of the ARMM and is placed under Zamboanga Peninsula region. However, in generating

provincial estimates, the city is included in the province of Basilan 9 Cotabato City is the regional center of ARMM but the city is actually part of SOCCSKSARGEN and does not belong to ARMM. Thus, in generating provincial estimates, Cotabato

City is classified under the province of North Cotabato. 10 Excluding the cities of Isabela and Cotabato 11 Including the City of Isabela

58




Appendix 2. Proportion of mildly food insecure with standard error, confidence interval,

coefficient of variation by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n

MILDLY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Philippines 41,282 12.3 0.2 11.9 12.8 1.8

NCR7 3,307 11.2 0.8 9.8 12.8 6.9

District I 442 11.0 1.4 8.5 14.0 12.6

District II 1,169 11.9 1.6 9.1 15.3 13.2

District IIII 861 14.1 1.3 11.7 16.8 9.2

District IV 835 7.6 0.9 6.0 9.7 12.4

CAR 1,704 19.3 1.1 17.2 21.6 5.7

Abra 282 18.2 2.9 13.1 24.6 16.0

Benguet 693 19.4 1.7 16.2 23.0 8.9

Ifugao 203 21.7 2.5 17.1 27.0 11.6

Kalinga 209 21.5 3.5 15.4 29.2 16.4


Apayao 117 15.3 3.4 9.7 23.3 22.3

Ilocos 2,367 14.6 0.8 13.1 16.3 5.7

Ilocos Norte 315 16.6 2.8 11.8 22.9 16.8

Ilocos Sur 307 12.3 2.1 8.8 17.0 17.0

La Union 440 15.6 1.8 12.3 19.5 11.7

Pangasinan 1,305 14.4 1.1 12.4 16.7 7.6

Cagayan Valley 2,308 14.4 0.8 12.9 16.1 5.8

Cagayan 795 14.2 1.3 11.8 17.0 9.2

Isabela 1,115 14.5 1.3 12.0 17.3 9.3

Nueva Vizcaya 277 15.0 1.8 11.8 18.9 12.0

Quirino 121 14.0 3.2 8.8 21.6 23.1

Central Luzon 3,450 14.0 0.7 12.7 15.5 5.2

Bataan 236 25.1 3.9 18.2 33.4 15.5

Bulacan 973 13.3 1.3 11.0 15.9 9.5

Nueva Ecija 795 13.0 1.4 10.5 15.9 10.5

Pampanga 713 15.8 1.8 12.6 19.6 11.2

Tarlac 451 12.6 1.6 9.8 16.0 12.5

Zambales 216 10.9 3.0 6.2 18.4 27.9

Aurora 66 2.3 13.7 0.5 9.6 75.9

CALABARZON 4,328 12.6 0.7 11.3 13.9 5.2

Batangas 793 12.9 1.2 10.6 15.5 9.7

Cavite 1,076 14.1 1.3 11.8 16.9 9.1

Laguna 989 11.9 1.5 9.2 15.2 12.7

Quezon 735 10.9 1.4 8.5 14.0 12.8

Rizal 735 12.3 1.8 9.3 16.3 14.4

MIMAROPA 1,316 11.7 0.9 10.2 13.5 7.3

Marinduque 167 18.0 2.8 13.1 24.1 15.5



Palawan 418 8.4 1.1 6.5 10.9 13.4

Romblon 159 13.2 2.9 8.5 19.9 21.8

Bicol 2,633 14.2 0.7 12.8 15.7 5.3

Albay 590 15.4 1.6 12.5 18.7 10.3

Camarines Norte 285 16.6 3.3 11.1 24.0 19.8

Camarines Sur 822 13.1 1.2 10.9 15.7 9.3

Catanduanes 132 18.9 4.1 12.1 28.3 21.7

Masbate 405 10.3 1.2 8.1 13.0 12.1

Sorsogon 399 15.5 1.7 12.4 19.2 11.1

59





Region/Province n

MILDLY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Western Visayas 3,141 13.4 0.7 12.0 14.9 5.5

Aklan 195 14.7 3.0 9.7 21.6 20.4

Antique 217 11.0 2.2 7.4 16.0 19.5

Capiz 388 11.4 1.6 8.5 15.0 14.5

Iloilo 1,083 14.9 1.2 12.6 17.5 8.4


Guimaras 65 16.9 3.7 10.9 25.4 21.7

Central Visayas 2,301 12.0 0.8 10.6 13.6 6.3

Bohol 516 13.5 1.6 10.7 16.9 11.6

Cebu 1,167 11.6 1.1 9.7 13.8 9.1

Negros Oriental 553 10.8 1.6 8.1 14.4 14.6

Siquijor 65 21.5 4.1 14.6 30.6 19.0

Eastern Visayas 2,461 12.2 0.9 10.5 14.1 7.4

Eastern Samar 273 12.7 4.2 6.5 23.5 33.2

Leyte 1,195 11.8 1.3 9.5 14.7 11.2

Northern Samar 291 14.3 2.0 10.8 18.6 13.8

Western Samar 372 12.9 1.7 9.9 16.6 13.3

Southern Leyte 205 11.7 2.0 8.3 16.3 17.4

Biliran 125 8.0 3.0 3.8 16.2 37.5






Bukidnon 633 7.9 1.8 5.1 12.2 22.3

Camiguin 51 0.0 - - - -

Lanao del Norte 465 10.6 1.7 7.8 14.3 15.7



Davao 2,222 12.7 1.1 10.8 15.0 8.3

Davao del Norte 406 13.3 2.4 9.2 18.7 18.0

Davao del Sur 1,221 12.7 1.5 10.1 15.9 11.7

Davao Oriental 272 6.8 2.1 3.7 12.2 30.6


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 9.5 0.9 7.9 11.3 9.3

North Cotabato 720 9.3 1.5 6.7 12.7 16.3

South Cotabato 799 10.0 1.6 7.3 13.5 15.7

Sultan Kudarat 410 10.9 2.0 7.6 15.4 18.0

Sarangani 234 5.2 1.8 2.7 10.0 33.7

ARMM10 1,734 5.8 1.0 4.1 8.1 17.1

Basilan11 129 5.4 3.2 1.2 21.2 60.4

Lanao del Sur 581 3.6 0.7 2.4 5.3 19.9

Maguindanao 627 5.2 1.0 3.6 7.6 19.3

Sulu 258 11.5 2.8 7.1 18.1 24.2

Tawi-Tawi 193 0.0 - - - -

Caraga 1,927 10.3 0.8 8.8 12.0 8.1

Agusan del Norte 551 9.2 1.6 6.5 12.9 17.6

Agusan del Sur 441 13.0 1.2 10.7 15.6 9.6


Surigao del Sur 447 9.8 2.2 6.2 15.1 22.6






60




Appendix 3. Proportion of moderately food insecure households, standard error, confidence interval, coefficient of variations by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n

MODERATELY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Philippines 41,282 31.9 0.4 31.2 32.6 1.1

NCR7 3,307 23.5 0.9 21.8 25.3 3.7

District I 442 26.9 2.3 22.7 31.6 8.5

District II 1,169 22.7 1.5 19.8 25.8 6.8

District IIII 861 24.9 1.5 22.1 27.9 6.0

District IV 835 21.8 1.8 18.5 25.5 8.2

CAR 1,704 29.8 1.5 27.1 32.8 4.9

Abra 282 35.9 4.1 28.4 44.2 11.3

Benguet 693 22.0 2.1 18.1 26.5 9.7

Ifugao 203 35.9 5.5 26.0 47.1 15.2

Kalinga 209 28.8 3.6 22.2 36.3 12.5


Apayao 117 26.5 4.6 18.4 36.4 17.4

Ilocos 2,367 30.0 1.2 27.7 32.5 4.1

Ilocos Norte 315 31.3 2.8 26.1 36.9 8.8

Ilocos Sur 307 32.6 4.9 23.8 42.8 15.0

La Union 440 28.0 2.2 23.9 32.5 7.8

Pangasinan 1,305 29.9 1.6 26.9 33.1 5.3

Cagayan Valley 2,308 34.7 1.3 32.2 37.3 3.7

Cagayan 795 32.1 2.3 27.7 36.8 7.3

Isabela 1,115 36.3 1.6 33.3 39.4 4.3

Nueva Vizcaya 277 31.8 4.2 24.1 40.6 13.3

Quirino 121 44.7 8.8 28.7 61.8 19.6

Central Luzon 3,450 27.6 1.2 25.3 30.0 4.3

Bataan 236 12.3 2.3 8.5 17.5 18.5

Bulacan 973 27.5 2.3 23.1 32.3 8.5

Nueva Ecija 795 28.9 3.0 23.5 35.1 10.2

Pampanga 713 24.9 2.4 20.4 30.0 9.8

Tarlac 451 34.7 3.3 28.5 41.5 9.6

Zambales 216 39.5 3.1 33.7 45.6 7.7

Aurora 66 16.4 4.8 9.0 28.0 29.1

CALABARZON 4,328 24.0 1.0 22.1 26.0 4.1

Batangas 793 24.4 2.3 20.1 29.2 9.6

Cavite 1,076 24.5 2.0 20.8 28.7 8.1

Laguna 989 23.5 2.0 19.8 27.6 8.5

Quezon 735 27.7 2.8 22.5 33.5 10.2

Rizal 735 20.3 2.0 16.6 24.5 9.9

MIMAROPA 1,316 32.2 1.5 29.2 35.3 4.8

Marinduque 167 38.8 4.7 30.0 48.4 12.2



Palawan 418 29.2 2.8 24.0 35.1 9.7

Romblon 159 27.8 2.9 22.4 33.9 10.6

Bicol 2,633 38.3 1.3 35.8 40.9 3.4

Albay 590 33.1 2.8 27.8 38.8 8.5

Camarines Norte 285 42.6 4.4 34.2 51.4 10.4

Camarines Sur 822 39.7 2.5 34.8 44.7 6.4

Catanduanes 132 33.3 6.3 22.3 46.6 18.9

Masbate 405 37.7 2.8 32.4 43.3 7.4

Sorsogon 399 42.9 2.7 37.8 48.3 6.2

61





Region/Province n

MODERATELY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Western Visayas 3,141 40.3 1.1 38.1 42.4 2.7

Aklan 195 43.0 5.1 33.5 53.1 11.8

Antique 217 40.6 3.5 33.9 47.7 8.7

Capiz 388 40.6 3.5 34.0 47.5 8.5

Iloilo 1,083 38.9 2.0 35.0 42.9 5.2


Guimaras 65 46.2 10.3 27.5 65.9 22.3

Central Visayas 2,301 35.2 1.5 32.3 38.2 4.2

Bohol 516 32.2 3.4 25.9 39.2 10.6

Cebu 1,167 32.3 2.1 28.4 36.5 6.4

Negros Oriental 553 43.9 2.9 38.3 49.6 6.6

Siquijor 65 43.1 3.6 36.1 50.3 8.4

Eastern Visayas 2,461 37.8 1.5 34.9 40.8 4.0

Eastern Samar 273 47.7 4.3 39.5 56.0 8.9

Leyte 1,195 38.0 2.3 33.6 42.6 6.0

Northern Samar 291 40.1 3.2 34.1 46.4 7.9

Western Samar 372 28.1 3.4 21.9 35.2 12.1

Southern Leyte 205 37.7 4.4 29.5 46.6 11.6

Biliran 125 37.6 8.4 23.0 54.8 22.2






Bukidnon 633 39.9 3.8 32.7 47.6 9.6

Camiguin 51 37.3 15.6 13.8 68.7 41.9

Lanao del Norte 465 26.2 2.9 20.9 32.4 11.2



Davao 2,222 36.0 1.7 32.7 39.4 4.7

Davao del Norte 406 34.8 4.0 27.4 43.1 11.6

Davao del Sur 1,221 34.8 2.3 30.4 39.4 6.7

Davao Oriental 272 44.4 5.8 33.5 56.0 13.1


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 37.5 1.3 34.9 40.1 3.6

North Cotabato 720 38.4 2.4 33.9 43.1 6.1

South Cotabato 799 33.3 2.1 29.3 37.7 6.4

Sultan Kudarat 410 42.5 2.9 37.0 48.2 6.7

Sarangani 234 41.5 4.1 33.7 49.7 9.9

ARMM10 1,734 34.7 1.6 31.7 37.9 4.6

Basilan11 129 22.6 4.5 13.5 35.3 19.7

Lanao del Sur 581 36.0 3.7 29.2 43.5 10.2

Maguindanao 627 42.1 2.8 36.7 47.7 6.7

Sulu 258 32.5 2.7 27.4 38.0 8.4

Tawi-Tawi 193 28.6 3.5 22.3 35.8 12.1

Caraga 1,927 41.4 1.7 38.1 44.8 4.1

Agusan del Norte 551 35.1 2.9 29.6 41.0 8.4

Agusan del Sur 441 41.2 3.6 34.3 48.4 8.8


Surigao del Sur 447 49.3 3.4 42.7 55.9 6.9






62




Appendix 4. Proportion of severely food insecure households, standard error, confidence

interval, coefficient of variations by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n

SEVERELY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Philippines 41,282 21.9 0.3 21.3 22.5 1.5

