national nutrition survey food security...

Philippine Nutrition

Facts and Figures 2013

8th

National Nutrition Survey

Food Security Survey

Food and Nutrition Research Institute

Department of Science and Technology

Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila

July 2015

Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures 2013

ISSN 1655-2911

NNS 2015-F006

This report summarizes the result of the 8th National Nutrition Survey (Food Security Survey):

Philippines, 2013 undertaken by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute, Department of Science

and Technology (FNRI-DOST).

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

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

Tel. Numbers: (632) 837-2071 local 2282/2296; 839-1846

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

Email [email protected] [email protected]

Website www.fnri.dost.gov.ph

Recommended Citation: Food and Nutrition Research Institute-Department of Science and

Technology (FNRI-DOST). (2015). Philippine Nutrition Facts and Figures 2013: Food Security

Survey. FNRI Bldg., DOST Compound, Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/

i




TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents i

Foreword iii

The 8th

National Nutrition Survey Management Team v

Acknowledgments vi

List of Acronyms vii

Operational Definition viii

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

List of Appendices xii

Summary of Findings 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Methodology 5

2.1 Sampling Design 5

2.2 Scope and Coverage 5

2.3 Survey Methods 6

2.4 Ethical Review 7

2.5 NSCB/PSA Review and Approval 7

2.6 Data Processing and Analysis 7

3 Results 12

3.1 Food Security Status of Households 12

3.2 Household Dietary Diversity using Dietary Diversity Score 17

3.3 Household Food Consumption using Food Consumption Score 23

4 Conclusions and Implications 39

5 References 41

6 Appendices 43

ii




iii




FOREWORD

Hunger has been a problem not just in the Philippines but also worldwide. It happens when

people have no access to safe and nutritious food resulting to not eating or skipping a meal which

further leads to hunger. If the individual continues to be hungry his/her nutritional status will be

sacrificed. Thus, it is said that hunger and malnutrition goes hand in hand.

The Food and Nutrition Research Institute is mandated to conduct studies not just to define

the country‟s nutritional status but also its causes and effects and to identify solutions to these

problems. For many years now, the National Nutrition Survey serves as source of data and

information for program and policy makers, both in private and public sectors, to aid in the program

planning, policy formulation and achieving our national goals.

Since 2001, FNRI has included Food Security in its survey and was able to provide the

picture regarding the food security status of the Philippines. In the 8th NNS, FNRI opted to use new

tools in assessing food security status to identify not just the geographic location of food insecure

household but even how the household access food and the quality of food access in terms of diversity

and nutritional adequacy of the diet. The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and

Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) shed more light on the dimensions of food insecurity at the

household level.

We hope that this monograph would be of great help to our policy and program makers, both

in public and private sector, to identify not just the population that are most vulnerable and in dire

need of help but also the factors that contribute in increasing hunger prevalence and direct their

interventions towards them. We further hope that through this book, people will be aware and also

pay attention to the causes of malnutrition and not just on the effects. Solving the problem on food

security will lead to solving hunger thus, laying the foundation for progress in health, nutrition and

disease.

We call everyone - ordinary people, students, non-government organizations and the

government - to work together and end the fight for hunger and malnutrition.

MARIO V. CAPANZANA, Ph.D.

Director



iv




v




THE 8TH

NATIONAL NUTRITION SURVEY MANAGEMENT TEAM

Mario V. Capanzana, Ph.D.

Project Director

Imelda A. Agdeppa, Ph.D.

Project Leader 2012-April 2014

Cecilia Cristina Santos-Acuin, M.D., Ph.D.

Project Leader May 2014-2015

EDITORS

Mario V. Capanzana, Ph.D.

Cecilia Cristina Santos-Acuin, M.D., Ph.D.

COMPONENT STUDY LEADERS

Ma. Adrienne S. Constantino

Household Dietary Component and

Individual Dietary Component (2012-2014)

Ma. Lilibeth P. Dasco, M.S. (Applied Nutrition)

Anthropometry Component

Marina B. Vargas, Ph.D. (Human Nutrition)

Individual Dietary Component

(January 2015-Present)

Leah A. Perlas, M.S. (Human Nutrition) Biochemical Component

Eva A. Goyena, M.F.S.N. Clinical Component

(May 2012-May 2014)

Chona F. Patalen, M.P.H.

Clinical Component

(June 2014-Present)

Mildred O. Guirindola, M.P.S.-F.N.P. Maternal Health and Nutrition (April 2015-Present)

and Infant and Young Child Feeding Components

Cristina G. Malabad, M.S.P.H. (Nutrition)

Food Security Component (April 2015-Present)

Maternal and Health Nutrition Component

(2014-March 2015)

Milagros C. Chavez

Government Program Participation Component

Maria Belina N. Nueva España, M.S.

(Applied Nutrition) Food Security Component

(2013-March 2015)

DATA MANAGEMENT

Charmaine A. Duante, M.S. Epidemiology

(Public Health) Head, Nutritional Statistics and Informatics Team

Glen Melvin P. Gironella

Senior Statistician

Ma. Lynell V. Maniego

Statistician

Eldridge B. Ferrer, M.S.

(Applied Economics and Statistics) Statistician

Apple Joy D. Ducay Statistician

Jeffrey Y. De Leon, M.I.T. Senior Programmer and Developer of e-DCS

Mae Ann S.A. Javier

Programmer and Developer of e-DCS

FINAL REPORT WRITERS

Cristina G. Malabad, M.Sc.

Maria Belina N. Nueva España, M.Sc.

Paula Joy C. Escanilla

Andreissa Fae S. Ranchez

Cristilyn T. Atrero

vi




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Food and Nutrition Research Institute gratefully acknowledges the following:

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) for the funding support in the conduct of the

Food Security Survey component in the regions of Mindanao;

The National Statistics Office (NSO) for the technical assistance in providing the listing of sample

housing units and sample households;

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Local Government Units (LGU‟s), the

Governors, Mayors and 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 the conduct of field data

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

Dr. Arturo Y. Pacificador, as statistical consultant, for the technical guidance in sampling design and

data analysis;

The FNRI Finance and Administrative Division for their invaluable assistance in the financial aspect

of the survey;

All the 35,825 households and 172,323 individuals for their indispensable participation and utmost

cooperation in the survey; and

All the 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 8th

National Nutrition Survey: Philippines, 2013.

vii




LIST OF ACRONYMS

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program

AHMP Accelerated Hunger-Mitigation Program

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao

CALABARZON Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon

CAR Cordillera Administrative Region

CI Confidence Interval

CCT Conditional Cash Transfer

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

MIMAROPA Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon and Palawan

NCR National Capital Region

NNS National Nutrition Survey

NSO National Statistics Office

SE Standard Error

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

UL Upper Limit

US HFSSM United States Household Food Security Survey Module

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

viii




OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

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 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).

Food Consumption Score is a score calculated using the frequency of consumption of different food

group consumed by a household during the seven (7) days before the survey (WFP, 2008).

Food Frequency is defined as the frequency (in terms of days of consumption over a reference

period) that a specific food item or food group is eaten at the household level.

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

biological characteristics.

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.

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).

Household is people who sleep under the same roof and take meals together at least four days a week

(Coates, 2007).

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).

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 the food (Coates,

Swindale & Bilinsky, 2007)

Respondent is the person responsible for food preparation of the household the previous day.

ix




LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1 Food Security: Eligibility and Response Rate 6

2 HFIAS Household Food Access Scoring 7

3 Categories of food insecurity (access) 8

4 WFP-FCS standard food group and current standard weights 10

5 An example of a completed food consumption score template 11

6 WFP Food Consumption Scores 11

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

Philippines, 2013

12

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

demographic: Philippines, 2013 (n=35,635)

14

9 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of food insecurity experience:

Philippines, 2013 (n=35,635)

16

10 Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2013 17

11 Percentage of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS:

Philippines, 2013

19

12 Summary of food groups consumed by rank according to the frequency

of consumption: Philippines, 2013

20

13 Percentage distribution of households by dietary diversity score category:

Philippines, 2013

21

14 Percentage of households consuming the 9 food groups of the FCS:

Philippines, 2013

24

15 Mean days of frequency of consumption of the 9 food groups of the FCS by region:

Philippines, 2013

25

16 Percentage distribution of households consuming cereals by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

27

17 Percentage distribution of households consuming vitamin A-rich vegetables and

tubers by source and region: Philippines, 2013

27

18 Percentage distribution of households consuming white tubers and roots by source

and region: Philippines, 2013

28

19 Percentage distribution of households consuming dark green leafy vegetables by

source and region: Philippines, 2013

28

x




Table No. Title Page No.

20 Percentage distribution of households consuming other vegetables by source and

region: Philippines, 2013

29

21 Percentage distribution of households consuming vitamin A-rich fruits by source


29

22 Percentage distribution of households consuming other fruits by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

30

23 Percentage distribution of households consuming meats by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

30

24 Percentage distribution of households consuming organ meats by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

31

25 Percentage distribution of households consuming eggs by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

31

26 Percentage distribution of households consuming fish and shellfish by source and


32

27 Percentage distribution of households consuming legumes, nuts and seeds by source


32

28 Percentage distribution of households consuming milk and milk products by source


33

29 Percentage distribution of households consuming oils and fats by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

33

30 Percentage distribution of households consuming sweets by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

34

31 Percentage distribution of households consuming spices, condiments and beverages

by source and region: Philippines, 2013

34

32 Percentage distribution of households with poor food consumption by wealth

quintile and region: Philippines, 2013

37

33 Percentage distribution of households with borderline food consumption by wealth

quintile and region: Philippines, 2013

37

34 Percentage distribution of households with acceptable food consumption by wealth

quintile and region: Philippines, 2013 38

xi




LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page No.

1 Food security diagram 3

2 Percentage of food secure households by region: Philippines, 2013 13

3 Percentage of households considered food secure by socio-demographic:

Philippines, 2013

14

4 Percentage of households considered food secure: Philippines, 2001-2013 16

5 Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2013 17

6 Percentage of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS:

Philippines, 2013

18

7 Percentage distribution of households by dietary diversity score category:

Philippines, 2013

21

8 Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile: Philippines, 2013 22

9 Percentage of households consuming the 9 food groups of the FCS:

Philippines, 2013

23

10 Percentage distribution of households by source of foods consumed:

Philippines, 2013

26

11 Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and region:

Philippines, 2013

35

12 Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and wealth

quintile: Philippines, 2013

36

xii




LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

No. Title Page No.

1 Percentage of households consuming the 16 food groups of the food frequency

questionnaire by region: Philippines, 2013

43

2 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of cereals consumption and


44

3 Percentage distribution of households by vitamin A-rich vegetables and tubers

consumption and region: Philippines, 2013

45

4 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of white tubers and roots


46

5 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of dark green leafy vegetables


47

6 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of other vegetables consumption


48

7 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich fruits


49

8 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of other fruits consumption and


50

9 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of meat consumption and


51

10 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of organ meats (iron-rich)


52

11 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of egg consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

53

12 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of fish and shellfish


54

13 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of legumes, nuts and seeds


55

14 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of milk and milk products


56

15 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of oils and fats consumption and


57

16 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of sweets consumption and


58

xiii




Appendix

No. Title Page No.

17 Percentage distribution of frequency of spices, condiments and beverages

consumption by region: Philippines, 2013

59

18 Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and province:

Philippines, 2013

60

19 Percentage distribution of households by food security status and province:

Philippines, 2013

63

20 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience worrying about

food and province: Philippines, 2013

66

21 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of not having to

eat preferred foods and province: Philippines, 2013

69

22 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having to eat

just a few kinds of foods and province: Philippines, 2013

72


foods they really do not want to eat and province: Philippines, 2013

75


smaller meal and province: Philippines, 2013

78


fewer meals in a day and province: Philippines, 2013

81

26 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having no food

of any kind in the household and province: Philippines, 2013

84

27 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of going to sleep

hungry and province: Philippines, 2013

87

28 Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of going a whole

day and night without eating and province: Philippines, 2013

90

29 Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile and region:

Philippines, 2013

93

30 Questionnaires 97

xiv




1




SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Only three out of ten Filipino households can be considered food secure. While majority

(58.2%) of households did not or rarely worry about acquiring food, 25.3% of them had at least one

member who sacrificed the quantity of the foods they ate by reducing their food intake or had to eat

fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food in the household (10.7%). There were also a

few households who experienced not having enough food of any kind in the household (3.6%), who

had a member who felt hungry at bedtime (3.1%) and who had a member who did not eat anything for

the whole day and night due to lack of food (1.2%).

Among the regions, the National Capital Region was the most food secure (51.3%), followed

by the Cordillera Administrative Region and CALABARZON with 41.8% and 41.7%, respectively.

However, ARMM suffered the most from food insecurity with only one in ten households reported to

have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food at all times. ARMM also had the least varied diet

among the regions, consuming only five to eight food groups while majority of the regions consumed

nine to twelve different food groups for the past seven days.

As expected, food security was likely to be experienced among households who have non-

agriculture work (38.0%), are residing in urban areas (42.9%) and belonging to the highest wealth

quintile (72.1%). It was surprising that households headed by a female were significantly

more food secure (38.4%) compared to households headed by a male (32.9%) (p-value≤0.05).

Households belonging to the richest quintile had the most diverse diet with a mean score of

10.2 while the poorest households had an average of only 8.7 mean score; the latter also had the

highest percentage of households with “poor” food consumption (<28) based on the Food

Consumption Scores.

Cereals (99.5%), vegetables (98.6%), spices, condiments and beverages (96.1%) and fish and

other seafood (91.7%) generally comprise the diet of the Filipino households based on dietary

diversity score and these were usually purchased. Sweets, oils and fats, spices, condiments and

beverages and milk were the most purchased food items at 99.0%, 98.9%, 98.7% and 98.6%,

respectively. Some of the households (40.3%) still produced their own food such as dark green leafy

vegetables. Cagayan Valley (66.5%) and SOCCSKSARGEN (65.4%) had the highest percentage of

households who produce vegetables for their own consumption. Self-produced rice was consumed by

27.8% of households in Cagayan Valley and 27.0% in CAR.

Household food security is an essential measure of nutritional status and health and their

inability to obtain sufficient quantity of food is an important factor of their poverty.

2




3




1. INTRODUCTION

Food security is defined by the World Food Summit (1996) as existing “when all people at all

times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.” The three

dimensions of food security are 1) food availability, or having enough food available on a consistent

basis; 2) food access, or having enough resources to acquire food; 3) food utilization based on

knowledge of basic nutrition and care and adequate water and sanitation (WHO, 2010)(Figure 1).

Household food security is an essential measure of nutritional status and health and their

inability to obtain sufficient quantity of food is an important factor of their poverty. The Philippines

has been actively participating in achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme

poverty and hunger which lead to the creation and implementation of various programs addressing

this problem such as the Accelerating Hunger-Mitigation Program (AHMP) and the Conditional Cash

Transfer (CCT) Program or the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). The percentage of

households considered food secure increased to 34.1% in 2013 from 30.7% in the 2011 Updating

Survey.

FNRI-DOST has been continuously conducting Food Security Surveys since 2001 to assess

the prevalence and magnitude of household food insecurity and household access to food.

Specifically, it also aims to describe foods consumed by the households in terms of type and quality

of their diets and characterize the distribution of food security by geographic region and wealth

quintile.

This monograph describes the results of the 8th National Nutrition Survey - Food Security

Component. FNRI had used the Radimer/Cornell tool to assess Food Insecurity from 2001-2011.

Although, the Radimer/Cornell tool was able to identify food insecure households, other dimensions

of food security were not measured. Thus, FNRI opted to use Household Food Insecurity Access

Scale (HFIAS) and Household Dietary Diversity and food frequency questionnaire using the Food

Consumption Score (FCS) upon the recommendation of and with support from the World Food

Programme (WFP).

Figure 1. Food security diagram

Food utilization

Nutritional value

Social value

Food safety

Food access

Affordability

Allocation

Preference

Food availability

Production

Distribution

Exchange

Adapted from Ingram, 2011

4




The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) was adapted from the approach used

to estimate the prevalence of food insecurity in the United States. Studies have shown that this

approach was feasible and useful in developing countries because it was strongly correlated with

common indicators of poverty and food consumption. From the eighteen questions in the U.S.

Household Food Security Survey Module (US HFSSM), the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance

(FANTA) and its partners identified nine (9) generic questions (See Table 9) that generally represent

the domains of household food insecurity and can be used to categorize the household based on the

severity of food insecurity, from food secure to severely food insecure. This provides information on

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

The Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) and food frequency questionnaire assesses the

household‟s economic access to food while at the same time it describes the food access of

households in terms of type/variety, frequency and mechanism on how food was accessed (FNRI,

2013). The Food Consumption Score is the most commonly used indicator in the Comprehensive

Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis of the World Food Programme. This will represent 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).