NCR7 3,307 29.2 1.2 26.8 31.7 4.3

District I 442 24.7 2.3 20.5 29.5 9.3

District II 1,169 29.0 2.2 24.9 33.5 7.6

District IIII 861 25.0 2.3 20.8 29.8 9.1

District IV 835 35.7 2.3 31.3 40.3 6.4

CAR 1,704 11.6 1.2 9.5 14.1 10.0

Abra 282 13.0 2.8 8.4 19.5 21.8

Benguet 693 9.2 1.4 6.8 12.3 15.1

Ifugao 203 10.9 2.5 6.8 16.8 22.9

Kalinga 209 18.8 5.0 10.8 30.6 26.7


Apayao 117 20.5 8.1 8.9 40.7 39.5

Ilocos 2,367 22.8 1.2 20.5 25.2 5.3

Ilocos Norte 315 21.7 2.3 17.6 26.6 10.6

Ilocos Sur 307 17.7 3.6 11.6 26.0 20.5

La Union 440 25.3 2.7 20.4 30.9 10.6

Pangasinan 1,305 23.3 1.7 20.2 26.8 7.2

Cagayan Valley 2,308 21.4 1.2 19.1 24.0 5.8

Cagayan 795 24.1 2.3 19.9 28.8 9.4

Isabela 1,115 21.3 1.6 18.2 24.6 7.7

Nueva Vizcaya 277 16.4 3.7 10.4 24.9 22.5

Quirino 121 18.1 6.5 8.6 34.3 35.8

Central Luzon 3,450 15.1 0.8 13.5 16.8 5.5

Bataan 236 4.2 1.7 1.9 9.0 39.5

Bulacan 973 12.8 1.2 10.6 15.4 9.5

Nueva Ecija 795 15.6 1.5 12.9 18.7 9.5

Pampanga 713 16.7 2.5 12.3 22.1 15.0

Tarlac 451 15.9 1.9 12.5 19.9 11.9

Zambales 216 24.7 4.4 17.2 34.2 17.7

Aurora 66 24.8 3.8 18.1 32.9 15.3

CALABARZON 4,328 19.0 0.8 17.4 20.7 4.4

Batangas 793 19.1 2.2 15.1 23.9 11.7

Cavite 1,076 17.3 1.5 14.6 20.4 8.6

Laguna 989 17.9 1.6 14.8 21.3 9.2

Quezon 735 21.1 2.4 16.7 26.2 11.5

Rizal 735 21.0 1.9 17.5 25.1 9.3

MIMAROPA 1,316 25.9 1.7 22.7 29.5 6.7

Marinduque 167 6.0 2.9 2.3 15.0 48.7



Palawan 418 31.9 3.6 25.3 39.2 11.2

Romblon 159 20.8 3.0 15.5 27.3 14.4

Bicol 2,633 17.8 1.2 15.6 20.3 6.8

Albay 590 18.1 1.8 14.9 21.8 9.8

Camarines Norte 285 9.5 2.0 6.2 14.2 21.3

Camarines Sur 822 13.6 1.5 10.9 16.9 11.3

Catanduanes 132 15.9 4.3 9.1 26.1 26.9

Masbate 405 30.6 5.2 21.5 41.6 16.9

Sorsogon 399 19.8 2.5 15.3 25.2 12.7

63





Region/Province n

SEVERELY FOOD INSECURE

Proportion (%)

SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Western Visayas 3,141 22.5 1.0 20.6 24.5 4.5

Aklan 195 20.0 6.2 10.4 34.8 31.0

Antique 217 22.7 4.0 15.8 31.4 17.7

Capiz 388 26.0 2.2 21.9 30.6 8.6

Iloilo 1,083 18.4 1.6 15.4 21.8 8.9


Guimaras 65 9.2 1.9 6.1 13.7 20.5

Central Visayas 2,301 21.1 1.2 18.7 23.6 5.9

Bohol 516 16.8 2.4 12.6 21.9 14.1

Cebu 1,167 22.0 1.9 18.5 25.8 8.5

Negros Oriental 553 24.0 2.3 19.8 28.7 9.6

Siquijor 65 9.2 2.1 5.8 14.3 23.0

Eastern Visayas 2,461 22.4 1.5 19.6 25.4 6.6

Eastern Samar 273 17.5 5.5 9.1 30.9 31.4

Leyte 1,195 21.6 1.8 18.2 25.4 8.5

Northern Samar 291 18.7 3.1 13.4 25.5 16.5

Western Samar 372 33.9 4.8 25.2 43.9 14.2

Southern Leyte 205 23.9 5.0 15.5 34.9 20.8

Biliran 125 12.0 3.2 7.0 19.8 26.6






Bukidnon 633 22.1 2.2 18.0 26.7 10.0

Camiguin 51 9.8 5.5 3.1 27.0 56.2

Lanao del Norte 465 29.4 3.3 23.4 36.2 11.2



Davao 2,222 18.0 1.1 15.8 20.3 6.3

Davao del Norte 406 18.0 2.6 13.5 23.6 14.2

Davao del Sur 1,221 16.1 1.5 13.4 19.2 9.2

Davao Oriental 272 21.2 2.0 17.5 25.5 9.6


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 23.6 1.4 21.0 26.4 5.8

North Cotabato 720 29.4 2.5 24.7 34.6 8.6

South Cotabato 799 17.8 2.1 14.0 22.3 11.8

Sultan Kudarat 410 22.8 2.2 18.7 27.4 9.7

Sarangani 234 27.6 4.9 19.0 38.3 17.9

ARMM10 1,734 44.5 1.7 41.3 47.8 3.7

Basilan11 129 36.4 4.4 26.5 47.6 12.0

Lanao del Sur 581 52.7 4.0 44.9 60.4 7.6

Maguindanao 627 36.7 3.1 30.8 43.1 8.5

Sulu 258 45.5 2.2 41.3 49.7 4.8

Tawi-Tawi 193 44.2 5.5 33.8 55.1 12.5

Caraga 1,927 20.6 1.3 18.2 23.3 6.3

Agusan del Norte 551 22.8 2.3 18.6 27.6 10.0

Agusan del Sur 441 23.5 2.6 18.7 29.0 11.2


Surigao del Sur 447 19.0 3.3 13.4 26.2 17.2






64




FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE BASED ON THE HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE QUESTIONS ACROSS PROVINCES AND REGIONS

Appendix 5. Percent distribution of households who worry about food by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region n


No Yes, rarely (1–2 times)

Yes, sometimes (3-10 times)

Yes, often (>10 times)

Philippines 41,282 37.6 23.2 25.5 13.7

NCR7 3,307 40.8 24.4 21.2 13.7

District I 442 42.3 23.2 19.2 15.3

District II 1,169 43.2 23.6 20.4 12.7

District III 861 37.6 25.7 24.1 12.6

District IV 835 38.8 25.0 20.6 15.5

CAR 1,704 45.7 24.2 21.4 8.7

Abra 282 34.7 29.6 22.8 12.9

Benguet 693 51.9 23.5 19.2 5.4

Ifugao 203 49.8 18.2 21.1 10.8

Kalinga 209 43.1 23.1 23.4 10.4

Mountain Province 2,367 37.3 26.6 23.5 12.6

Apayao 117 36.7 36.9 15.4 11.1

Ilocos 200 38.0 19.5 30.5 12.0

Ilocos Norte 315 34.2 27.1 26.7 12.0

Ilocos Sur 307 41.8 26.2 19.8 12.2

La Union 440 37.9 27.4 22.1 12.6

Pangasinan 1,305 36.8 26.2 24.1 12.9

Cagayan Valley 2,308 39.5 26.2 23.3 11.0

Cagayan 795 39.4 28.5 19.0 13.1

Isabela 1,115 38.0 25.0 26.5 10.5

Nueva Vizcaya 277 46.9 24.2 21.0 8.0

Quirino 121 35.5 27.3 27.3 9.9

Central Luzon 3,450 41.2 23.2 22.4 13.2

Bataan 236 49.2 15.7 21.4 13.7

Bulacan 973 47.0 23.2 18.7 11.2

Nueva Ecija 795 39.0 23.5 22.7 14.8

Pampanga 713 41.3 23.8 20.8 14.1

Tarlac 451 30.0 30.8 29.2 10.0

Zambales 216 29.4 17.0 37.0 16.6

Aurora 66 53.1 12.8 10.6 23.4

CALABARZON 4,328 47.8 22.5 18.0 11.8

Batangas 793 46.0 23.4 18.3 12.2

Cavite 1,076 49.0 19.8 19.0 12.2

Laguna 989 49.9 22.8 18.3 9.0

Quezon 735 41.5 26.7 16.9 14.9

Rizal 735 50.5 21.1 16.5 11.9

MIMAROPA 1,316 35.2 26.1 24.1 14.6

Marinduque 167 42.7 19.1 29.9 8.4

Occidental Mindoro 204 32.0 20.5 24.8 22.6

Oriental Mindoro 368 32.2 26.0 24.2 17.5

Palawan 418 34.4 30.5 23.4 11.7

Romblon 159 41.4 28.3 18.4 11.9

Bicol 2,633 32.7 24.0 30.7 12.6

Albay 590 35.1 22.1 30.8 12.0

Camarines Norte 285 36.0 25.3 26.9 11.8

Camarines Sur 822 35.7 20.1 32.2 12.0

Catanduanes 132 35.6 25.0 26.5 12.9

Masbate 405 22.7 33.4 29.2 14.7

Sorsogon 399 29.6 24.3 32.9 13.2

65





Region n


No Yes, rarely

(1 – 2 times) Yes, sometimes

(3 - 10 times) Yes, often (>10 times)

Western Visayas 3,141 34.8 20.3 28.4 16.5

Aklan 195 26.2 30.5 29.6 13.8

Antique 217 37.2 22.1 26.8 13.9

Capiz 388 34.1 16.0 30.1 19.9

Iloilo 1,083 40.0 19.8 25.2 15.0

Negros Occidental 1,193 30.9 20.2 31.2 17.7

Guimaras 65 46.2 20.0 20.0 13.8

Central Visayas 2,301 36.0 23.6 27.0 13.4

Bohol 516 40.3 26.1 25.0 8.6

Cebu 1,167 36.9 21.2 27.4 14.5

Negros Oriental 553 29.0 27.4 27.7 15.9

Siquijor 65 46.2 18.5 29.2 6.2

Eastern Visayas 2,461 30.8 23.1 31.3 14.8

Eastern Samar 273 23.6 27.0 31.5 17.9

Leyte 1,195 31.7 23.0 31.4 14.0

Northern Samar 291 29.4 17.3 38.2 15.1

Western Samar 372 27.1 28.9 29.3 14.7

Southern Leyte 205 35.3 20.2 27.8 16.7

Biliran 125 45.6 16.0 25.6 12.8

Zamboanga Peninsula8 1,745 34.1 21.7 29.3 14.9

Zamboanga del Norte 570 29.0 23.3 30.9 16.8

Zamboanga del Sur 816 37.6 21.0 28.5 12.9

Zamboanga Sibugay 305 31.1 16.6 32.3 20.0


Bukidnon 633 31.9 20.3 29.0 18.8

Camiguin 51 56.9 17.6 13.7 11.8

Lanao del Norte 465 41.3 15.7 27.7 15.2

Misamis Occidental 262 40.4 17.6 26.6 15.4

Misamis Oriental 764 41.5 15.3 29.3 13.9

Davao 2,222 37.6 20.9 29.1 12.4

Davao del Norte 406 36.7 24.5 27.7 11.1

Davao del Sur 1,221 40.8 19.4 26.8 13.0

Davao Oriental 272 36.0 16.7 37.0 10.3

Compostela Valley 323 26.0 26.4 34.4 13.2

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 30.6 21.5 34.2 13.8

North Cotabato 720 25.9 20.2 37.2 16.7

South Cotabato 799 39.0 20.5 28.7 11.8

Sultan Kudarat 410 24.6 25.3 36.6 13.5

Sarangani 234 25.2 22.6 40.4 11.9

ARMM10

1,734 15.6 28.8 36.7 18.9

Basilan11 129 37.7 36.5 17.9 7.8

Lanao del Sur 581 9.9 15.5 40.7 33.8

Maguindanao 627 16.8 18.0 47.4 17.8

Sulu 258 10.6 39.9 33.7 15.8

Tawi-Tawi 193 25.0 49.4 21.8 3.8

Caraga 1,927 32.9 23.1 28.1 15.9

Agusan del Norte 551 37.3 24.2 25.3 13.2

Agusan del Sur 441 26.8 23.2 31.9 18.1

Surigao del Norte 488 37.6 22.8 25.2 14.3

Surigao del Sur 447 28.5 21.9 30.8 18.8






66




Appendix 6. Percent distribution of households who were unable to eat preferred foods by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region n Frequency of Experience

No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 40.88 22.25 25.43 11.44

NCR7 3,307 44.8 24.4 19.3 11.5

District I 442 46.6 22.2 17.0 14.2

District II 1,169 44.6 26.0 18.1 11.3

District III 861 46.5 23.2 20.6 9.7

District IV 835 42.4 23.9 21.4 12.3

CAR 1,704 46.4 22.8 21.9 9.0

Abra 282 36.9 28.5 24.2 10.5

Benguet 693 56.9 21.7 17.4 4.0

Ifugao 203 39.0 20.2 24.1 16.7

Kalinga 209 37.3 25.9 25.6 11.3


Apayao 117 42.8 26.5 14.5 16.2

Ilocos 200 33.0 16.5 36.5 14.0

Ilocos Norte 315 37.7 24.9 30.1 7.4

Ilocos Sur 307 43.3 23.4 24.7 8.6

La Union 440 38.7 26.0 24.5 10.7

Pangasinan 1,305 39.2 24.8 24.5 11.5

Cagayan Valley 2,308 35.7 26.0 27.3 11.0

Cagayan 795 37.6 25.4 24.4 12.6

Isabela 1,115 33.7 27.2 27.5 11.6

Nueva Vizcaya 277 41.1 23.4 30.9 4.7

Quirino 121 28.1 25.6 35.5 10.8

Central Luzon 3,450 51.2 19.2 19.5 10.1

Bataan 236 73.8 8.3 12.1 5.9

Bulacan 973 54.1 18.7 18.4 8.8

Nueva Ecija 795 50.5 18.3 21.3 10.0

Pampanga 713 49.9 21.6 18.7 9.8

Tarlac 451 45.0 23.1 21.5 10.3

Zambales 216 29.4 22.5 27.1 21.0

Aurora 66 60.1 11.9 16.2 11.7

CALABARZON 4,328 52.5 21.0 17.2 9.4

Batangas 793 53.4 20.9 17.1 8.6

Cavite 1,076 52.1 19.3 18.5 10.1

Laguna 989 55.3 20.1 16.3 8.3

Quezon 735 45.9 25.9 17.4 10.8

Rizal 735 54.0 20.3 16.6 9.1

MIMAROPA 1,316 37.8 24.0 24.4 13.8

Marinduque 167 48.6 19.8 23.9 7.8



Palawan 418 36.8 28.2 23.7 11.4

Romblon 159 39.5 25.9 27.1 7.5

Bicol 2,633 38.8 23.3 29.3 8.6

Albay 590 41.4 23.5 28.0 7.1

Camarines Norte 285 42.3 22.1 27.2 8.4

Camarines Sur 822 42.2 19.7 31.0 7.1

Catanduanes 132 45.5 28.8 20.4 5.3

Masbate 405 27.1 29.0 31.3 12.7

Sorsogon 399 34.9 23.8 30.2 11.1

67





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Western Visayas 3,141 30.4 21.0 34.2 14.5