5




2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Sampling Design

The National Nutrition Survey covered 17 Regions and 80 provinces including NCR. The

2013 NNS used the Philippine Statistics Authority (formerly the National Statistics Office, NSO)

Master Sample which utilized the 2009 Labor Force Survey (LFS) Households.

The statistical design used was a multi-stage stratified sampling design. 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. The second stage was the selection of the

Enumeration Area (EA) which consisted of a contiguous area in a barangay with 150-200 households

and the last stage was the selection of the households in the sampled Enumeration Area that served as

the ultimate sampling unit. The samples were taken separately from the regions by urban and rural

stratum.

Overall, about 35,825 sample households were covered for the survey. The survey was

conducted from June 19 to December 4, 2013 and continued on February 16 to April 15, 2014.

The detailed sampling design and coverage is presented in the Overview of the 8th National

Nutrition Survey.

2.2. Scope and Coverage

For this component, all of the four (4) replicates of the master sample were covered with a

total of 39,253 eligible households, out of which 35,635 households were respondents for food

security. However, 62 households were not included for Household Dietary Diversity and Food

Frequency questionnaires since households who purchased and consumed food outside the home were

excluded. Therefore, only 35,573 households participated in the HDD and Food Frequency

questionnaires. Overall, the Food Security Survey had a 90.8% response rate as shown in Table 1. The

Ilocos region had the highest response rate (96.0%) while CAR had the lowest (88.4%).

6




Table 1. Food Security: Eligibility and Response Rate

Region

Target

Households

(NSO List)

Eligible

(No. of

households)

%

Eligibility

Response

(No. of respondent

households)

%

Response

Philippines 45,047 39,253 87.1 35,635 90.8

NCR 5,193 4,330 83.4 3,448 79.6

CAR 1,850 1,658 89.6 1,466 88.4

I. Ilocos 2,507 2,304 91.9 2,212 96.0

II. Cagayan Valley 2,078 1,942 93.5 1,846 95.1

III. Central Luzon 3,649 3,244 88.9 2,964 91.4

IV-A. CALABARZON 4,532 3,943 87.0 3,448 87.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,899 1,694 89.2 1,558 92.0

V. Bicol 2,468 2,318 93.9 2,197 94.8

VI. Western Visayas 2,993 2,699 90.2 2,512 93.1

VII. Central Visayas 3,058 2,730 89.3 2,536 92.9

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,373 2,178 91.8 2,028 93.1

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,882 1,561 82.9 1,447 92.7

X. Northern Mindanao 2,040 1,824 89.4 1,730 94.8

XI. Davao 2,510 2,027 80.8 1,816 89.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 2,244 1,939 86.4 1,773 91.4

ARMM 1,884 1,166 61.9 1,084 93.0

Caraga 1,887 1,696 89.9 1,570 92.6

2.3. Survey Methods

Two sets of questionnaires were administered

through face-to-face interviews using the Data Collection

System (DCS) software installed in computer netbooks

(e-DCS) (See attached questionnaires in Appendix 30).

The respondent was the person responsible for

food preparation of the household in the previous day.

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 on a 30-day recall period, followed up by probes on how often the

conditions were experienced by the household.

In the Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) questionnaire, the frequency of consumption of 16

food groups and the most commonly consumed food item per food group were asked using a 7-day

recall period. Foods included were those prepared and consumed in the home; or prepared in the home

and consumed outside; or purchased or gathered outside and consumed in the home. However, foods

both purchased and consumed outside the home were excluded. The primary source or way of

procuring of foods was also asked and categorized as follows: a) purchased/bought; b) own produce;

7




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.

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

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

all the ingredients of the dish were asked and recorded.

2.4. Ethical Review

The project proposal entitled “8th National Nutrition Survey, Philippines 2013” was submitted

to the FNRI Institutional Ethics Review Committee (FNRI-IERC) for clearance on January 22, 2013

(See 8th

NNS Overview Monograph).

Written consent to participate in the 8th National Nutrition Survey was obtained from the

respondents and subjects (through the mother or guardian for children <10 years old and below) prior

to the interview and other measurements. The Informed Consent 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.

2.5. NSCB/PSA Review and Approval

The Philippine Statistics Authority also granted clearance for the 2013 National Nutrition

Survey on June 19, 2013 (See 8th NNS Overview Monograph).

2.6. Data Processing and Analysis

Data were cleaned and validated upon receipt and were analyzed using STATA version 12.

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

households.

The HFIAS provides information on the prevalence and magnitude of food insecurity at

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 insecurity the household experienced (Coates et al., 2007).

Table 2. HFIAS Household Food Access Scoring

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.

8




Table 3. Categories of food insecurity (access)1

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

Legend: Food Secure Mildly Moderately Severely

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 more severe conditions and experience them 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 eats 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).

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 WFP.

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

9




Twelve food groups were used to measure the diversity of food consumed by the household

and these were the following2:

2 Sources of images:

FNRI-DOST

Google images

Meat and Poultry

Milk and Milk Products

Oils and Fats Sugar and Honey Beverages, Spices and Condiments

Fish and other Seafood Legumes, Nuts and Seeds

Vegetables

Cereals

Eggs

Fruits

White Tubers and Roots

10




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

(Nueva España, et al., 2014).

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 WFP-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 of consumption. This weighting gives more importance to foods such as meat and fish

because they have the highest quality protein, easily absorbable micronutrients; and gives lesser

importance to food such as sugar because it has only 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

vegetables twice (2). 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 can range from 0 to 12;

the maximum score 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. WFP-FCS standard food group and current standard weights

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

11




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

Food Items (examples) Food groups

(Definitive)

Weight

(A)

Days

eaten in

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

as acceptable food consumption (Table 6).

Table 6. WFP Food Consumption Scores

Score Food Consumption Groups

0-28 ‘Poor Food Consumption’

>28 to <42 ‘Borderline Food Consumption’

>42 ‘Acceptable Food Consumption’

12




3. RESULTS

3. 1. Food Security Status of Households

Food Security, as defined by World Food Summit 1996, 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 foods in

socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing or

other coping strategies).

Three out of ten Filipino households were found to be food secure. Likewise, 3 out of 10

households who are moderately food insecure sacrifice quality more frequently by eating monotonous

diets or undesired foods sometimes or often and/or have started to reduce the size or number of meals,

rarely or sometimes. On the other hand, 16.7% of the households were severely food insecure –

meaning they ran out of food, went to bed hungry, or went a whole day and night without eating, at

least once in the last 30 days (Table 7).

Table 7. Percentage distribution of households by food security status and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

Food Security Status

Food

Secure

Mildly

Food

Insecure

Moderately

Food

Insecure

Severely

Food

Insecure

Philippines 35,635 34.1 15.1 34.1 16.7

NCR 3,448 51.3 16.3 22.9 9.5

CAR 1,466 41.8 17.7 29.1 11.4

I. Ilocos 2,212 27.5 17.7 38.8 16.0

II. Cagayan Valley 1,846 39.1 16.0 31.7 13.2

III. Central Luzon 2,964 34.8 19.0 31.5 14.6

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 41.7 16.3 28.2 13.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 26.8 14.0 35.6 23.7

V. Bicol 2,197 24.4 14.5 44.6 16.6

VI. Western Visayas 2,512 33.0 14.7 35.8 16.5

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 37.7 15.0 34.1 13.2

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,028 19.1 12.2 43.4 25.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,447 21.4 12.0 41.9 24.7

X. Northern Mindanao 1,730 23.0 11.1 42.2 23.7

XI. Davao 1,816 27.2 12.4 39.9 20.5

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,773 24.3 11.7 38.5 25.5

ARMM 1,084 11.5 7.5 37.8 43.1

Caraga 1,570 23.3 12.5 46.9 17.3

13




Among the regions, the NCR had the most food secure households (51.3%) (Figure 2). On the

other hand, ARMM had the highest percentage of households who experienced severe food insecurity

(43.1%) (Table 7). The high rates of food insecurity being experienced by the households in ARMM

may be partly attributed to the on-going conflict in the said region. On the other hand, fairly high rates

of moderate food insecurity can be seen in Caraga (46.9%), Bicol (44.6%) and Eastern Visayas

(43.4%) (Table 7) regions often subject to natural calamities.

Figure 2. Percentage of food secure households by region: Philippines, 2013

Looking at the socio-demographic characteristics of the households, it was noted that

households with a female head were more food secure (38.4%) compared to households headed by

males (32.9%). As expected, those with households heads whose occupations were not involved with

agriculture and were residing in urban areas experienced less food insecurity. There was an inverse

relationship between food security and wealth quintile; those belonging to the poorest (88.8%)

quintile experienced the most food insecurity while the richest the least (27.9%). The wide gap in the

percentage of households considered food secure between the richest and the poorest quintile (60.9

percentage point) was found to be significant (p-value≤0.05). Smaller households (<5) were found to

be more food secure than larger households (Table 8 and Figure 3).

0 10 20 30 40 50

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

23.3

11.5

24.3

27.2

23.0

21.4

19.1

37.7

33.0

24.4

26.8

41.7

34.8

39.1

27.5

41.8

51.3

34.1

14




Table 8. Percentage distribution of households by food security status and socio-demographic:



Food Secure

Mildly Food Insecure

Moderately Food

Insecure

Severely Food

Insecure

Philippines 34.1 15.1 34.1 16.7

HH Size

>5 26.8 14.0 38.5 20.6

<5 37.8 15.6 31.8 14.7

Place of Residence

Rural 25.0 14.9 40.0 20.0

Urban 42.9 15.3 28.4 13.5

Wealth Quintile

Poorest 11.2 10.7 43.1 35.0

Poor 17.6 14.7 44.6 23.1

Middle 25.7 16.9 42.2 15.3

Rich 44.0 19.4 28.7 7.9

Richest 72.1 13.8 11.9 2.2

Gender of HH Head

Male 32.9 15.2 35.1 16.8

Female 38.4 14.7 30.6 16.3

Occupation of HH Head

Non-Agriculture* 38.0 15.9 32.0 14.0

Agriculture 19.6 13.7 43.1 23.6

*No occupation not included

Figure 3. Percentage of households considered food secure by socio-demographic: Philippines, 2013

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Richest

Rich

Middle

Poor

Poorest

Agriculture

Non-Agriculture

Rural

Urban

Female HH Head

Male HH Head

72.1

44.0

25.7

17.6

11.2

19.6

38.0

25.0

42.9

38.4

32.9 Gender

of Household Head

Place of Residence

Occupation of Household Head

Wealth Quintile

15




Households who experienced food insecurity based on the 9 occurrence questions are

classified in Table 9. More than half (58.2%) of the households did not or rarely worry about

acquiring food during the past month. Eastern Visayas and Zamboanga Peninsula (both with 26.7%)

often worry about food the most compared with other regions (Appendix 20). About 4 in 10

households are sometimes or often not able to eat their preferred food. The preference could be in the

form of food, type of staple or quality of the food and it may or may not be related to nutrition quality.

Regions who were unable to eat preferred foods frequently were Zamboanga Peninsula (58.9%),

ARMM (56.9%) and Eastern Visayas (55.5%), (Appendix 21).

Three in 10 households ate a limited variety of foods due to lack of resources. More than half

(52.2%) of the households in Zamboanga Peninsula had to eat a monotonous diet because they had no

money or the ability to grow or trade for food. It was closely followed by ARMM (51.1%), Eastern

Visayas and Northern Mindanao (both with 50.7%). However, 62.4% of the households in NCR did

not experience this incidence (Appendix 22).

About 30.0% of Filipino households had to eat undesirable food because of lack of resources.

These are foods or food preparations that are consumed only during hard times. This scenario was

most frequently felt in the regions of Eastern Visayas (45.5%) and ARMM (45.0%), (Appendix 23).

In terms of quantity of food, 25.3% of the households had a member that had to reduce his/her food

intake because there was not enough food and 10.7% had a member who had to eat fewer meals than

the number typically eaten in the household (Table 9). These incidences were greatly felt in ARMM at

48.1% and 30.0%, respectively (Appendix 24 and 25).

Only 3.6% of the households experienced not having food of any kind in the household.

Among the regions, ARMM experienced this scenario the most at 10.5%, wherein food was not

available to household members through the households‟ usual means; it was followed by

MIMAROPA (8.1%) and Eastern Visayas (7.1%), (Appendix 26).

Three in 100 households had members who felt hungry at bedtime and one in 100 households

had a member who did not ate anything for the whole day and night due to lack of food (Table 9).

These scenarios were experienced the most in ARMM (10.6% and 3.3%, respectively), MIMAROPA

(6.1% and 3.4%, respectively) and Eastern Visayas (6.1% and 2.6%, respectively), (Appendix 27 and

28). Households which experienced any of the last three conditions even once for the past month were

already considered severely food insecure.

16




Table 9. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of food insecurity experience:


Occurrence Questions

Frequency of Experience

No Yes, Rare

Yes, Sometimes

Yes, Often

1. You worry that your household would not have

enough food. 36.5 21.7 25.5 16.4

2. Any household member not able to eat the kinds

of foods you prefer because of lack of resources. 39.7 21.7 25.3 13.3

3. Household member has to eat a limited variety

of foods due to lack of resources. 45.7 19.9 23.4 10.9

4. 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.

52.5 18.9 20.3 8.4

5. Any household member had to eat a smaller meal

than you felt you needed because there was not

enough food.

57.0 17.7 18.1 7.2

6. Any other household member had to eat fewer

meals in a day because there was not enough food. 78.0 11.3 7.9 2.8

7. No food of any kind in your household because of

lack of resources to get food. 90.0 6.4 2.8 0.8

8. Any household member goes to sleep at night

hungry because there was not enough food. 91.7 5.2 2.4 0.7

9. Any household member goes a whole day and

night without eating anything because there was

not enough food

96.1 2.7 0.9 0.3

Over time, there is an improvement in the percentage of household considered food secure.

However, 2/3 of the Filipino population is still food insecure. Note that a different tool and a different

reference period were used in the previous surveys (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Percentage of households considered food secure3: Philippines, 2001-2013

3 Reference period for food security

2001-2003: past 6 months, Radimer/Cornell Tool 2008-2011: past 3 months, Radimer/Cornell Tool

2013: past month (30 days), HFIAS

15.6

23.0

27.3

30.7

34.1

0

10

20

30

40

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

17




3.2. Household Dietary Diversity Using Dietary Diversity Score

Dietary diversity is the number of different food groups consumed by the household for the

past seven days. It assesses household‟s access to food in terms of: a.) type/variety; b.) frequency of

consumption; and c.) mechanisms on how food was accessed or secured.

Figure 5 and Table 10 show that majority of the households in all regions consume nine to ten

different kinds of food per week as indicated by the national mean dietary diversity score (DDS) of

9.5. Among the regions, NCR had the highest DDS (10.0) followed by Cagayan Valley (9.7), Central

Visayas (9.7), and Bicol (9.6). However, ARMM (7.9) exhibited the lowest mean DDS followed by

MIMAROPA (9.0).

Figure 5. Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2013

Table 10. Mean dietary diversity score by region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

Dietary Diversity Score

Mean Std. Err. [95% Conf. Interval]

LL UL

Philippines 35,573 9.5 0.0 9.4 9.5

NCR 3,439 10.0 0.0 9.9 10.1

CAR 1,462 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5

I. Ilocos 2,211 9.6 0.1 9.5 9.8



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 9.3 0.1 9.2 9.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.1

V. Bicol 2,189 9.6 0.1 9.5 9.7






XI. Davao 1,812 9.5 0.1 9.4 9.6


ARMM 1,080 7.9 0.2 7.6 8.2

Caraga 1,565 9.5 0.1 9.4 9.7

9.5 10.0

9.3 9.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 9.0 9.6 9.4 9.7

9.1 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.3

7.9

9.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

18




Based on a weekly recall, Filipino household diets were composed mainly of 1) cereals,

which include rice, bread, noodles, biscuits, cookies or any rice and cereal products; 2) vegetables,

including those that are rich in vitamin A, dark and green leafy vegetables and other vegetables even

wild vegetables like rattan shoots; and 3) beverages, spices and condiments, including coffee, tea,

alcoholic beverages, salt, pepper, soy sauce and the like. These three food groups were seen on the

tables of the households almost daily (Figure 6). Some days of the week, the household ate 4) fish and

other seafood, which includes fresh, dried and processed forms like canned sardines, tuyo (dried fish),

dinaing (marinated fish) and tinapa (smoked fish); 5) oils, fats and butter that were added to food or

used for cooking; 6) sweets like sugar, candies, honey, sweetened soda, chocolates and the like; 7)

fruits that are rich in vitamin A and other fruits including wild fruits such as sapinit (wild raspberry),

bangkoro and bignay; 8) eggs, either fresh or pickled; and 9) meats that are either fresh (beef, lamb,

pork, chicken, duck) or processed (hotdog, tocino, longganisa, etc.). The lowest intakes belonged to

10) milk and its products (cheese, ice cream, yogurt, etc.); 11) white tubers and roots, including sweet

potatoes, potatoes cassava and foods made from this group like French fries, pitsi-pitsi and camote

cue; and 12) legumes, nuts and seeds like beans, peas, lentils and processed foods made from these

such as canned beans and guisantes de lata.