Aklan 195 26.9 21.5 36.6 14.9

Antique 217 30.8 21.1 35.6 12.5

Capiz 388 29.5 16.4 37.1 17.0

Iloilo 1,083 35.7 21.1 29.9 13.2


Guimaras 65 32.3 26.2 24.6 16.9

Central Visayas 2,301 38.2 22.6 27.8 11.4

Bohol 516 43.2 25.7 24.1 7.0

Cebu 1,167 41.8 19.9 26.8 11.4

Negros Oriental 553 25.5 26.5 32.6 15.3

Siquijor 65 38.5 18.5 33.8 9.2

Eastern Visayas 2,461 34.1 24.0 30.0 11.9

Eastern Samar 273 25.0 24.3 32.4 18.3

Leyte 1,195 35.4 24.3 29.9 10.5

Northern Samar 291 33.8 22.2 31.5 12.4

Western Samar 372 31.5 26.7 29.2 12.6

Southern Leyte 205 36.3 22.6 29.5 11.6

Biliran 125 47.2 19.2 25.6 8.0






Bukidnon 633 36.4 17.0 32.4 14.2

Camiguin 51 54.9 23.5 13.7 7.8

Lanao del Norte 465 39.6 18.7 26.7 15.0



Davao 2,222 38.9 21.1 28.0 12.1

Davao del Norte 406 41.6 22.0 25.9 10.6

Davao del Sur 1,221 41.2 20.7 25.5 12.6

Davao Oriental 272 35.2 17.8 36.4 10.7


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 35.7 20.4 32.4 11.6

North Cotabato 720 28.6 20.4 36.2 14.9

South Cotabato 799 45.5 19.7 24.8 10.0

Sultan Kudarat 410 30.6 23.8 36.4 9.2

Sarangani 234 30.9 16.9 41.6 10.6

ARMM10 1,734 17.7 29.2 35.7 17.4

Basilan11 129 38.6 42.4 12.9 6.1

Lanao del Sur 581 12.0 16.1 38.3 33.6

Maguindanao 627 19.5 15.5 49.8 15.2

Sulu 258 12.0 39.8 34.2 14.0

Tawi-Tawi 193 27.7 52.9 15.9 3.6

Caraga 1,927 32.9 21.7 30.0 15.4

Agusan del Norte 551 38.0 21.6 25.8 14.5

Agusan del Sur 441 27.4 23.0 32.8 16.8


Surigao del Sur 447 26.2 20.4 33.8 19.6






68




Appendix 7. Percent distribution of households who only ate a few kinds of food by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region n


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 45.8 20.3 23.9 10.0

NCR7 3,307 48.8 21.6 19.0 10.6

District I 442 50.3 19.6 17.5 12.7

District II 1,169 50.2 21.3 17.6 11.0

District III 861 49.5 23.0 19.8 7.7

District IV 835 45.2 21.8 21.4 11.6

CAR 1,704 55.8 18.2 19.2 6.8

Abra 282 46.0 23.9 20.7 9.4

Benguet 693 65.5 16.0 15.7 2.8

Ifugao 203 50.3 13.3 24.1 12.3

Kalinga 209 52.1 21.9 18.4 7.7


Apayao 117 49.6 25.7 13.7 11.0

Ilocos 200 40.0 17.0 31.0 12.0

Ilocos Norte 315 48.5 21.3 25.1 5.1

Ilocos Sur 307 53.4 20.4 20.5 5.7

La Union 440 49.2 20.8 20.2 9.8

Pangasinan 1,305 45.2 22.7 22.5 9.6

Cagayan Valley 2,308 44.6 21.7 25.3 8.5

Cagayan 795 44.4 23.6 23.0 9.0

Isabela 1,115 43.3 21.7 25.7 9.3

Nueva Vizcaya 277 53.3 16.5 25.9 4.3

Quirino 121 35.5 21.5 33.9 9.1

Central Luzon 3,450 56.2 16.9 17.8 9.1

Bataan 236 82.6 5.0 11.1 1.3

Bulacan 973 56.5 18.8 16.6 8.1

Nueva Ecija 795 55.6 16.9 18.3 9.2

Pampanga 713 59.5 15.2 15.6 9.7

Tarlac 451 48.3 23.1 22.0 6.5

Zambales 216 31.1 16.3 30.2 22.4

Aurora 66 62.6 10.6 14.0 12.8

CALABARZON 4,328 56.4 19.0 16.6 8.0

Batangas 793 55.1 20.2 16.9 7.8

Cavite 1,076 57.9 16.6 17.6 8.0

Laguna 989 58.8 18.2 15.8 7.2

Quezon 735 51.4 22.7 16.5 9.5

Rizal 735 56.9 18.9 16.0 8.3

MIMAROPA 1,316 40.7 23.6 23.2 12.6

Marinduque 167 52.8 18.5 23.3 5.3



Palawan 418 37.5 30.4 22.0 10.1

Romblon 159 43.9 25.3 23.4 7.5

Bicol 2,633 43.6 22.2 27.1 7.1

Albay 590 45.9 20.8 27.1 6.1

Camarines Norte 285 48.0 20.1 24.4 7.6

Camarines Sur 822 46.8 20.4 27.1 5.7

Catanduanes 132 53.0 25.8 17.4 3.8

Masbate 405 31.8 28.4 29.7 10.1

Sorsogon 399 38.9 22.2 29.5 9.4

69





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Western Visayas 3,141 38.3 18.5 31.0 12.2

Aklan 195 36.0 18.6 31.4 14.0

Antique 217 36.7 20.7 31.4 11.1

Capiz 388 37.4 14.6 34.0 14.0

Iloilo 1,083 43.4 18.5 27.5 10.5


Guimaras 65 41.5 21.5 24.6 12.3

Central Visayas 2,301 41.8 21.5 26.1 10.7

Bohol 516 46.4 23.0 23.9 6.7

Cebu 1,167 43.2 21.4 23.7 11.7

Negros Oriental 553 34.2 20.7 32.9 12.2

Siquijor 65 43.1 16.9 32.3 7.7

Eastern Visayas 2,461 38.3 23.3 28.7 9.7

Eastern Samar 273 28.6 26.8 31.7 12.8

Leyte 1,195 38.3 23.3 30.1 8.3

Northern Samar 291 38.5 23.4 28.0 10.0

Western Samar 372 37.4 24.6 27.7 10.4

Southern Leyte 205 43.6 20.4 23.9 12.1

Biliran 125 53.6 16.8 20.8 8.8






Bukidnon 633 40.2 17.4 28.7 13.7

Camiguin 51 54.9 13.7 21.6 9.8

Lanao del Norte 465 44.4 17.2 24.5 13.9



Davao 2,222 45.4 18.6 26.8 9.2

Davao del Norte 406 48.2 19.3 25.7 6.8

Davao del Sur 1,221 48.5 17.4 24.2 10.0

Davao Oriental 272 36.5 16.3 39.1 8.1


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 37.7 20.2 31.6 10.5

North Cotabato 720 29.3 19.8 36.2 14.7

South Cotabato 799 49.2 18.4 24.2 8.2

Sultan Kudarat 410 32.3 25.2 34.8 7.8

Sarangani 234 31.3 19.6 39.4 9.7

ARMM10 1,734 18.5 29.1 35.9 16.4

Basilan11 129 39.5 39.9 11.7 9.0

Lanao del Sur 581 12.9 16.4 38.8 31.9

Maguindanao 627 20.4 15.3 50.1 14.2

Sulu 258 13.0 40.2 34.7 12.1

Tawi-Tawi 193 27.7 53.7 15.7 2.9

Caraga 1,927 38.0 20.5 29.8 11.8

Agusan del Norte 551 43.5 19.6 25.9 11.0

Agusan del Sur 441 33.6 20.8 33.2 12.4


Surigao del Sur 447 31.5 21.3 32.0 15.2






70




Appendix 8. Percent distribution of households who ate foods they really do not want to eat by region and province: Philippines, 2015


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 51.7 19.3 21.1 8.0

NCR7 3,307 53.3 20.8 17.6 8.4 District I 442 54.2 20.4 16.4 9.0 District II 1,169 55.5 20.5 15.4 8.6 District III 861 55.0 20.3 17.8 6.9 District IV 835 47.5 21.9 21.4 9.1

CAR 1,704 64.0 15.4 15.8 4.8 Abra 282 60.3 18.0 15.8 5.9 Benguet 693 71.8 13.6 12.3 2.3 Ifugao 203 60.6 8.9 20.6 9.8 Kalinga 209 59.7 17.4 17.9 5.0

Mountain Province 2,367 52.9 20.4 19.9 6.9 Apayao 117 56.4 24.9 11.1 7.6 Ilocos 200 46.9 18.5 27.0 7.5 Ilocos Norte 315 52.9 20.3 22.4 4.4 Ilocos Sur 307 56.0 21.8 16.9 5.3 La Union 440 54.0 19.6 18.9 7.5 Pangasinan 1,305 51.7 20.4 20.4 7.6

Cagayan Valley 2,308 53.5 20.1 20.8 5.6 Cagayan 795 51.1 21.1 20.0 7.8 Isabela 1,115 45.8 22.4 24.4 7.4 Nueva Vizcaya 277 58.3 19.5 18.3 3.9 Quirino 121 42.9 22.3 29.0 5.8

Central Luzon 3,450 62.7 16.0 14.6 6.8 Bataan 236 86.3 6.3 6.5 0.9 Bulacan 973 65.2 16.3 12.8 5.7 Nueva Ecija 795 61.8 13.8 18.1 6.3 Pampanga 713 61.5 15.5 13.8 9.2 Tarlac 451 55.5 24.7 14.7 5.2 Zambales 216 43.3 19.5 24.0 13.2 Aurora 66 71.8 8.1 9.2 10.8

CALABARZON 4,328 61.7 17.7 14.1 6.6 Batangas 793 61.5 18.9 13.5 6.2 Cavite 1,076 62.2 14.7 15.8 7.3 Laguna 989 64.8 17.3 12.8 5.1 Quezon 735 56.7 21.7 13.1 8.5 Rizal 735 61.5 17.5 14.9 6.2

MIMAROPA 1,316 47.8 22.5 19.8 9.9 Marinduque 167 72.0 13.1 11.9 3.0 Occidental Mindoro 204 35.8 12.2 30.6 21.4 Oriental Mindoro 368 49.4 23.9 16.7 10.1 Palawan 418 43.4 28.9 19.5 8.2 Romblon 159 48.3 24.6 21.5 5.6

Bicol 2,633 48.3 20.9 25.1 5.8 Albay 590 52.9 18.9 23.8 4.4 Camarines Norte 285 52.6 17.9 24.8 4.8 Camarines Sur 822 51.1 18.3 25.4 5.2 Catanduanes 132 56.8 23.5 14.4 5.3 Masbate 405 34.3 30.2 27.4 8.0 Sorsogon 399 43.4 21.0 27.7 7.9

Western Visayas 3,141 47.1 18.6 25.9 8.4 Aklan 195 48.8 20.5 24.9 5.8 Antique 217 47.8 16.1 26.8 9.2 Capiz 388 47.0 16.3 29.3 7.5 Iloilo 1,083 50.1 18.3 23.4 8.2 Negros Occidental 1,193 43.7 19.8 27.3 9.2 Guimaras 65 52.3 16.9 23.1 7.7

Central Visayas 2,301 50.6 20.5 20.3 8.6 Bohol 516 55.2 21.9 18.4 4.5 Cebu 1,167 53.2 19.2 18.6 9.0 Negros Oriental 553 38.7 23.0 26.4 11.9 Siquijor 65 66.2 13.8 16.9 3.1

71





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Eastern Visayas 2,461 45.3 21.1 26.0 7.6

Eastern Samar 273 40.8 21.4 29.7 8.1

Leyte 1,195 45.7 22.0 26.3 6.0

Northern Samar 291 50.1 18.4 22.8 8.7

Western Samar 372 40.0 23.7 27.2 9.1

Southern Leyte 205 45.2 18.5 24.9 11.4

Biliran 125 56.8 14.4 20.8 8.0






Bukidnon 633 45.5 15.9 29.4 9.3

Camiguin 51 56.9 23.5 13.7 5.9

Lanao del Norte 465 47.6 16.4 23.2 12.8



Davao 2,222 50.9 16.9 24.4 7.8

Davao del Norte 406 47.0 21.9 25.3 5.8

Davao del Sur 1,221 56.1 14.2 21.4 8.3

Davao Oriental 272 40.9 17.9 35.2 6.0


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 42.5 19.4 28.7 9.5

North Cotabato 720 33.5 20.3 33.4 12.8

South Cotabato 799 53.0 17.2 22.3 7.5

Sultan Kudarat 410 39.4 20.9 32.0 7.7

Sarangani 234 37.9 22.1 31.1 8.9

ARMM10 1,734 21.6 29.0 34.9 14.5

Basilan11 129 42.9 42.0 8.4 6.6

Lanao del Sur 581 16.8 15.9 38.3 29.1

Maguindanao 627 23.8 15.6 48.7 11.9

Sulu 258 14.0 39.6 35.0 11.3

Tawi-Tawi 193 31.4 52.9 13.6 2.1

Caraga 1,927 44.6 20.0 25.3 10.1

Agusan del Norte 551 48.0 18.9 23.6 9.4

Agusan del Sur 441 39.8 20.5 27.9 11.7


Surigao del Sur 447 43.8 17.8 25.2 13.2






72




Appendix 9. Percent distribution of households with members who reduced the size of meal consumed by region and province: Philippines, 2015