Figure 6. Percentage of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS: Philippines, 2013

Based on the regional distribution of intakes (Table 11), almost all households consume

cereals (99.5) while the food group least consumed was legumes, nuts and seeds (about 4 out of 10

households). ARMM was the lowest consumer of the latter food group (20.6). White tubers and roots,

milk and milk products on the other hand were consumed by about 5 in every 10 households. The

most commonly consumed food groups next to cereals were vegetables (98.6), and spices, condiments

and beverages (96.1). ARMM had the lowest intake of almost all of the food groups.

96.1

84.1

91.2

51.8

38.9

91.7

82.8

80.8

83.2

98.6

48.5

99.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Spices, condiments, bev.

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

Table 11. Percentage of households consuming the 12 food groups of the HDDS: Philippines, 2013

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 35,573 99.5 48.5 98.6 83.2 80.8 82.8 91.7 38.9 51.8 91.2 84.1 96.1

NCR 3,439 99.9 59.6 98.8 87.7 93.4 89.5 94.6 37.8 61.1 93.3 82.9 97.8

CAR 1,462 99.5 52.7 98.5 80.4 81.3 79.3 79.0 49.8 48.0 86.9 81.3 92.3

I. Ilocos 2,211 99.7 49.7 99.6 77.9 87.0 87.5 91.6 47.2 48.2 91.4 85.5 96.6

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 99.5 43.5 99.3 87.3 85.4 82.1 87.8 60.1 48.2 91.8 87.7 95.3

III. Central Luzon 2,953 99.5 44.6 98.3 83.5 90.0 89.4 89.3 33.4 49.9 93.3 84.5 97.1

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 98.7 44.0 97.6 82.4 85.1 84.3 89.3 37.5 52.2 89.1 75.3 92.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 99.1 39.9 98.3 81.7 63.4 74.6 91.0 36.4 45.1 87.5 84.2 94.0

V. Bicol 2,189 99.3 51.5 99.0 87.4 73.3 77.3 94.2 37.1 55.6 94.0 93.3 98.3

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 99.6 42.6 98.8 78.8 78.8 81.7 95.9 42.9 56.6 88.3 81.7 97.6

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 99.3 47.0 99.5 83.8 80.3 80.4 90.0 53.0 57.4 92.2 84.5 97.7

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 99.9 47.6 98.1 79.3 66.8 70.6 94.7 26.4 45.1 90.7 91.3 97.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 99.9 53.1 99.0 83.8 70.6 77.7 95.6 34.0 45.6 90.5 81.4 96.8

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 99.2 51.1 99.4 85.4 74.5 83.1 90.7 35.5 52.4 88.9 80.0 90.2

XI. Davao 1,812 99.5 45.8 99.4 84.0 78.2 83.8 94.2 33.5 48.1 95.3 90.2 97.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 99.2 45.8 99.6 83.2 71.8 78.8 91.4 37.2 42.6 93.3 89.1 96.3

ARMM 1,080 100.0 49.2 88.7 70.5 36.1 63.2 84.6 20.6 22.3 79.2 84.5 89.8

Caraga 1,565 99.7 52.5 99.4 81.5 75.7 80.6 95.0 31.7 52.6 92.0 93.2 98.3

Philip

pin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd

Fig

ures 2

01

3

19

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

Philip

pin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

3

20




Table 12. Summary of food groups consumed by rank according to the frequency of consumption:

Philippines, 2013

To assess the dietary diversity of the households, the food groups were ranked according to

the frequency of consumption and were divided into three categories (Table 12). Generally, there

were four (4) types of food groups that were frequently present in the households‟ diet – the staples,

vegetables, fish, beverage, condiments and spices. Households consuming only these four (4) food

groups were classified as having poor food consumption. As the diet varies, oils, sweets, fruits and

eggs were added (yellow highlight) and the household is deemed to have borderline food

consumption. Meats, Milk, Tubers and Legumes were added to the list as the diet diversity increases;

households consuming at least nine (9) food groups are considered to have acceptable food

consumption.

Table 13 presents the percentage distribution of households per region by the three categories

of DDS. For the entire Philippines, on average, 7 out of 10 households consumed 9 to 12 different

food groups every week. This meant that most households had a relatively varied diet and therefore,

had acceptable food consumption. NCR had the most varied diet among the regions with 83.6% of

households consuming 9-12 food groups weekly. A high percentage of households with varied diets

can also be seen in Ilocos, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, Bicol, Western and Central Visayas,

Davao, SOCCSKSARGEN and Caraga. Households in ARMM (55.4%), on the other hand, tend to

consume 5 to 8 food groups only. Their diets were lower in quality considering that only fish and eggs

were the main sources of protein. Few households in ARMM consumed meat, milk, legumes, nuts and

seeds and white tubers and roots which are rich in energy, proteins and micronutrients.

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


spices


spices

Oils Oils

Sweets Sweets

Fruits Fruits

Eggs Eggs

Meat

Milk

Tubers

Legumes

21




Table 13. Percentage distribution of households by dietary diversity score category: Philippines, 2013

Region n Dietary Diversity Score Category

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

Philippines 35,573 1.1 25.5 73.4

NCR 3,439 0.2 16.2 83.6

CAR 1,462 2.8 28.0 69.2

I. Ilocos 2,211 0.4 25.4 74.3

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 2.4 19.4 78.2

III. Central Luzon 2,953 0.5 23.3 76.2

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 2.3 28.3 69.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 1.7 36.2 62.2

V. Bicol 2,189 0.4 23.9 75.7

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 0.9 26.9 72.3

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 0.8 21.8 77.4

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 0.8 34.9 64.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 1.3 29.4 69.3

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 1.4 29.7 69.0

XI. Davao 1,812 1.0 23.0 76.0

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 1.1 28.2 70.7

ARMM 1,080 6.0 55.4 38.6

Caraga 1,565 0.5 25.9 73.7

Figure 7. Percentage distribution of households by dietary diversity score category: Philippines, 2013

0.5

6.0

1.1

1.0

1.4

1.3

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.4

1.7

2.3

0.5

2.4

0.4

2.8

0.2

1.1

0 10 20

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 Groups

25.9

55.4

28.2

23.0

29.7

29.4

34.9

21.8

26.9

23.9

36.2

28.3

23.3

19.4

25.4

28.0

16.2

25.5

0 20 40 60

5 to 8 Groups

73.7

38.6

70.7

76.0

69.0

69.3

64.3

77.4

72.3

75.7

62.2

69.5

76.2

78.2

74.3

69.2

83.6

73.4

0 20 40 60 80 100

9 to 12 Groups

22




ARMM stands out among the regions in the proportion of households consuming 1 – 4 and 5

– 8 food groups and lags behind in consuming 9 – 12 food groups. Thus, ARMM is considered to

have poor to borderline food consumption while the other regions had borderline to acceptable food

consumption.

Diet diversity score (DDS) was inversely proportional with wealth (Figure 8). Among the

wealth quintiles, households belonging to the richest quintile had the most diverse diet with a mean

score of 10.2 while the poorest quintile had a mean score of 8.7. Households in the poorest quintile

would be more at-risk for undernutrition having lower diet quality.

Figure 8. Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile: Philippines, 2013

8.7 9.2

9.5 9.8

10.2

2

4

6

8

10

12

Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

23




3.3 Household Food Consumption Using Food Consumption Score

For the household food consumption, the household meal planner was asked to recall the

kinds and frequency of food consumed during the previous seven (7) days. This entailed remembering

how many days the household ate each of the different food groups and what the main sources of

these foods were. In the calculation of FCS, the nine food groups were weighted according to their

nutritional density (WFP, 2008).

At the national level, the most consumed food groups were the main staples (99.7%); the

staples group includes rice, bread, noodles, biscuits, cookies or any rice and cereal products like

glutinous rice and porridge, corn, as well as, root tubers like cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes and

plantains. This group was followed by meat and fish (99.1%), vegetables (98.6 %), condiments

(96.1%) and oil (91.2%); while the least consumed food groups are milk (51.8%) and pulses (38.9%)

(Figure 9). Results also showed that Cagayan Valley and Ilocos region had the highest intake of

pulses and vegetables, respectively. ARMM had the lowest intake of all food groups except for sugar

and main staples. NCR stands out as the main consumer of fruits, milk, meat and fish (Table 14).

Figure 9. Percentage of households consuming the 9 food groups of the FCS: Philippines, 2013

38.9

51.8

83.2

84.1

91.2

96.1

98.6

99.1

99.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pulses

Milk

Fruits

Sugar

Oil

Condiments

Vegetables

Meat and Fish

Main Staples

Table 14. Percentage of households consuming the 9 food groups of the FCS: Philippines, 2013

Region n Food Groups

Main Staples Pulses Vegetables Fruits Meat and Fish Milk Sugar Oil Condiments

Philippines 35,573 99.7 38.9 98.6 83.2 99.1 51.8 84.1 91.2 96.1

NCR 3,439 99.9 37.8 98.8 87.7 99.8 61.1 82.9 93.3 97.8

CAR 1,462 99.7 49.8 98.5 80.4 96.5 48.0 81.3 86.9 92.3

I. Ilocos 2,211 99.8 47.2 99.6 77.9 99.7 48.2 85.5 91.4 96.6

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 99.7 60.1 99.3 87.3 98.3 48.2 87.7 91.8 95.3

III. Central Luzon 2,953 99.6 33.4 98.3 83.5 99.6 49.9 84.5 93.3 97.1

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 99.3 37.5 97.6 82.4 99.4 52.2 75.3 89.1 92.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 99.5 36.4 98.3 81.7 97.7 45.1 84.2 87.5 94.0

V. Bicol 2,189 99.8 37.1 99.0 87.4 99.1 55.6 93.3 94.0 98.3

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 99.7 42.9 98.8 78.8 99.5 56.6 81.7 88.3 97.6

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 99.6 53.0 99.5 83.8 99.4 57.4 84.5 92.2 97.7

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 99.9 26.4 98.1 79.3 99.3 45.1 91.3 90.7 97.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 99.9 34.0 99.0 83.8 99.4 45.6 81.4 90.5 96.8

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 99.7 35.5 99.4 85.4 98.3 52.4 80.0 88.9 90.2

XI. Davao 1,812 99.8 33.5 99.4 84.0 98.6 48.1 90.2 95.3 97.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 99.5 37.2 99.6 83.2 97.7 42.6 89.1 93.3 96.3

ARMM 1,080 100.0 20.6 88.7 70.5 94.1 22.3 84.5 79.2 89.8

Caraga 1,565 99.9 31.7 99.4 81.5 99.3 52.6 93.2 92.0 98.3

24

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

013

Table 15. Mean days of frequency of consumption of the 9 food groups of the FCS by region: Philippines, 2013

Region n Food Groups

Main Staples Pulses Vegetables Fruits Meat and Fish Milk Sugar Oil Condiments

Philippines 35,573 6.9 1.9 5.8 4.2 6.2 5.4 6.2 5.1 6.4

NCR 3,439 7.0 1.6 5.6 4.4 6.7 5.6 6.1 5.5 6.4

CAR 1,462 7.0 2.2 5.9 4.3 5.5 5.2 6.1 5.3 6.3

I. Ilocos 2,211 7.0 1.8 6.2 3.9 6.1 5.3 6.2 4.7 6.4

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 7.0 2.0 6.1 4.8 5.8 5.5 6.4 5.5 6.5

III. Central Luzon 2,953 6.8 1.6 5.5 4.1 6.5 5.2 6.3 5.5 6.4

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 6.9 1.8 5.4 4.3 6.3 5.2 5.9 5.5 5.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 6.9 1.9 5.8 4.4 5.9 5.4 6.3 4.9 6.2

V. Bicol 2,189 7.0 1.8 5.5 4.4 5.9 5.6 6.5 4.8 6.5

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 7.0 2.0 6.2 4.4 6.3 5.8 6.2 5.0 6.5

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 7.0 2.2 6.4 4.3 6.1 5.4 6.1 5.2 6.4

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 7.0 1.9 5.5 3.8 6.0 5.1 6.3 4.3 6.5

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 7.0 2.2 6.1 3.9 6.0 5.1 5.9 4.5 6.3

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 6.9 2.2 6.2 4.2 6.0 5.0 5.8 4.8 6.1

XI. Davao 1,812 7.0 1.9 6.3 4.0 6.1 5.5 6.2 4.9 6.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 6.9 1.9 6.4 4.3 5.8 5.4 6.4 4.7 6.6

ARMM 1,080 6.8 2.1 5.3 3.5 4.9 4.8 6.2 4.4 6.2

Caraga 1,565 7.0 1.8 5.9 3.9 6.2 5.5 6.2 4.5 6.5

Ph

ilippin

e Nutritio

n F

acts a

nd F

igures 2

01

3

25

Fo

od

and

Nu

trition

Research

Institu

te

Dep

artmen

t of S

cience an

d T

echno

logy

26




The food group most frequently consumed by almost all regions was main staples which were

eaten almost every day (6.9 days). Condiments, beverages and spices were second (6.4 days), followed

by meat and fish (6.2 days) and sugar (6.2 days). Consumption of vegetables was more frequent than

milk and oil followed by fruits among all regions at 5.8, 5.4, 5.0, and 4.2, respectively. Pulses were

least often consumed (1.9 days) (Table 15).

Procurement of Foods by region

Majority of the households purchased or bought the food they consumed for the past seven

days. A far second means of procurement was own-production. Very few households reported getting

food by other means (given/through food aid/ etc). The most frequently purchased items were Sweets

(99%), Oils and Fats (98.9%), Spices, Condiments and Beverages (98.7%) and Milk and Milk Products

(98.6%). Vegetables and fruits, and to a more limited extent, rice, were the food items that came from

the household‟s own production and were consumed rather than sold for cash.

Figure 10. Percentage distribution of households by source of foods consumed: Philippines, 2013

The tables presented below shows how the sixteen (16) food groups were acquired by the

Filipino households in each region. In general, households had access to food through purchasing or

buying the food they consumed in the past seven days. The food groups such as main staples, meat and

fish, eggs, milk and products and condiments were accessed by majority of the households (80% and

above) through buying/purchasing. On the other hand, dark leafy vegetables were own-produced by

more than 40% (Figure10) of households in the country.

A minority, 27.8% of households in Cagayan Valley and 27 % in CAR, produce their own rice

for personal consumption (Table 16). In Central Luzon, which has been called as the Rice Granary of

the Philippines, very few (7.0%) households produce rice for their own consumption and majority

(89.9%) bought it. Cagayan Valley (66.5% and 39.7%) and SOCCSKSARGEN (65.4% and 39.9%) had

0 20 40 60 80 100

Spices, Condiments and Beverages

Sweets

Oils and Fats

Milk and Milk Products

Legumes, Nuts and Seeds

Fish and shellfish

Eggs

Organ Meats (Iron-rich)

Meats

Other Fruits

Vitamin A-Rich Fruits

Other Vegetables

Dark Green Leafy Vegetables

White Tubers and Roots

Vitamin A-Rich Vegetables and Tubers

Cereals

Purchase/Bought Own produce Given/Free Others

27




the highest percentages of households who produce their own dark leafy vegetables and other

vegetables for home consumption (Tables 19 & 20).

This pattern of low consumption of own-produced foods implies that households are dependent

on market forces for their food supply. Hence, they may be less resilient when external food sources

fluctuate and may be vulnerable to transient, if not chronic, food insecurity.