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 54.6 18.1 20.1 7.1

NCR7 3,307 57.1 18.7 15.7 8.6

District I 442 59.5 17.8 14.5 8.3

District II 1,169 57.8 18.7 14.4 9.1

District III 861 59.4 17.8 15.7 7.1

District IV 835 52.5 19.8 18.7 9.1

CAR 1,704 68.6 13.4 14.5 3.5

Abra 282 59.9 17.3 17.5 5.2

Benguet 693 75.2 11.1 12.4 1.3

Ifugao 203 71.5 7.4 16.2 4.9

Kalinga 209 64.1 16.1 14.0 5.8


Apayao 117 61.5 21.5 10.3 6.8

Ilocos 200 57.4 17.0 20.5 5.0

Ilocos Norte 315 55.4 21.5 20.2 2.9

Ilocos Sur 307 58.6 20.1 16.5 4.7

La Union 440 55.4 20.1 18.6 6.0

Pangasinan 1,305 54.4 19.8 19.0 6.8

Cagayan Valley 2,308 53.5 20.1 20.8 5.6

Cagayan 795 54.5 20.0 18.4 7.1

Isabela 1,115 50.9 20.5 23.5 5.1

Nueva Vizcaya 277 62.4 18.3 15.3 3.9

Quirino 121 48.7 22.3 24.0 5.0

Central Luzon 3,450 64.8 14.3 15.1 5.8

Bataan 236 89.0 2.9 7.3 0.8

Bulacan 973 67.5 14.5 12.8 5.2

Nueva Ecija 795 63.0 14.7 16.9 5.4

Pampanga 713 66.7 14.2 12.5 6.6

Tarlac 451 55.2 20.0 20.3 4.5

Zambales 216 43.1 14.3 30.6 12.1

Aurora 66 67.1 10.6 8.1 14.2

CALABARZON 4,328 64.9 15.5 13.9 5.7

Batangas 793 64.0 17.1 12.7 6.2

Cavite 1,076 67.6 12.1 14.9 5.4

Laguna 989 66.5 16.0 12.9 4.6

Quezon 735 59.4 19.6 14.5 6.5

Rizal 735 64.8 14.9 14.3 6.1

MIMAROPA 1,316 51.1 19.7 19.7 9.5

Marinduque 167 68.4 11.3 16.7 3.6



Palawan 418 44.7 26.9 18.5 9.9

Romblon 159 57.8 17.7 20.8 3.7

Bicol 2,633 53.5 20.0 21.8 4.8

Albay 590 57.8 17.4 20.6 4.2

Camarines Norte 285 58.9 17.2 20.1 3.8

Camarines Sur 822 57.4 17.9 20.8 3.9

Catanduanes 132 61.4 19.7 16.6 2.3

Masbate 405 38.4 30.8 23.1 7.7

Sorsogon 399 47.4 19.2 27.0 6.4

Western Visayas 3,141 48.1 18.5 25.4 8.0

Aklan 195 49.9 19.6 23.7 6.8

Antique 217 47.8 17.1 29.2 6.0

Capiz 388 46.5 18.3 26.5 8.8

Iloilo 1,083 53.8 16.1 22.5 7.6


Guimaras 65 61.5 20.0 13.8 4.6

73





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Central Visayas 2,301 52.6 20.0 20.2 7.2

Bohol 516 58.3 20.4 17.8 3.5

Cebu 1,167 53.4 18.8 20.2 7.6

Negros Oriental 553 43.9 23.4 22.8 9.9

Siquijor 65 67.7 10.8 16.9 4.6

Eastern Visayas 2,461 47.4 20.1 25.2 7.3

Eastern Samar 273 41.9 20.6 29.1 8.4

Leyte 1,195 47.6 21.7 24.6 6.1

Northern Samar 291 48.9 16.3 27.2 7.6

Western Samar 372 44.7 20.4 27.3 7.7

Southern Leyte 205 52.2 16.6 18.1 13.1

Biliran 125 55.2 17.6 23.2 4.0






Bukidnon 633 47.2 18.7 26.0 8.1

Camiguin 51 62.7 19.6 15.7 2.0

Lanao del Norte 465 54.5 14.1 20.2 11.3



Davao 2,222 52.8 16.6 23.7 6.9

Davao del Norte 406 52.5 20.3 21.3 5.8

Davao del Sur 1,221 55.6 15.1 22.6 6.8

Davao Oriental 272 43.8 16.1 34.1 6.0


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 45.2 18.5 27.9 8.4

North Cotabato 720 39.9 17.7 31.0 11.4

South Cotabato 799 54.4 16.2 22.8 6.6

Sultan Kudarat 410 39.6 22.6 30.6 7.2

Sarangani 234 37.7 22.4 32.6 7.3

ARMM10 1,734 24.0 27.9 34.2 13.9

Basilan11 129 41.0 40.1 14.1 4.9

Lanao del Sur 581 18.9 18.5 34.7 27.8

Maguindanao 627 25.0 15.9 45.4 13.6

Sulu 258 23.1 32.1 35.9 8.8

Tawi-Tawi 193 27.3 54.4 16.2 2.1

Caraga 1,927 47.7 20.8 23.4 8.1

Agusan del Norte 551 53.9 18.9 19.8 7.4

Agusan del Sur 441 42.4 19.8 27.3 10.4


Surigao del Sur 447 43.3 19.6 27.0 10.1






74




Appendix 10. Percent distribution of households with members who ate fewer meals in a day by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n Frequency of Experience

No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 71.8 12.7 11.4 4.1

NCR7 3,307 65.9 15.4 12.0 6.7

District I 442 69.7 13.3 8.8 8.2

District II 1,169 65.8 16.1 11.6 6.5

District III 861 68.9 13.7 12.5 4.8

District IV 835 61.3 16.9 13.9 7.9

CAR 1,704 86.0 7.5 5.5 1.0

Abra 282 85.2 9.5 4.2 1.0

Benguet 693 88.6 6.0 4.7 0.7

Ifugao 203 90.2 4.4 5.4 0.0

Kalinga 209 78.4 9.5 10.8 1.3


Apayao 117 75.2 17.2 4.3 3.4

Ilocos 200 85.0 7.0 6.5 1.5

Ilocos Norte 315 75.5 11.3 10.2 3.0

Ilocos Sur 307 76.9 10.4 10.1 2.6

La Union 440 71.6 12.6 11.1 4.7

Pangasinan 1,305 71.4 13.7 11.0 3.9

Cagayan Valley 2,308 74.5 12.4 10.1 3.0

Cagayan 795 74.7 12.3 9.5 3.4

Isabela 1,115 73.3 12.2 11.3 3.2

Nueva Vizcaya 277 77.1 13.6 8.2 1.1

Quirino 121 78.5 10.7 8.3 2.5

Central Luzon 3,450 78.1 9.3 8.8 3.7

Bataan 236 94.9 0.8 4.2 0.0

Bulacan 973 80.4 8.2 8.1 3.3

Nueva Ecija 795 75.9 12.4 8.6 3.1

Pampanga 713 79.6 8.9 7.5 4.0

Tarlac 451 69.0 14.9 11.7 4.4

Zambales 216 69.0 5.5 19.6 5.9

Aurora 66 81.1 3.6 1.1 14.2

CALABARZON 4,328 77.9 10.8 7.8 3.4

Batangas 793 76.8 10.7 8.1 4.5

Cavite 1,076 79.0 10.2 7.6 3.3

Laguna 989 78.8 10.2 7.7 3.3

Quezon 735 77.6 12.4 7.3 2.7

Rizal 735 76.3 11.5 8.7 3.4

MIMAROPA 1,316 68.7 12.4 12.4 6.6

Marinduque 167 91.0 5.4 3.6 0.0



Palawan 418 61.7 16.8 13.2 8.2

Romblon 159 71.6 12.0 13.3 3.1

Bicol 2,633 75.0 11.9 10.4 2.7

Albay 590 76.7 8.1 12.4 2.7

Camarines Norte 285 84.7 8.7 5.9 0.7

Camarines Sur 822 78.2 10.1 9.8 1.9

Catanduanes 132 76.5 15.9 6.0 1.5

Masbate 405 59.6 22.8 12.7 4.9

Sorsogon 399 73.5 11.7 10.6 4.2

Western Visayas 3,141 69.6 13.6 12.6 4.3

Aklan 195 68.8 17.4 10.8 3.1

Antique 217 62.1 17.1 14.8 6.0

Capiz 388 65.0 11.4 15.7 8.0

Iloilo 1,083 74.9 12.6 9.9 2.7


Guimaras 65 87.7 6.2 6.2 0.0

75





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Central Visayas 2,301 75.3 11.8 10.0 3.0

Bohol 516 76.9 12.6 9.6 1.0

Cebu 1,167 74.3 11.6 10.2 3.8

Negros Oriental 553 74.8 11.9 10.5 2.8

Siquijor 65 87.7 7.7 3.1 1.5

Eastern Visayas 2,461 67.4 14.9 14.2 3.6

Eastern Samar 273 58.4 17.4 21.2 2.9

Leyte 1,195 69.0 14.6 13.4 3.0

Northern Samar 291 71.5 11.5 13.6 3.5

Western Samar 372 57.2 19.9 16.6 6.4

Southern Leyte 205 78.5 12.0 6.2 3.2

Biliran 125 73.6 9.6 14.4 2.4






Bukidnon 633 72.2 14.4 10.7 2.8

Camiguin 51 80.4 13.7 5.9 0.0

Lanao del Norte 465 70.4 12.0 12.7 4.9



Davao 2,222 74.6 10.7 11.6 3.1

Davao del Norte 406 75.6 10.1 11.3 3.0

Davao del Sur 1,221 75.4 10.9 10.3 3.4

Davao Oriental 272 67.2 12.9 17.5 2.5


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 67.4 12.9 15.9 3.9

North Cotabato 720 62.0 13.9 18.4 5.7

South Cotabato 799 74.5 10.8 12.6 2.1

Sultan Kudarat 410 65.1 14.9 15.7 4.3

Sarangani 234 62.2 13.6 20.9 3.4

ARMM10 1,734 38.0 26.3 26.1 9.6

Basilan11 129 47.0 40.1 8.0 5.0

Lanao del Sur 581 37.9 15.5 25.8 20.8

Maguindanao 627 47.5 13.7 32.2 6.6

Sulu 258 30.2 33.5 29.3 7.0

Tawi-Tawi 193 31.4 50.4 16.8 1.4

Caraga 1,927 73.9 12.0 10.7 3.4

Agusan del Norte 551 73.6 12.3 11.4 2.8

Agusan del Sur 441 71.0 11.8 12.2 5.0


Surigao del Sur 447 74.7 9.6 11.8 3.9






76




Appendix 11. Percent distribution of households who experienced having no food of any kind at home by region and province: Philippines, 2015


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 84.9 8.3 5.2 1.6

NCR7 3,307 78.6 10.9 7.2 3.3

District I 442 83.3 8.1 5.7 2.9

District II 1,169 79.4 11.3 5.9 3.5

District III 861 81.6 9.3 7.0 2.1

District IV 835 72.0 13.4 10.2 4.5

CAR 1,704 91.5 5.0 3.2 0.4

Abra 282 91.2 6.3 2.4 0.0

Benguet 693 92.2 3.7 3.7 0.4

Ifugao 203 93.6 3.5 3.0 0.0

Kalinga 209 86.6 8.9 4.0 0.4


Apayao 117 83.7 9.5 5.2 1.7

Ilocos 200 96.0 3.5 0.0 0.5

Ilocos Norte 315 83.9 8.6 6.1 1.3

Ilocos Sur 307 88.8 5.8 4.8 0.7

La Union 440 81.5 9.8 6.9 1.8

Pangasinan 1,305 82.5 9.6 6.1 1.7

Cagayan Valley 2,308 84.0 9.9 5.2 0.9

Cagayan 795 81.2 12.4 5.2 1.2

Isabela 1,115 84.7 9.2 5.3 0.8

Nueva Vizcaya 277 88.3 6.1 5.2 0.4

Quirino 121 85.2 9.1 4.1 1.7

Central Luzon 3,450 90.9 5.0 2.9 1.2

Bataan 236 97.0 1.7 0.8 0.4

Bulacan 973 91.4 5.6 2.4 0.6

Nueva Ecija 795 88.9 5.6 4.3 1.2

Pampanga 713 91.7 4.2 2.9 1.3

Tarlac 451 90.0 6.4 2.3 1.3

Zambales 216 91.0 4.6 2.7 1.8

Aurora 66 84.9 2.3 5.9 7.0

CALABARZON 4,328 86.7 7.6 4.4 1.3

Batangas 793 86.1 6.8 5.1 2.0

Cavite 1,076 89.4 6.2 3.7 0.7

Laguna 989 87.4 7.6 4.2 0.8

Quezon 735 84.5 10.1 4.3 1.1

Rizal 735 84.6 8.4 4.8 2.2

MIMAROPA 1,316 81.3 9.1 6.5 3.1

Marinduque 167 98.8 0.6 0.6 0.0



Palawan 418 75.1 12.9 7.7 4.2

Romblon 159 81.7 11.4 6.3 0.6

Bicol 2,633 87.5 7.6 4.1 0.8

Albay 590 86.6 7.3 5.6 0.5

Camarines Norte 285 94.4 3.5 2.1 0.0

Camarines Sur 822 91.4 4.6 3.8 0.1

Catanduanes 132 86.4 8.3 3.8 1.5

Masbate 405 76.6 17.4 4.1 1.9

Sorsogon 399 87.3 7.0 4.1 1.7

Western Visayas 3,141 87.6 7.6 3.9 0.8

Aklan 195 88.4 6.9 4.2 0.5

Antique 217 85.7 6.0 6.9 1.4

Capiz 388 85.3 9.0 5.4 0.3

Iloilo 1,083 91.3 5.1 2.5 1.1


Guimaras 65 95.4 3.1 1.5 0.0

77





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Central Visayas 2,301 85.2 8.6 4.6 1.5