Table 16. Percentage distribution of households consuming cereals by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own

produce Given/Free Others

Philippines 35,380 88.2 9.1 1.7 1.0

NCR 3,434 98.1 0.3 1.3 0.4

CAR 1,455 68.7 27.0 2.9 1.4

I. Ilocos 2,204 83.1 13.7 2.0 1.3



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,383 94.4 4.1 1.1 0.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,545 86.6 11.3 1.3 0.8

V. Bicol 2,173 88.4 9.8 1.4 0.4






XI. Davao 1,803 89.1 7.9 1.7 1.3


ARMM 1,080 88.1 9.1 1.6 1.2

Caraga 1,561 86.3 11.7 1.0 1.1

Table 17. Percentage distribution of households consuming vitamin A-rich vegetables and tubers by source


Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 25,650 83.6 12.3 3.5 0.6

NCR 2,681 97.9 0.2 1.7 0.2

CAR 984 66.8 27.3 5.4 0.6

I. Ilocos 1,667 86.1 9.4 4.1 0.6



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,405 89.6 6.8 2.7 0.9

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,008 76.7 17.4 4.9 0.9

V. Bicol 1,439 81.6 12.9 5.1 0.5






XI. Davao 1,453 75.9 19.7 3.7 0.7


ARMM 502 61.4 29.7 7.8 1.1

Caraga 1,102 83.3 14.7 1.6 0.4

28




Table 18. Percentage distribution of households consuming white tubers and roots by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 17,135 76.5 18.0 4.6 0.9

NCR 2,049 97.7 0.3 2.0 0.1

CAR 762 60.0 31.9 7.4 0.7

I. Ilocos 1,096 80.9 13.6 4.4 1.1

II. Cagayan Valley 802 63.9 29.1 5.8 1.2


IV-A. CALABARZON 1,520 86.5 9.1 3.3 1.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 612 57.9 33.9 6.2 2.0

V. Bicol 1,127 64.1 28.6 6.0 1.3



VIII. Eastern Visayas 973 59.0 30.2 10.0 0.8

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 773 54.9 39.4 5.5 0.3

X. Northern Mindanao 874 64.5 28.9 5.5 1.1

XI. Davao 817 67.3 26.2 5.3 1.3

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 808 57.2 33.1 7.6 2.1

ARMM 526 53.9 34.4 8.2 3.6

Caraga 824 61.1 31.2 7.1 0.7

Table 19. Percentage distribution of households consuming dark green leafy vegetables by source and


Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 33,135 52.3 40.3 4.9 2.5

NCR 3,163 95.9 1.7 1.9 0.5

CAR 1,351 43.4 48.5 4.4 3.6

I. Ilocos 2,110 38.0 52.7 5.5 3.7



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,956 65.9 24.9 5.4 3.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,404 29.9 59.7 6.0 4.5

V. Bicol 2,054 38.6 51.5 7.0 3.0






XI. Davao 1,753 40.2 54.1 3.1 2.6


ARMM 882 34.3 52.2 8.9 4.6

Caraga 1,506 37.0 57.4 4.5 1.1

29




Table 20. Percentage distribution of households consuming other vegetables by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 29,835 74.2 21.4 3.3 1.1

NCR 2,954 97.8 0.3 1.7 0.2

CAR 1,170 58.8 36.7 2.6 2.0

I. Ilocos 2,089 65.5 26.8 5.2 2.5



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,777 83.8 11.7 3.3 1.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,265 61.0 33.7 3.4 1.9

V. Bicol 1,856 71.9 23.4 3.9 0.9






XI. Davao 1,592 65.4 30.8 2.6 1.2


ARMM 627 54.3 37.0 5.8 3.0

Caraga 1,285 72.2 25.8 1.5 0.5

Table 21. Percentage distribution of households consuming vitamin A-rich fruits by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 17,903 72.9 20.0 5.7 1.5

NCR 2,252 95.6 0.8 3.4 0.2

CAR 722 58.3 33.9 6.7 1.1

I. Ilocos 1,009 66.1 25.1 6.7 2.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 1,922 75.8 16.6 5.6 2.0

IV-B. MIMAROPA 801 44.8 42.9 9.6 2.7

V. Bicol 1,109 60.3 30.6 6.4 2.8






XI. Davao 945 74.8 18.4 5.5 1.3


ARMM 408 54.4 33.2 9.6 2.8

Caraga 728 72.5 20.6 5.9 1.0

30




Table 22. Percentage distribution of households consuming other fruits by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 26,106 71.3 22.5 4.8 1.4

NCR 2,528 97.8 0.1 2.1 0.1

CAR 1,024 56.3 33.9 7.6 2.2

I. Ilocos 1,500 67.3 24.6 6.3 1.7



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,500 77.5 15.5 5.0 2.0

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,103 47.7 44.6 5.9 1.7

V. Bicol 1,716 57.9 33.9 6.2 2.0






XI. Davao 1,302 66.4 26.8 5.7 1.1


ARMM 655 52.4 39.5 6.1 2.1

Caraga 1,086 71.7 24.6 2.5 1.3

Table 23. Percentage distribution of households consuming meats by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 27,625 93.8 2.7 2.8 0.8

NCR 3,196 98.1 0.1 1.3 0.5

CAR 1,164 89.4 5.9 3.6 1.2

I. Ilocos 1,894 93.3 2.9 2.9 0.9



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,871 96.5 1.6 1.6 0.3

IV-B. MIMAROPA 980 89.1 5.4 3.9 1.6

V. Bicol 1,584 92.4 3.9 3.0 0.8






XI. Davao 1,391 94.4 1.9 2.3 1.3


ARMM 377 74.7 13.7 8.2 3.4

Caraga 1,174 94.6 1.5 3.0 0.9

31




Table 24. Percentage distribution of households consuming organ meats by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 5,568 92.2 3.8 3.2 0.8

NCR 668 98.2 0.0 1.7 0.2

CAR 226 89.6 6.1 2.9 1.3

I. Ilocos 436 91.6 2.3 5.0 1.2


III. Central Luzon 536 93.6 3.1 2.6 0.7

IV-A. CALABARZON 578 95.2 1.9 2.5 0.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 150 80.7 9.5 7.2 2.6

V. Bicol 296 88.6 7.0 3.4 1.0

VI. Western Visayas 472 93.1 5.1 1.0 0.8

VII. Central Visayas 396 93.7 4.6 1.7 0.0




XI. Davao 192 90.9 3.8 4.9 0.5


ARMM 77 56.9 27.8 3.7 11.6

Caraga 234 92.8 0.4 5.0 1.8

Table 25. Percentage distribution of households consuming eggs by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 29,003 94.6 3.8 0.9 0.7

NCR 3,080 99.0 0.3 0.6 0.1

CAR 1,155 94.5 4.2 0.8 0.5

I. Ilocos 1,934 94.0 4.6 0.8 0.6



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,888 95.7 2.9 0.8 0.6

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,164 89.9 8.7 0.5 0.9

V. Bicol 1,689 92.2 6.1 0.8 0.9






XI. Davao 1,509 94.6 3.4 0.8 1.2


ARMM 682 91.5 6.2 1.3 1.0

Caraga 1,260 96.6 2.4 0.2 0.9

32




Table 26. Percentage distribution of households consuming fish and shellfish by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 32,523 92.6 1.4 2.1 3.9

NCR 3,256 98.3 0.1 1.3 0.4

CAR 1,149 91.7 1.6 1.1 5.6

I. Ilocos 2,023 92.3 1.9 2.6 3.2



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,067 92.9 1.9 1.8 3.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,421 85.3 5.0 3.0 6.8

V. Bicol 2,061 89.8 1.3 2.9 6.0






XI. Davao 1,703 92.4 1.2 2.2 4.3


ARMM 912 82.9 6.5 3.4 7.3

Caraga 1,488 92.4 1.0 0.7 5.9

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

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 13,876 92.4 4.8 2.4 0.5

NCR 1,294 98.1 0.1 1.6 0.2

CAR 733 72.2 22.8 4.3 0.7

I. Ilocos 1,044 90.0 5.6 3.8 0.6


III. Central Luzon 992 93.3 2.0 4.3 0.5

IV-A. CALABARZON 1,293 96.2 1.7 1.7 0.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 569 89.5 6.1 3.6 0.9

V. Bicol 811 92.4 4.7 2.6 0.4






XI. Davao 602 93.6 4.9 1.5 0.0


ARMM 221 84.6 10.5 4.5 0.4

Caraga 498 93.8 4.2 1.6 0.4

33




Table 28. Percentage distribution of households consuming milk and milk products by source and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 17,952 98.6 0.4 0.9 0.1

NCR 2,097 99.2 0.0 0.7 0.2

CAR 705 98.4 0.8 0.8 0.0

I. Ilocos 1,065 98.2 0.3 1.2 0.3



IV-A. CALABARZON 1,780 98.1 1.0 0.8 0.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 707 98.0 0.4 1.5 0.1

V. Bicol 1,213 98.1 0.3 1.4 0.2






XI. Davao 863 99.1 0.0 0.7 0.2


ARMM 237 98.3 0.4 1.4 0.0

Caraga 821 99.2 0.5 0.1 0.3

Table 29. Percentage distribution of households consuming oils and fats by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 32,327 98.9 0.4 0.5 0.2

NCR 3,205 99.5 0.0 0.3 0.2

CAR 1,278 98.7 0.6 0.6 0.1

I. Ilocos 2,020 99.2 0.1 0.5 0.2



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,052 98.8 0.5 0.5 0.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,366 98.5 1.0 0.4 0.1