Bohol 516 85.7 10.2 3.7 0.4

Cebu 1,167 84.9 8.3 4.7 2.1

Negros Oriental 553 84.5 8.4 5.8 1.3

Siquijor 65 95.4 3.1 0.0 1.5

Eastern Visayas 2,461 84.5 7.8 6.3 1.5

Eastern Samar 273 89.1 5.8 4.7 0.4

Leyte 1,195 84.7 8.3 6.0 1.1

Northern Samar 291 89.4 5.5 4.4 0.7

Western Samar 372 71.6 12.5 11.6 4.2

Southern Leyte 205 88.8 4.4 4.8 2.0

Biliran 125 92.8 4.0 3.2 0.0






Bukidnon 633 85.3 7.5 5.4 1.8

Camiguin 51 96.1 3.9 0.0 0.0

Lanao del Norte 465 80.5 10.1 7.3 2.1



Davao 2,222 88.4 6.3 4.5 0.8

Davao del Norte 406 88.1 6.6 4.4 0.9

Davao del Sur 1,221 90.3 5.8 3.1 0.8

Davao Oriental 272 84.9 8.3 6.4 0.4


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 82.9 8.4 6.6 2.1

North Cotabato 720 80.2 10.2 7.4 2.2

South Cotabato 799 86.8 6.5 4.9 1.8

Sultan Kudarat 410 81.0 8.7 7.4 2.9

Sarangani 234 80.2 8.7 9.1 2.0

ARMM10 1,734 65.2 18.0 12.7 4.1

Basilan11 129 67.5 27.5 3.4 1.5

Lanao del Sur 581 64.9 11.3 14.1 9.7

Maguindanao 627 73.9 10.4 13.1 2.6

Sulu 258 61.2 19.8 16.9 2.1

Tawi-Tawi 193 57.0 36.0 5.6 1.4

Caraga 1,927 87.3 7.5 4.3 0.9

Agusan del Norte 551 85.0 7.8 6.1 1.1

Agusan del Sur 441 85.4 8.8 4.9 0.9


Surigao del Sur 447 90.6 6.1 2.5 0.9






78




Appendix 12. Percent distribution of households with members who experienced going to sleep hungry by province and region: Philippines, 2015


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 87.5 7.0 4.3 1.2

NCR7 3,307 80.4 10.2 6.8 2.6

District I 442 84.6 8.6 5.4 1.5

District II 1,169 80.9 10.4 6.2 2.5

District III 861 83.4 9.2 5.0 2.4

District IV 835 74.8 11.6 10.0 3.5

CAR 1,704 94.7 4.2 0.9 0.2

Abra 282 93.7 5.6 0.7 0.0

Benguet 693 94.7 4.3 0.8 0.2

Ifugao 203 96.5 1.5 2.0 0.0

Kalinga 209 93.3 5.4 0.9 0.4


Apayao 117 93.1 6.0 0.8 0.0

Ilocos 200 97.0 2.5 0.0 0.5

Ilocos Norte 315 87.3 5.5 6.6 0.7

Ilocos Sur 307 90.4 6.1 2.6 0.9

La Union 440 87.7 6.4 5.1 0.9

Pangasinan 1,305 88.1 7.5 3.2 1.3

Cagayan Valley 2,308 89.1 6.9 3.2 0.8

Cagayan 795 88.8 7.9 2.2 1.1

Isabela 1,115 88.3 7.1 4.0 0.6

Nueva Vizcaya 277 92.6 4.0 3.0 0.4

Quirino 121 90.1 6.6 1.7 1.6

Central Luzon 3,450 91.9 4.5 2.6 1.0

Bataan 236 96.7 2.9 0.4 0.0

Bulacan 973 92.9 4.6 2.0 0.6

Nueva Ecija 795 90.8 5.0 3.3 0.9

Pampanga 713 91.1 4.6 2.9 1.5

Tarlac 451 92.0 3.7 3.4 0.9

Zambales 216 89.3 5.2 3.7 1.8

Aurora 66 91.9 2.3 2.3 3.6

CALABARZON 4,328 89.7 6.0 3.6 0.8

Batangas 793 89.3 6.0 3.7 1.0

Cavite 1,076 91.2 5.1 2.7 1.0

Laguna 989 89.2 6.5 3.6 0.7

Quezon 735 88.6 7.8 2.9 0.7

Rizal 735 89.4 4.9 5.1 0.5

MIMAROPA 1,316 84.5 7.5 5.5 2.5

Marinduque 167 97.6 0.6 1.2 0.6



Palawan 418 78.9 11.6 5.9 3.6

Romblon 159 89.8 5.7 4.5 0.0

Bicol 2,633 90.9 6.0 2.6 0.5

Albay 590 91.9 5.2 2.7 0.3

Camarines Norte 285 95.5 2.4 1.4 0.7

Camarines Sur 822 93.5 4.6 1.9 0.0

Catanduanes 132 86.4 8.3 3.8 1.5

Masbate 405 83.3 11.7 4.4 0.7

Sorsogon 399 89.8 6.5 2.5 1.2

79




Continuation….Appendix 12

Region n


No Yes, rarely



Western Visayas 3,141 88.9 6.6 3.7 0.8

Aklan 195 93.8 4.6 1.0 0.6

Antique 217 86.6 6.9 6.0 0.5

Capiz 388 86.3 7.8 5.4 0.5

Iloilo 1,083 90.4 5.8 3.1 0.6


Guimaras 65 96.9 3.1 0.0 0.0

Central Visayas 2,301 87.7 6.5 4.6 1.2

Bohol 516 88.0 7.9 3.9 0.2

Cebu 1,167 87.1 6.1 5.4 1.3

Negros Oriental 553 88.1 6.3 3.8 1.8

Siquijor 65 93.8 4.6 0.0 1.5

Eastern Visayas 2,461 86.2 7.5 5.2 1.0

Eastern Samar 273 89.0 5.9 4.0 1.1

Leyte 1,195 86.5 7.2 5.4 0.8

Northern Samar 291 88.9 8.0 2.4 0.7

Western Samar 372 76.8 12.3 8.6 2.3

Southern Leyte 205 89.5 4.3 5.2 1.0

Biliran 125 93.6 4.0 2.4 0.0






Bukidnon 633 89.9 5.1 4.2 0.8

Camiguin 51 92.2 7.8 0.0 0.0

Lanao del Norte 465 84.3 7.5 6.0 2.1



Davao 2,222 90.1 5.1 3.9 0.9

Davao del Norte 406 89.8 4.9 4.0 1.4

Davao del Sur 1,221 91.6 4.5 3.1 0.8

Davao Oriental 272 87.6 7.0 5.1 0.4


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 87.0 7.3 4.8 1.0

North Cotabato 720 82.4 10.1 6.0 1.5

South Cotabato 799 91.4 5.3 2.7 0.7

Sultan Kudarat 410 86.7 6.4 5.7 1.2

Sarangani 234 85.8 6.4 7.0 0.9

ARMM10 1,734 69.6 15.7 11.4 3.3

Basilan11 129 76.7 18.3 4.3 0.6

Lanao del Sur 581 65.4 12.5 13.5 8.6

Maguindanao 627 76.4 11.6 10.1 1.9

Sulu 258 66.6 16.5 15.8 1.1

Tawi-Tawi 193 69.1 25.2 4.3 1.4

Caraga 1,927 89.6 6.4 3.0 1.0

Agusan del Norte 551 88.4 7.6 3.1 0.9

Agusan del Sur 441 87.5 8.0 3.4 1.1


Surigao del Sur 447 90.6 5.0 3.1 1.3






80




Appendix 13. Percent distribution of households with members who experienced going a whole day and night without eating by province and region: Philippines, 2015

Region n


No Yes, rarely



Philippines 41,282 92.99 4.26 2.07 0.68

NCR7 3,307 87.7 7.2 3.5 1.7

District I 442 91.8 5.2 1.5 1.5

District II 1,169 88.2 7.4 3.0 1.4

District III 861 90.6 5.2 2.5 1.6

District IV 835 81.9 9.7 6.1 2.4

CAR 1,704 97.5 2.3 0.3 0.0

Abra 282 95.8 4.2 0.0 0.0

Benguet 693 97.9 2.0 0.1 0.0

Ifugao 203 97.5 1.0 1.5 0.0

Kalinga 209 97.8 2.2 0.0 0.0


Apayao 117 96.6 3.4 0.0 0.0

Ilocos 200 98.0 1.5 0.5 0.0

Ilocos Norte 315 94.6 4.1 1.0 0.3

Ilocos Sur 307 96.9 2.5 0.6 0.0

La Union 440 93.5 3.5 2.6 0.4

Pangasinan 1,305 94.5 3.9 1.0 0.6

Cagayan Valley 2,308 95.6 2.9 1.2 0.4

Cagayan 795 95.6 2.9 0.9 0.6

Isabela 1,115 95.4 3.1 1.2 0.3

Nueva Vizcaya 277 96.6 1.1 2.3 0.0

Quirino 121 94.2 4.9 0.8 0.0

Central Luzon 3,450 96.4 1.8 1.1 0.6

Bataan 236 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bulacan 973 97.2 1.6 0.9 0.3

Nueva Ecija 795 94.9 2.3 2.4 0.4

Pampanga 713 95.5 2.5 0.9 1.1

Tarlac 451 97.5 1.5 0.5 0.5

Zambales 216 96.3 1.9 0.9 0.9

Aurora 66 93.0 2.3 1.1 3.6

CALABARZON 4,328 93.5 4.2 1.9 0.4

Batangas 793 92.9 4.2 2.0 0.9

Cavite 1,076 95.9 3.0 1.0 0.1

Laguna 989 93.4 4.4 1.9 0.4

Quezon 735 91.1 6.4 2.0 0.5

Rizal 735 92.9 3.8 2.9 0.4

MIMAROPA 1,316 88.9 5.8 3.6 1.7

Marinduque 167 99.4 0.6 0.0 0.0



Palawan 418 84.2 8.1 5.4 2.2

Romblon 159 90.4 5.1 3.9 0.6

Bicol 2,633 94.9 3.5 1.3 0.4

Albay 590 95.2 3.4 1.1 0.3

Camarines Norte 285 98.2 1.1 0.7 0.0

Camarines Sur 822 96.1 2.4 1.4 0.0

Catanduanes 132 91.7 5.3 1.5 1.5

Masbate 405 89.5 8.6 1.2 0.7

Sorsogon 399 95.8 1.7 1.5 1.0

81





Region n


No Yes, rarely



Western Visayas 3,141 96.5 2.7 0.7 0.2

Aklan 195 98.4 1.6 0.0 0.0

Antique 217 97.7 0.9 0.9 0.5

Capiz 388 96.4 2.8 0.8 0.0

Iloilo 1,083 96.7 2.6 0.6 0.1


Guimaras 65 98.5 1.5 0.0 0.0

Central Visayas 2,301 93.5 4.1 2.0 0.4

Bohol 516 92.3 5.8 1.9 0.0

Cebu 1,167 92.5 4.5 2.3 0.7

Negros Oriental 553 96.3 2.1 1.5 0.2

Siquijor 65 98.5 1.5 0.0 0.0

Eastern Visayas 2,461 91.7 5.0 2.6 0.7

Eastern Samar 273 93.5 3.6 2.6 0.4

Leyte 1,195 92.3 4.6 2.5 0.6

Northern Samar 291 94.2 4.1 1.4 0.3

Western Samar 372 84.0 10.1 4.5 1.4

Southern Leyte 205 94.1 3.2 1.3 1.4

Biliran 125 96.0 1.6 2.4 0.0






Bukidnon 633 93.2 4.5 1.9 0.5

Camiguin 51 98.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

Lanao del Norte 465 91.6 4.3 3.2 0.9



Davao 2,222 95.4 2.7 1.5 0.4

Davao del Norte 406 94.4 3.3 1.6 0.7

Davao del Sur 1,221 96.6 2.3 0.8 0.3

Davao Oriental 272 93.1 4.3 2.3 0.4


SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,163 91.5 5.5 2.6 0.4

North Cotabato 720 88.2 8.0 3.3 0.5

South Cotabato 799 94.5 3.5 1.8 0.2

Sultan Kudarat 410 90.6 6.1 2.4 0.9

Sarangani 234 93.1 3.4 3.5 0.0

ARMM10 1,734 78.6 11.1 8.0 2.4

Basilan11 129 80.6 15.4 2.5 1.5

Lanao del Sur 581 76.3 10.4 7.5 5.9

Maguindanao 627 84.5 6.9 7.7 0.9

Sulu 258 77.3 8.7 12.7 1.3

Tawi-Tawi 193 75.2 21.0 2.4 1.4

Caraga 1,927 95.4 3.0 1.3 0.3

Agusan del Norte 551 94.2 3.6 2.0 0.2

Agusan del Sur 441 94.5 2.9 2.0 0.6


Surigao del Sur 447 98.2 1.4 0.2 0.2






82




Appendix 14. Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile and region:

Philippines, 2015

Region Wealth Quintile Mean SE 95% CI

CV LL UL

Philippines

Poorest 8.4 0.04 8.3 8.5 0.5

Poor 9.0 0.03 9.0 9.1 0.4

Middle 9.4 0.03 9.3 9.4 0.4

Rich 9.7 0.03 9.7 9.8 0.3

Richest 10.2 0.03 10.1 10.3 0.3

NCR

Poorest 7.7 0.4 6.8 8.5 5.4

Poor 8.8 0.1 8.5 9.0 1.5

Middle 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.3 1.0

Rich 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.8 0.8

Richest 10.2 0.1 10.1 10.3 0.7

CAR

Poorest 8.4 0.2 8.1 8.7 1.8

Poor 9.0 0.1 8.9 9.2 1.0

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.2 9.7 1.4

Rich 9.9 0.1 9.6 10.1 1.5

Richest 10.4 0.1 10.1 10.6 1.2

Ilocos

Poorest 8.7 0.2 8.4 9.1 2.1

Poor 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.3 1.3

Middle 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.6 1.5

Rich 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.9 1.1

Richest 10.1 0.1 9.8 10.4 1.3

Cagayan Valley

Poorest 8.8 0.1 8.6 9.1 1.4

Poor 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.6 0.9

Middle 9.9 0.1 9.7 10.0 0.8

Rich 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2 1.0

Richest 10.5 0.1 10.3 10.7 0.9

Central Luzon

Poorest 8.8 0.2 8.5 9.1 1.9

Poor 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.5 1.0

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.4 9.7 0.8

Rich 9.8 0.1 9.7 9.9 0.7

Richest 10.2 0.1 10.1 10.4 0.6

CALABARZON

Poorest 8.3 0.2 7.9 8.6 2.0

Poor 8.5 0.2 8.2 8.8 1.9

Middle 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.3 1.4

Rich 9.6 0.1 9.4 9.7 1.0

Richest 10.1 0.1 10.0 10.3 0.7

MIMAROPA

Poorest 7.9 0.2 7.6 8.2 2.0

Poor 8.9 0.2 8.6 9.3 1.8

Middle 9.2 0.1 8.9 9.5 1.5

Rich 9.7 0.2 9.4 10.1 1.8

Richest 10.0 0.2 9.6 10.3 1.8

Bicol

Poorest 8.7 0.1 8.5 8.9 1.2

Poor 9.2 0.1 9.0 9.4 1.1

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.3 9.7 1.1

Rich 9.9 0.1 9.6 10.1 1.2

Richest 10.2 0.1 10.0 10.4 1.0

83




Continuation...Appendix 14

Region Wealth Quintile Mean SE 95% CI

CV LL UL

Western Visayas

Poorest 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.2 1.1

Poor 9.6 0.1 9.4 9.7 0.8

Middle 9.9 0.1 9.8 10.1 0.7

Rich 10.3 0.1 10.1 10.5 0.8

Richest 10.7 0.1 10.5 10.9 1.0

Central Visayas

Poorest 8.5 0.1 8.3 8.8 1.4

Poor 8.9 0.1 8.6 9.1 1.4

Middle 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5 1.3

Rich 9.7 0.1 9.4 9.9 1.5

Richest 10.1 0.2 9.8 10.4 1.5

Eastern Visayas

Poorest 8.0 0.1 7.8 8.3 1.6

Poor 8.5 0.1 8.2 8.7 1.8

Middle 9.1 0.1 8.8 9.4 1.6

Rich 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.7 1.5

Richest 9.8 0.2 9.5 10.1 1.8

Zamboanga Peninsula

Poorest 8.6 0.2 8.2 8.9 1.8

Poor 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.6 1.0

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.2 9.8 1.5

Rich 9.9 0.1 9.6 10.2 1.4

Richest 10.6 0.2 10.3 11.0 1.4

Northern Mindanao

Poorest 8.5 0.2 8.1 8.8 1.9

Poor 9.0 0.2 8.7 9.3 1.8

Middle 9.2 0.2 8.8 9.6 2.2

Rich 9.5 0.2 9.1 10.0 2.5

Richest 10.2 0.2 9.8 10.6 2.0

Davao

Poorest 9.1 0.1 8.8 9.3 1.2

Poor 9.2 0.1 9.0 9.4 1.3

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.3 9.7 1.3

Rich 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2 1.1

Richest 10.4 0.1 10.1 10.6 1.3

SOCCSKSARGEN

Poorest 8.4 0.1 8.2 8.6 1.2

Poor 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.4 1.3

Middle 9.5 0.1 9.3 9.8 1.4

Rich 9.8 0.1 9.5 10.0 1.2

Richest 10.1 0.2 9.8 10.5 1.7

ARMM

Poorest 7.3 0.2 7.0 7.6 2.3

Poor 8.5 0.2 8.2 8.8 1.8

Middle 9.3 0.2 9.0 9.6 1.7

Rich 9.0 0.3 8.5 9.5 3.1

Richest 10.3 0.3 9.8 10.8 2.6

Caraga

Poorest 8.9 0.1 8.7 9.1 1.3

Poor 9.2 0.1 8.9 9.4 1.3

Middle 9.4 0.2 9.1 9.8 2.0

Rich 10.0 0.1 9.7 10.2 1.3

Richest 10.1 0.2 9.8 10.4 1.6

Appendix 15. Proportion of households consuming 16 food groups by region: Philippines, 2015

Region n

Food Groups

Cereals & Prod.

Vitamin A-Rich Veg. & Tubers

White Tubers

and Roots

Dark Leafy, Green

Veg., incl. wild ones

Other Veg., incl. wild

veg.

Vitamin A-Rich Fruits

Other Fruits Including

Wild Fruits

Meat, Fresh &

Processed

Organ Meats (Iron-Rich)

Eggs Fish and Shellfish

Legumes, Nuts, and

Seeds

Milk & Milk

Products

Oils & Fats

Sweets Spices,

Condiments, Beverages

Philippines 40,893 99.7 71.9 48.4 91.2 83.7 41.1 74.0 77.9 15.2 80.6 90.8 39.7 51.0 90.4 81.4 95.8

NCR 3,213 99.5 77.2 58.2 86.4 79.8 47.6 81.2 92.1 20.2 86.7 86.7 39.5 62.3 89.8 74.2 91.3

CAR 1,706 99.8 57.8 49.9 87.3 78.9 38.9 70.9 84.4 11.1 76.0 77.3 48.6 47.7 93.5 88.1 97.4

Ilocos 2,363 99.5 67.8 48.3 91.7 88.5 37.6 66.5 83.8 17.3 83.8 87.3 49.2 46.8 92.1 85.1 95.6

Cagayan Valley 2,304 99.8 65.0 44.8 94.9 93.2 44.6 80.3 87.2 17.0 81.6 85.1 57.6 51.3 93.6 91.1 98.3

Central Luzon 3,427 99.6 74.5 50.5 90.1 90.2 34.8 78.5 90.2 18.1 90.4 91.5 45.9 51.7 94.9 82.6 97.4

CALABARZON 4,269 99.8 69.2 53.2 87.6 84.8 39.0 74.9 85.8 17.2 85.8 91.1 36.6 52.3 88.8 72.9 94.7

MIMAROPA 1,293 99.3 66.0 39.6 92.1 86.0 41.9 68.9 68.5 11.5 73.3 90.0 36.2 45.8 85.1 81.5 95.4

Bicol 2,632 99.4 60.3 47.6 94.0 80.6 47.7 68.4 75.8 11.5 75.8 91.0 28.6 58.2 91.6 85.9 96.3

Western Visayas 3,135 99.9 79.8 47.8 96.8 87.1 46.0 77.9 75.3 18.6 80.3 94.9 48.2 56.7 94.2 89.8 98.8

Central Visayas 2,275 99.6 76.6 38.6 96.8 80.9 34.6 67.5 72.2 12.7 77.2 94.1 40.8 55.6 86.1 81.2 95.3

Eastern Visayas 2,353 99.7 63.8 41.2 90.9 78.9 30.1 60.3 70.3 9.9 71.0 95.6 24.8 44.1 85.7 75.7 94.0

Zamboanga Peninsula 1,728 99.8 78.2 50.0 96.1 83.9 43.1 72.5 67.8 16.0 75.4 94.0 42.3 47.3 88.6 83.2 98.0

Northern Mindanao 2,171 99.5 76.8 47.5 95.6 82.7 41.1 75.5 69.4 13.8 76.8 90.8 36.0 45.1 89.7 75.5 96.5

Davao 2,217 99.7 80.8 43.1 94.5 87.1 46.8 78.2 75.5 12.0 81.5 94.0 41.3 52.4 93.7 87.4 98.2

SOCCSKSARGEN 2,159 99.8 76.0 39.9 95.7 88.5 46.3 79.0 65.1 11.3 76.0 91.6 36.0 40.8 89.7 89.0 98.1

ARMM 1,727 99.9 54.3 47.8 74.3 59.9 32.8 58.5 26.5 4.9 56.5 90.0 25.8 17.2 82.5 84.6 94.4

Caraga 1,921 99.7 75.9 46.1 94.4 84.3 47.9 77.8 70.3 13.0 79.7 92.1 34.1 51.3 91.6 82.0 96.7

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

5

84

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

85




Appendix 16. Percent distribution of households by food consumption category by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province n

Food Consumption Category

Poor (0-28)

Borderline (>28-42)

Acceptable (>42)

Philippines 40,893 2.3 10.7 87.0

NCR7 3,213 2.2 6.5 91.4

District I 433 4.8 8.3 86.9

District II 1,141 1.5 5.7 92.8

District III 859 1.9 6.4 91.6

District IV 780 2.2 6.9 90.9

CAR 1,706 3.3 15.2 81.5

Abra 284 1.8 12.4 85.8

Benguet 698 2.3 13.0 84.8

Ifugao 203 5.4 21.2 73.4

Kalinga 205 2.3 14.7 83.0

Mountain Province 199 9.5 24.1 66.3

Apayao 117 1.7 14.5 83.8

Ilocos 2,363 2.6 11.5 85.9

Ilocos Norte 315 5.2 16.0 78.8

Ilocos Sur 307 1.9 9.8 88.3

La Union 442 2.0 16.4 81.6

Pangasinan 1,299 2.4 9.1 88.5

Cagayan Valley 2,304 1.4 11.6 87.0

Cagayan 792 2.1 11.7 86.2

Isabela 1,116 1.3 11.5 87.2

Nueva Vizcaya 277 0.4 9.3 90.3

Quirino 119 0.0 17.6 82.4

Central Luzon 3,427 0.9 6.9 92.1

Bataan 224 1.3 5.5 93.2

Bulacan 975 0.6 5.3 94.1

Nueva Ecija 793 2.2 12.4 85.3

Pampanga 705 0.5 5.6 93.8

Tarlac 448 0.7 3.8 95.5

Zambales 216 0.0 8.2 91.8

Aurora 66 0.0 6.1 93.9

CALABARZON 4,269 1.5 8.7 89.9

Batangas 746 1.4 8.7 89.8

Cavite 1,071 1.1 5.8 93.0

Laguna 989 2.7 9.1 88.3

Quezon 731 1.3 16.3 82.4

Rizal 732 0.4 5.5 94.1

MIMAROPA 1,293 5.0 12.7 82.3

Marinduque 167 0.0 7.2 92.8

Occidental Mindoro 205 11.8 15.0 73.3

Oriental Mindoro 367 4.1 12.9 83.0

Palawan 410 4.9 12.6 82.5

Romblon 144 2.9 15.4 81.8

Bicol 2,632 2.5 11.8 85.7

Albay 588 2.1 11.1 86.8

Camarines Norte 285 1.4 11.9 86.7

Camarines Sur 821 2.7 12.6 84.6

Catanduanes 132 1.5 12.9 85.6

Masbate 406 4.2 12.9 82.9

Sorsogon 400 2.2 9.5 88.3

86





Region/Province n Food Consumption Category

Poor (0-28) Borderline (>28-42) Acceptable (>42)

Western Visayas 3,135 1.7 11.5 86.8

Aklan 195 6.4 14.0 79.6

Antique 215 2.8 10.3 87.0

Capiz 389 1.3 10.4 88.3

Iloilo 1,079 1.4 11.9 86.7

Negros Occidental 1,192 1.3 11.4 87.3

Guimaras 65 0.0 7.7 92.3

Central Visayas 2,275 2.5 9.7 87.8

Bohol 505 2.0 10.2 87.8

Cebu 1,152 1.9 9.1 89.0

Negros Oriental 553 4.3 10.7 85.0

Siquijor 65 1.5 9.2 89.2

Eastern Visayas 2,353 3.7 12.7 83.6

Eastern Samar 275 5.7 17.0 77.3

Leyte 1,136 3.6 12.7 83.6

Northern Samar 276 2.6 8.7 88.8

Western Samar 356 5.2 16.0 78.8

Southern Leyte 185 1.1 9.4 89.5

Biliran 125 1.6 6.4 92.0

Zamboanga Peninsula9 1,728 3.0 11.0 86.0

Zamboanga del Norte 557 3.3 13.6 83.1

Zamboanga del Sur 813 2.0 8.4 89.6

Zamboanga Sibugay 304 5.0 14.3 80.7

Northern Mindanao 2,171 2.8 13.7 83.4

Bukidnon 633 3.1 18.9 78.0

Camiguin 52 1.9 7.7 90.4

Lanao del Norte 466 2.8 17.1 80.1

Misamis Occidental 257 1.9 10.9 87.1

Misamis Oriental 763 3.0 9.1 87.9

Davao 2,217 1.0 9.1 89.9

Davao del Norte 405 1.4 10.2 88.4

Davao del Sur 1,217 0.8 7.9 91.3

Davao Oriental 272 2.6 12.1 85.2

Compostela Valley 323 0.0 10.3 89.7

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,159 2.7 16.3 81.0

North Cotabato 718 3.3 16.0 80.7

South Cotabato 798 1.8 13.0 85.2

Sultan Kudarat 410 3.9 19.9 76.1

Saranggani 233 2.2 23.9 73.8

ARMM10 1,727 6.5 22.6 70.9

Basilan11 127 7.2 18.5 75.5

Lanao del Sur 581 8.3 27.8 63.9

Maguindanao 626 5.8 24.8 69.4

Sulu 257 6.1 24.2 69.6

Tawi-Tawi 190 5.0 5.3 89.7

Caraga 1,921 2.5 11.8 85.7

Agusan del Norte 550 2.2 10.8 87.1

Agusan del Sur 438 3.0 13.7 83.4

Surigao del Norte 487 2.4 10.2 87.4

Surigao del Sur 446 2.5 12.9 84.6






87




Appendix 17. Proportion of households with poor food consumption score with standard error, confidence interval and coefficient of variation by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province

Poor FCS (0-28 Points)

n Proportion

(%) SE

95% CI CV (%)

LL UL

Philippines 40,893 2.3 0.1 2.1 2.5 4.4

NCR7 3,213 2.2 0.3 1.6 2.9 14.7

District I 433 4.8 1.3 2.8 8.1 27.5

District II 1,141 1.5 0.5 0.8 2.7 30.7

District III 859 1.9 0.5 1.1 3.3 27.2

District IV 780 2.2 0.6 1.3 3.8 27.5

CAR 1,706 3.3 0.4 2.5 4.2 13.1

Abra 284 1.8 0.8 0.7 4.4 46.5

Benguet 698 2.3 0.5 1.5 3.5 22.2

Ifugao 203 5.4 2.3 2.4 12.0 41.6

Kalinga 205 2.3 0.8 1.1 4.7 36.4


Apayao 117 1.7 0.8 0.6 4.4 49.4

Ilocos 2,363 2.6 0.5 1.8 3.8 19.2

Ilocos Norte 315 5.2 2.5 2.0 12.9 47.8

Ilocos Sur 307 1.9 1.3 0.5 7.0 69.5

La Union 442 2.0 0.8 0.9 4.4 40.1

Pangasinan 1,299 2.4 0.6 1.5 3.9 24.1

Cagayan Valley 2,304 1.4 0.3 0.9 2.0 19.3

Cagayan 792 2.1 0.6 1.2 3.7 29.3

Isabela 1,116 1.3 0.3 0.8 2.2 25.8

Nueva Vizcaya 277 0.4 0.4 0.0 2.6 101.7

Quirino 119 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0

Central Luzon 3,427 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.3 16.5

Bataan 224 1.3 0.7 0.5 3.9 54.8

Bulacan 975 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.4 41.1

Nueva Ecija 793 2.2 0.5 1.5 3.4 21.5

Pampanga 705 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.4 48.9

Tarlac 448 0.7 0.4 0.2 2.1 60.1

Zambales 216 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0

Aurora 66 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0

CALABARZON 4,269 1.5 0.2 1.1 2.0 15.4

Batangas 746 1.4 0.4 0.8 2.6 30.7

Cavite 1,071 1.1 0.4 0.6 2.3 36.1

Laguna 989 2.7 0.7 1.6 4.4 25.9

Quezon 731 1.3 0.4 0.8 2.3 26.7

Rizal 732 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.6 74.8

MIMAROPA 1,293 5.0 0.7 3.7 6.6 14.5

Marinduque 167 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0



Palawan 410 4.9 1.3 3.0 8.1 25.7

Romblon 144 2.9 1.5 1.0 7.7 51.6

Bicol 2,632 2.5 0.4 1.9 3.4 15.0

Albay 588 2.1 1.0 0.8 5.1 46.8

Camarines Norte 285 1.4 0.5 0.7 2.8 36.9

Camarines Sur 821 2.7 0.6 1.8 4.2 22.4

Catanduanes 132 1.5 1.0 0.4 5.4 65.9

Masbate 406 4.2 1.2 2.4 7.3 28.7

Sorsogon 400 2.2 0.8 1.1 4.6 37.4

88





Region/Province

Poor FCS (0-28 Points)

n Proportion

(%) SE

95% CI CV (%)

LL UL

Western Visayas 3,135 1.7 0.4 1.1 2.6 21.5

Aklan 195 6.4 3.9 1.9 19.8 61.0

Antique 215 2.8 1.3 1.1 7.0 48.0

Capiz 389 1.3 1.1 0.3 6.1 80.7

Iloilo 1,079 1.4 0.4 0.7 2.6 31.8


Guimaras 65 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0

Central Visayas 2,275 2.5 0.4 1.8 3.3 15.3

Bohol 505 2.0 0.6 1.1 3.7 31.5

Cebu 1,152 1.9 0.5 1.2 3.1 23.9

Negros Oriental 553 4.3 1.1 2.6 7.0 25.7

Siquijor 65 1.5 1.5 0.2 10.1 99.1

Eastern Visayas 2,353 3.7 0.6 2.7 5.1 16.7

Eastern Samar 275 5.7 2.5 2.4 13.0 43.1

Leyte 1,136 3.6 1.0 2.2 6.0 26.2

Northern Samar 276 2.6 1.0 1.2 5.6 40.3

Western Samar 356 5.2 1.7 2.8 9.6 31.5

Southern Leyte 185 1.1 0.6 0.4 2.9 51.3

Biliran 125 1.6 1.1 0.4 6.0 68.8






Bukidnon 633 3.1 1.2 1.5 6.5 37.8

Camiguin 52 1.9 2.3 0.2 17.2 118.0

Lanao del Norte 466 2.8 1.0 1.4 5.5 35.9



Davao 2,217 1.0 0.2 0.6 1.6 23.7

Davao del Norte 405 1.4 0.5 0.7 3.0 37.8

Davao del Sur 1,217 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.6 35.1

Davao Oriental 272 2.6 1.3 1.0 6.6 47.5

Compostela Valley 323 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,159 2.7 0.4 2.1 3.7 14.6

North Cotabato 718 3.3 0.7 2.2 5.0 21.7

South Cotabato 798 1.8 0.4 1.1 2.9 24.1

Sultan Kudarat 410 3.9 1.4 2.0 7.7 34.7

Saranggani 233 2.2 1.2 0.8 6.0 51.8

ARMM10 1,727 6.5 0.9 5.0 8.4 13.4

Basilan11 127 7.2 4.7 1.9 23.5 64.7

Lanao del Sur 581 8.3 1.5 5.8 11.6 17.6

Maguindanao 626 5.8 1.3 3.6 9.1 23.3

Sulu 257 6.1 1.5 3.7 10.0 25.3

Tawi-Tawi 190 5.0 3.6 1.2 18.6 70.9

Caraga 1,921 2.5 0.4 1.8 3.5 17.7

Agusan del Norte 550 2.2 0.6 1.2 3.9 29.3

Agusan del Sur 438 3.0 0.8 1.8 5.0 26.6


Surigao del Sur 446 2.5 1.0 1.2 5.3 38.8






89




Appendix 18. Proportion of households with borderline food consumption score with standard error, confidence interval and coefficient of variation by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province

Borderline FCS (>28-42 Points)

n Proportion

(%) SE

95% CI CV (%)

LL UL

Philippines 40,893 10.7 0.2 10.2 11.1 2.1

NCR7 3,213 6.5 0.5 5.6 7.4 7.3

District I 433 8.3 1.7 5.5 12.4 21.0

District II 1,141 5.7 0.7 4.5 7.1 11.6

District III 859 6.4 0.9 4.9 8.3 13.4

District IV 780 6.9 1.0 5.2 9.1 14.4

CAR 1,706 15.2 1.2 13.0 17.7 7.7

Abra 284 12.4 2.3 8.5 17.6 18.4

Benguet 698 13.0 1.8 9.9 16.9 13.7

Ifugao 203 21.2 4.5 13.7 31.2 21.1

Kalinga 205 14.7 2.9 9.9 21.3 19.6


Apayao 117 14.5 3.4 9.0 22.6 23.6

Ilocos 2,363 11.5 0.9 9.8 13.3 7.8

Ilocos Norte 315 16.0 4.0 9.6 25.5 25.1

Ilocos Sur 307 9.8 2.3 6.2 15.3 23.2

La Union 442 16.4 2.1 12.6 21.0 13.1

Pangasinan 1,299 9.1 1.0 7.4 11.2 10.5

Cagayan Valley 2,304 11.6 0.9 9.9 13.6 8.2

Cagayan 792 11.7 1.5 9.1 15.0 12.8

Isabela 1,116 11.5 1.3 9.1 14.3 11.4

Nueva Vizcaya 277 9.3 3.6 4.3 19.2 38.6

Quirino 119 17.6 2.8 12.7 23.7 15.9

Central Luzon 3,427 6.9 0.5 6.0 8.0 7.4

Bataan 224 5.5 2.4 2.3 12.5 43.7

Bulacan 975 5.3 0.9 3.8 7.3 16.5

Nueva Ecija 793 12.4 1.5 9.7 15.7 12.2

Pampanga 705 5.6 0.8 4.2 7.5 14.6

Tarlac 448 3.8 0.9 2.5 6.0 22.7

Zambales 216 8.2 2.0 5.0 13.2 24.8

Aurora 66 6.1 3.0 2.3 15.1 48.6

CALABARZON 4,269 8.7 0.7 7.4 10.1 7.8

Batangas 746 8.7 1.2 6.6 11.4 14.0

Cavite 1,071 5.8 0.7 4.6 7.4 12.1

Laguna 989 9.1 1.8 6.1 13.2 19.6

Quezon 731 16.3 2.3 12.3 21.3 14.1

Rizal 732 5.5 1.3 3.4 8.8 23.9

MIMAROPA 1,293 12.7 1.1 10.7 15.0 8.7

Marinduque 167 7.2 3.1 3.0 16.2 43.6



Palawan 410 12.6 1.7 9.6 16.4 13.7

Romblon 144 15.4 4.5 8.4 26.3 29.2

Bicol 2,632 11.8 0.8 10.4 13.4 6.5

Albay 588 11.1 1.5 8.4 14.5 13.9

Camarines Norte 285 11.9 3.6 6.4 21.0 30.4

Camarines Sur 821 12.6 1.1 10.6 15.0 9.0

Catanduanes 132 12.9 2.1 9.3 17.6 16.4

Masbate 406 12.9 2.4 9.0 18.3 18.3

Sorsogon 400 9.5 1.4 7.1 12.6 14.7

90





Region/Province

Borderline FCS (>28-42 Points)

n Proportion (%) SE 95% CI

CV (%) LL UL

Western Visayas 3,135 11.5 0.8 9.9 13.2 7.3 Aklan 195 14.0 2.7 9.4 20.1 19.4 Antique 215 10.3 2.0 6.9 15.0 20.0 Capiz 389 10.4 3.3 5.5 18.9 31.9 Iloilo 1,079 11.9 1.5 9.2 15.3 13.0 Negros Occidental 1,192 11.4 1.2 9.3 13.9 10.1 Guimaras 65 7.7 3.5 3.1 17.8 45.1

Central Visayas 2,275 9.7 0.7 8.4 11.2 7.6 Bohol 505 10.2 1.9 7.0 14.5 18.5 Cebu 1,152 9.1 1.0 7.4 11.2 10.4 Negros Oriental 553 10.7 1.5 8.1 14.0 13.8 Siquijor 65 9.2 3.1 4.7 17.4 33.8

Eastern Visayas 2,353 12.7 1.0 10.8 14.8 7.9 Eastern Samar 275 17.0 3.4 11.3 24.8 20.3 Leyte 1,136 12.7 1.3 10.4 15.6 10.3 Northern Samar 276 8.7 1.9 5.6 13.1 21.6 Western Samar 356 16.0 3.4 10.4 23.7 21.0 Southern Leyte 185 9.4 4.0 4.0 20.5 41.9 Biliran 125 6.4 3.1 2.5 15.7 47.8

Zamboanga Peninsula8 1,728 11.0 0.9 9.4 12.9 8.0 Zamboanga del Norte 557 13.6 1.5 11.0 16.8 11.0 Zamboanga del Sur 813 8.4 1.1 6.5 11.0 13.5 Zamboanga Sibugay 304 14.3 2.8 9.6 20.8 19.8

Northern Mindanao 2,171 13.7 1.4 11.2 16.6 10.0 Bukidnon 633 18.9 3.0 13.6 25.6 16.2 Camiguin 52 7.7 5.3 1.9 26.3 68.5 Lanao del Norte 466 17.1 3.2 11.8 24.2 18.5 Misamis Occidental 257 10.9 3.1 6.2 18.5 28.1 Misamis Oriental 763 9.1 1.8 6.2 13.3 19.5

Davao 2,217 9.1 0.8 7.7 10.8 8.7 Davao del Norte 405 10.2 1.7 7.3 14.1 16.7 Davao del Sur 1,217 7.9 1.0 6.2 10.1 12.4 Davao Oriental 272 12.1 3.0 7.4 19.3 24.5 Compostela Valley 323 10.3 2.3 6.5 15.8 22.5

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,159 16.3 1.0 14.3 18.4 6.4 North Cotabato 718 16.0 1.9 12.7 20.0 11.6 South Cotabato 798 13.0 1.3 10.6 15.8 10.2 Sultan Kudarat 410 19.9 2.9 14.9 26.1 14.4 Saranggani 233 23.9 4.3 16.5 33.3 17.9

ARMM10 1,727 22.6 1.8 19.3 26.2 7.8 Basilan11 127 18.5 6.5 7.3 39.6 35.4 Lanao del Sur 581 27.8 2.5 23.2 33.0 9.0 Maguindanao 626 24.8 2.3 20.6 29.6 9.2 Sulu 257 24.2 4.9 16.0 34.9 20.0 Tawi-Tawi 190 5.3 1.7 2.7 9.9 33.0

Caraga 1,921 11.8 1.4 9.3 14.8 11.6 Agusan del Norte 550 10.8 2.8 6.4 17.6 26.0 Agusan del Sur 438 13.7 2.4 9.7 19.0 17.3 Surigao del Norte 487 10.2 3.0 5.6 17.9 29.7 Surigao del Sur 446 12.9 2.4 8.9 18.3 18.4






91




Appendix 19. Proportion of households of acceptable food consumption score with standard error, confidence interval, coefficient of variation by region and province: Philippines, 2015

Region/Province

Acceptable FCS (>42 Points)

n Proportion

(%) SE

95% CI CV (%)

LL UL

Philippines 40,893 87.0 0.3 86.5 87.6 0.3

NCR7 3,213 91.4 0.6 90.0 92.5 0.7

District I 433 86.9 2.7 80.7 91.4 3.1

District II 1,141 92.8 0.9 90.8 94.4 1.0

District III 859 91.6 1.1 89.3 93.5 1.2

District IV 780 90.9 1.2 88.4 92.9 1.3

CAR 1,706 81.5 1.3 78.8 84.0 1.6

Abra 284 85.8 2.8 79.4 90.5 3.2

Benguet 698 84.8 2.0 80.5 88.2 2.3

Ifugao 203 73.4 5.2 62.2 82.2 7.0

Kalinga 205 83.0 3.0 76.2 88.1 3.7


Apayao 117 83.8 4.0 74.4 90.2 4.8

Ilocos 2,363 85.9 1.2 83.5 88.1 1.4

Ilocos Norte 315 78.8 5.8 65.2 88.0 7.4

Ilocos Sur 307 88.3 2.5 82.5 92.4 2.8

La Union 442 81.6 2.5 76.3 86.0 3.0

Pangasinan 1,299 88.5 1.3 85.6 90.8 1.5

Cagayan Valley 2,304 87.0 1.0 84.9 88.9 1.2

Cagayan 792 86.2 1.6 82.9 89.0 1.8

Isabela 1,116 87.2 1.4 84.2 89.8 1.6

Nueva Vizcaya 277 90.3 3.8 79.9 95.6 4.2

Quirino 119 82.4 2.8 76.3 87.3 3.4

Central Luzon 3,427 92.1 0.6 90.9 93.2 0.6

Bataan 224 93.2 2.7 85.6 96.9 2.9

Bulacan 975 94.1 1.0 91.8 95.7 1.1

Nueva Ecija 793 85.3 1.7 81.7 88.3 2.0

Pampanga 705 93.8 0.9 91.9 95.4 0.9

Tarlac 448 95.5 1.0 93.1 97.1 1.0

Zambales 216 91.8 2.0 86.8 95.0 2.2

Aurora 66 93.9 3.0 84.9 97.7 3.1

CALABARZON 4,269 89.9 0.8 88.2 91.3 0.9

Batangas 746 89.8 1.3 86.9 92.2 1.5

Cavite 1,071 93.0 0.9 91.2 94.5 0.9

Laguna 989 88.3 2.3 83.0 92.0 2.6

Quezon 731 82.4 2.4 77.1 86.6 2.9

Rizal 732 94.1 1.5 90.2 96.5 1.6

MIMAROPA 1,293 82.3 1.4 79.3 85.0 1.7

Marinduque 167 92.8 3.1 83.8 97.0 3.4



Palawan 410 82.5 2.3 77.4 86.6 2.8

Romblon 144 81.8 5.2 69.2 89.9 6.4

Bicol 2,632 85.7 0.9 83.8 87.4 1.1

Albay 588 86.8 1.9 82.6 90.1 2.2

Camarines Norte 285 86.7 3.7 77.6 92.5 4.3

Camarines Sur 821 84.6 1.3 81.9 87.0 1.5

Catanduanes 132 85.6 2.6 79.7 90.0 3.1

Masbate 406 82.9 3.3 75.4 88.5 4.0

Sorsogon 400 88.3 1.5 85.0 90.9 1.7

92





Region/Province

Acceptable FCS (>42 Points)

n Proportion

(%) SE

95% CI CV (%)

LL UL

Western Visayas 3,135 86.8 1.1 84.6 88.7 1.2 Aklan 195 79.6 6.3 64.5 89.4 8.0 Antique 215 87.0 2.9 80.1 91.7 3.3 Capiz 389 88.3 4.2 77.2 94.4 4.8 Iloilo 1,079 86.7 1.8 82.7 89.9 2.1 Negros Occidental 1,192 87.3 1.3 84.6 89.6 1.5 Guimaras 65 92.3 3.5 82.2 96.9 3.8

Central Visayas 2,275 87.8 0.9 85.9 89.5 1.0 Bohol 505 87.8 2.2 82.9 91.5 2.5 Cebu 1,152 89.0 1.2 86.5 91.0 1.3 Negros Oriental 553 85.0 1.9 80.9 88.4 2.2 Siquijor 65 89.2 4.6 76.3 95.5 5.2

Eastern Visayas 2,353 83.6 1.4 80.7 86.2 1.7 Eastern Samar 275 77.3 5.5 64.9 86.3 7.1 Leyte 1,136 83.6 1.9 79.4 87.1 2.3 Northern Samar 276 88.8 2.6 82.6 92.9 2.9 Western Samar 356 78.8 4.5 68.7 86.2 5.7 Southern Leyte 185 89.5 4.2 78.1 95.3 4.7 Biliran 125 92.0 4.1 79.4 97.2 4.5

Zamboanga Peninsula8 1,728 86.0 1.2 83.5 88.2 1.4 Zamboanga del Norte 557 83.1 2.0 78.8 86.6 2.4 Zamboanga del Sur 813 89.6 1.6 86.0 92.3 1.8 Zamboanga Sibugay 304 80.7 4.1 71.4 87.5 5.1

Northern Mindanao 2,171 83.4 1.7 79.9 86.5 2.0 Bukidnon 633 78.0 3.6 70.2 84.3 4.6 Camiguin 52 90.4 7.1 65.4 97.9 7.9 Lanao del Norte 466 80.1 3.8 71.6 86.6 4.7 Misamis Occidental 257 87.1 3.4 78.8 92.5 4.0 Misamis Oriental 763 87.9 2.4 82.2 91.9 2.8

Davao 2,217 89.9 0.9 87.9 91.5 1.0 Davao del Norte 405 88.4 2.0 83.9 91.7 2.2 Davao Del Sur 1,217 91.3 1.1 88.7 93.2 1.2 Davao Oriental 272 85.2 3.9 75.9 91.3 4.5 Compostela Valley 323 89.7 2.3 84.2 93.5 2.6

SOCCSKSARGEN9 2,159 81.0 1.2 78.4 83.3 1.5 North Cotabato 718 80.7 2.2 76.1 84.6 2.7 South Cotabato 798 85.2 1.4 82.1 87.8 1.7 Sultan Kudarat 410 76.1 3.8 67.9 82.8 5.0 Saranggani 233 73.8 4.8 63.4 82.1 6.5

ARMM10 1,727 70.9 2.1 66.7 74.9 2.9 Basilan11 127 75.5 9.1 48.1 91.1 12 Lanao del Sur 581 63.9 3.4 57.0 70.3 5.3 Maguindanao 626 69.4 3.2 62.8 75.3 4.6 Sulu 257 69.6 5.1 58.8 78.7 7.4 Tawi-Tawi 190 89.7 4.4 77.4 95.7 4.9

Caraga 1,921 85.7 1.6 82.3 88.6 1.9 Agusan del Norte 550 87.1 3.1 79.7 92.0 3.5 Agusan del Sur 438 83.4 2.7 77.3 88.0 3.3 Surigao del Norte 487 87.4 3.9 77.7 93.2 4.4 Surigao del Sur 446 84.6 2.7 78.6 89.2 3.2






93




Appendix 20. Percent distribution of households by food security status and socio-demographic characteristics: Philippines, 2015

Socio-demographic characteristics


Food Secure Mildly Food Insecure Moderately Food Insecure Severely Food Insecure

% SE 95% CI CV % SE 95% CI CV % SE 95% CI CV % SE 95% CI CV

Household Size

>5 25.9 0.5 24.9 26.9 2.0 12.0 0.3 11.4 12.6 2.7 35.8 0.5 34.8 36.8 1.4 26.3 0.5 25.4 27.3 1.9

≤5 37.8 0.5 36.8 38.7 1.3 12.5 0.3 12.0 13.0 2.1 30.0 0.4 29.2 30.8 1.3 19.7 0.3 19.1 20.4 1.7

Place of Residence

Rural 28.0 0.6 26.9 29.1 2.0 12.3 0.3 11.8 12.9 2.2 36.6 0.5 35.6 37.5 1.3 23.2 0.4 22.3 24.0 1.9 Urban 40.1 0.7 38.7 41.4 1.7 12.3 0.3 11.7 13.0 2.8 27.0 0.5 26.0 28.1 1.9 20.6 0.5 19.6 21.6 2.4

Gender of Household Head

Male 32.6 0.4 31.8 33.5 1.4 12.5 0.2 12.0 13.0 2.0 32.7 0.4 32.0 33.5 1.1 22.2 0.3 21.5 22.8 1.5

Female 38.5 0.7 37.2 39.9 1.8 11.8 0.4 11.1 12.6 3.2 28.8 0.6 27.7 29.9 2.0 20.9 0.6 19.8 22.0 2.7

Wealth Quintile

Poorest 11.5 0.5 10.6 12.5 4.2 8.5 0.4 7.8 9.2 4.2 40.9 0.6 39.6 42.2 1.6 39.1 0.7 37.8 40.5 1.7 Poor 18.0 0.5 17.0 19.1 3.0 11.7 0.4 11.0 12.5 3.3 41.0 0.6 39.7 42.2 1.5 29.3 0.6 28.2 30.5 2.0 Middle 25.8 0.6 24.6 27.0 2.4 15.0 0.5 14.1 15.9 3.0 37.7 0.7 36.4 39.0 1.8 21.5 0.6 20.4 22.7 2.7

Rich 42.6 0.8 41.1 44.1 1.8 15.5 0.5 14.5 16.5 3.2 28.2 0.6 27.0 29.4 2.2 13.7 0.6 12.7 14.8 4.1 Richest 71.5 0.7 70.1 73.0 1.0 11.1 0.5 10.2 12.0 4.1 11.7 0.5 10.8 12.6 3.9 5.7 0.4 5.0 6.5 6.5

Occupation of Household Head

Armed forces 62.9 6.7 49.2 74.8 10.6 12.3 4.8 5.5 25.1 39.1 18.4 4.9 10.5 30.0 26.9 6.5 2.8 2.8 14.5 42.6

Managers 59.6 1.1 57.4 61.8 1.9 10.8 0.6 9.6 12.1 5.9 20.2 0.9 18.5 21.9 4.3 9.4 0.7 8.2 10.8 6.9

Professionals 67.4 1.8 63.8 70.9 2.7 11.7 1.2 9.5 14.3 10.5 15.2 1.3 12.8 17.9 8.6 5.7 0.9 4.2 7.6 15.0

Technicians and associate professionals 50.9 1.9 47.3 54.6 3.6 13.7 1.4 11.3 16.7 10.0 22.5 1.4 19.8 25.4 6.3 12.8 1.3 10.5 15.7 10.4 Clerical support workers 51.1 2.2 46.8 55.3 4.2 12.4 1.3 10.1 15.2 10.6 22.7 1.7 19.6 26.2 7.5 13.8 1.6 11.0 17.1 11.3

Service and sales workers 35.4 1.0 33.4 37.4 2.8 13.6 0.7 12.3 14.9 4.9 30.9 0.9 29.2 32.7 2.9 20.1 0.9 18.4 21.9 4.3 Skilled agricultural, forestry, fishery

workers 21.8 0.6 20.7 22.9 2.6 11.6 0.4 10.9 12.3 3.1 39.4 0.6 38.3 40.6 1.5 27.2 0.6 26.1 28.4 2.2

Craft and related trades workers 29.0 0.9 27.2 30.8 3.2 14.4 0.6 13.2 15.7 4.5 34.7 0.9 32.9 36.4 2.6 22.0 0.8 20.5 23.6 3.7 Plant and machine operators and

assemblers 35.9 0.9 34.1 37.6 2.5 13.4 0.6 12.3 14.7 4.5 30.4 0.8 28.9 32.0 2.6 20.3 0.8 18.8 21.8 3.8

Elementary occupations 19.8 0.7 18.5 21.2 3.5 12.2 0.6 11.2 13.4 4.5 38.1 0.8 36.6 39.7 2.1 29.8 0.8 28.3 31.3 2.6 No Occupation 40.5 0.7 39.2 41.8 1.7 11.8 0.4 11.1 12.6 3.2 27.3 0.6 26.2 28.4 2.0 20.4 0.5 19.4 21.5 2.6

Educational Attainment of Household Head

No Grade Completed 15.9 1.2 13.8 18.4 7.3 6.8 0.9 5.2 8.8 13.3 34.0 1.8 30.5 37.6 5.4 43.3 1.6 40.2 46.6 3.8

Elementary Undergraduate 19.6 0.5 18.5 20.7 2.8 10.3 0.4 9.6 11.1 3.6 37.9 0.6 36.8 39.1 1.6 32.1 0.6 30.9 33.4 1.9

Elementary Graduate 25.8 0.6 24.6 27.1 2.4 13.0 0.4 12.2 13.9 3.3 36.6 0.6 35.3 37.8 1.7 24.6 0.6 23.5 25.8 2.4 HS Undergraduate 27.2 0.7 25.7 28.6 2.7 12.3 0.5 11.4 13.2 3.9 36.6 0.8 35.1 38.2 2.2 24.0 0.7 22.6 25.4 2.9

HS Graduate 34.7 0.7 33.3 36.1 2.1 14.1 0.4 13.3 15.0 3.1 32.3 0.6 31.2 33.5 1.9 18.8 0.6 17.7 20.0 3.0

Vocational Undergraduate 43.3 2.5 38.4 48.3 5.9 12.4 1.6 9.6 15.9 13.0 27.4 2.4 23.0 32.2 8.6 17.0 2.1 13.3 21.4 12.1

Vocational Graduate 46.1 1.3 43.6 48.6 2.8 15.2 0.9 13.5 17.0 6.0 26.7 1.1 24.5 29.0 4.3 12.0 0.8 10.5 13.7 6.8 College Undergraduate 50.5 1.1 48.3 52.6 2.2 12.8 0.7 11.5 14.2 5.2 24.5 0.9 22.8 26.3 3.6 12.2 0.7 10.9 13.7 5.9

College Graduate 67.6 0.9 65.9 69.3 1.3 11.3 0.5 10.3 12.4 4.8 13.5 0.6 12.5 14.7 4.2 7.5 0.5 6.6 8.5 6.6

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

5

93

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

94




Appendix 21. Household Food Security Questionnaire

Adapted from the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA)

95




Adapted from the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA)

96




Appendix 22. Household Dietary Diversity and Food Frequency Questionnaire

Adapted from the Household and Individual Dietary Diversity Questionnaire of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Food Consumption Score of World Food Programme (WFP)

philippine nutrition - food and nutrition research institute

Documents