V. Bicol 2,057 98.6 0.8 0.6 0.1






XI. Davao 1,723 98.3 0.1 1.0 0.7


ARMM 850 96.8 2.7 0.1 0.4

Caraga 1,439 99.1 0.5 0.2 0.2

34




Table 30. Percentage distribution of households consuming sweets by source and region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 30,182 99.0 0.2 0.7 0.2

NCR 2,842 99.3 0.0 0.5 0.1

CAR 1,201 98.5 0.4 1.0 0.1

I. Ilocos 1,890 99.0 0.0 0.9 0.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 2,591 98.8 0.2 0.7 0.3

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,315 99.0 0.4 0.6 0.1

V. Bicol 2,042 98.8 0.2 0.8 0.1






XI. Davao 1,633 99.0 0.1 0.7 0.2


ARMM 912 98.4 0.8 0.5 0.2

Caraga 1,458 99.4 0.3 0.3 0.1

Table 31. Percentage distribution of households consuming spices, condiments and beverages by source and


Region n

SOURCE

Purchase/bought Own


Philippines 34,123 98.7 0.4 0.7 0.2

NCR 3,362 99.4 0.1 0.5 0.1

CAR 1,355 96.5 2.3 1.2 0.0

I. Ilocos 2,135 97.8 0.9 1.1 0.2



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,179 98.3 0.7 0.7 0.3

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,466 98.4 0.5 0.9 0.2

V. Bicol 2,151 99.0 0.2 0.7 0.1






XI. Davao 1,766 98.6 0.3 0.9 0.2


ARMM 968 97.4 1.2 1.1 0.3

Caraga 1,538 99.5 0.3 0.1 0.1

35




Food Consumption Categories

Based on a cut-off score of 424, almost all regions are classified to have Acceptable food

consumption. This means that most of the regions were food secure in terms of diversity and nutritional

adequacy of their diet. However, as shown on Figure 11, ARMM (12.6%) had the highest percentage of

households with poor food consumption while NCR (97.3%) had the largest proportion of household

with acceptable food consumption. Overall, 9 in every 10 households in the Philippines have acceptable

food consumption.

This high level of acceptable food consumption seems inconsistent with the other food security

measures discussed earlier such as the HFIAS, as well as the low levels of adequacy of energy intake

based on the NNS dietary survey (please refer to the 8th NNS Dietary Survey monograph). It may be

that the threshold used for categorizing households as having acceptable food consumption may not be

sensitive enough for use in the Philippine context.

Figure 11. Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and region: Philippines, 2013

The percentages of households whose food consumption was deemed acceptable were not so

different among the quintiles with only a 4.8 percentage point difference between the poorest and the

richest wealth quintiles (Figure 12).

What was alarming, however, were the proportions of households with poor food consumption

scores in the lowest wealth quintile (60.6%) while 47.4% were borderline; these households suffered

the most food insecurity. The poor wealth quintile also had considerably high proportions of households

with poor (19.8) and borderline (26.5) food consumption. These proportions are noticeably lower in the

higher wealth quintile groups.

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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

Poor (<28) Borderline (>28-42) Acceptable (>42)

36




In general, as the wealth quintile increases, the more varied the foods consumed were and the

more frequently they were consumed, resulting in less food insecurity.

Households with poor food consumption (Table 32) belonged to the poorest wealth quintiles in

the following regions: Zamboanga (90.2%), ARMM (89.0%), Caraga (82.3%) and MIMAROPA

(81.2%). It was somewhat surprising to note that 16.2% of NCR households in the richest wealth

quintile were classified to have poor food consumption.

Borderline food consumption from the lowest wealth quintile ranged from 8.9% to 85.8%

(Tables 33), with Central Luzon as the lowest and ARMM as the highest. The two lowest wealth

quintiles had the bulk of households with borderline food consumption.

NCR (41.8%) had the highest percentage of acceptable food consumption (Table 34) in the

highest wealth quintile. As expected, the highest percentages of households with acceptable food

consumption belong to the highest wealth quintile (21.7%). What is worth noting, however, is that

although a trend in the proportions of households across the wealth quintiles with acceptable food

consumption could be discerned, the differences among quintiles was relatively small compared to

those in the poor and borderline food consumption categories.

Figure 12. Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and wealth quintile:

Philippines, 2013

60.6

19.8

11.3 6.7

1.7

47.4

26.5

13.8 8.8

3.5

16.9 19.5 20.7 21.2 21.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Poor (≤28) Borderline (>28-42) Acceptable (>42)

37




Table 32. Percentage distribution of households with poor food consumption by wealth quintile and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region POOR (0-28) FOOD CONSUMPTION


Philippines 60.6 19.8 11.3 6.7 1.7

NCR 13.9 41.7 15.2 13.1 16.2

CAR 53.0 23.2 11.8 12.0 0.0

I. Ilocos 27.8 33.4 33.2 5.5 0.0

II. Cagayan Valley 45.8 39.0 15.2 0.0 0.0

III. Central Luzon 24.9 18.3 27.6 19.8 9.5

IV-A. CALABARZON 25.0 23.5 26.6 22.0 3.0

IV-B. MIMAROPA 81.2 12.4 4.0 0.0 2.4

V. Bicol 62.8 23.5 10.2 3.6 0.0

VI. Western Visayas 72.6 24.0 0.0 3.5 0.0

VII. Central Visayas 67.2 25.8 7.0 0.0 0.0

VIII. Eastern Visayas 53.7 32.9 5.3 5.3 2.7

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 90.2 4.5 5.3 0.0 0.0

X. Northern Mindanao 74.7 18.8 6.5 0.0 0.0

XI. Davao 77.6 11.3 11.1 0.0 0.0

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 75.7 16.8 5.2 2.3 0.0

ARMM 89.0 8.9 1.4 0.7 0.0

Caraga 82.3 8.1 0.0 9.6 0.0

Table 33. Percentage distribution of households with borderline food consumption by wealth quintile and


Region BORDERLINE (>28-42) FOOD CONSUMPTION


Philippines 47.4 26.5 13.8 8.8 3.5

NCR 10.1 14.3 24.3 36.5 14.8

CAR 41.9 29.5 11.9 12.8 3.9

I. Ilocos 30.7 38.0 23.8 6.5 1.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 20.3 26.9 20.7 22.5 9.7

IV-B. MIMAROPA 62.3 19.9 13.4 3.8 0.5

V. Bicol 53.2 28.4 14.0 3.5 1.0






XI. Davao 65.1 25.3 7.8 1.2 0.6


ARMM 85.8 10.9 2.0 1.0 0.3

Caraga 57.8 29.5 9.7 3.0 0.0

38




Table 34. Percentage distribution of households with acceptable food consumption by wealth quintile and


Region ACCEPTABLE (>42) FOOD CONSUMPTION


Philippines 16.9 19.5 20.7 21.2 21.7

NCR 2.7 9.0 16.7 29.9 41.8

CAR 15.2 20.0 16.6 19.7 28.4

I. Ilocos 10.3 21.7 27.6 20.4 20.0



IV-A. CALABARZON 6.2 13.7 20.1 27.6 32.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 28.2 23.3 22.5 16.6 9.5

V. Bicol 28.1 23.7 24.2 13.9 10.2






XI. Davao 24.6 24.3 19.6 18.7 12.8


ARMM 61.6 20.4 11.4 4.8 1.9

Caraga 32.0 28.7 16.2 13.7 9.4

The tables 32, 33 and 34 show that, in general, wealth quintile and food consumption had an

inverse relationship. Households who belong to the lowest wealth quintile have poor food consumption

and the richest with acceptable food consumption, as expected.

39




4. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of the 8th National Nutrition Survey on Food Security presented in this monograph leads to

the following conclusions:

Two-thirds of the Filipino population still experiences food insecurity despite slight

improvements from 69.3% in 2011 to 65.9% in 2013.

An inverse relationship was seen between food security and wealth quintile, as expected.

Households belonging to the poorest wealth quintile (88.8%) suffered the most from food

insecurity while those belonging to the richest quintile had the lowest proportion experiencing

food insecurity (27.9%).

The size of the household significantly affects food security status; 37.8% of households with 5

or less members (37.8%) (p-value <0.05) were considered food secure while only 26.8% of

households with more than 5 members were food secure.

The three severe conditions of food insecurity - not having food of any kind in the household

(3.6%), going hungry at bedtime (3.1%) and not eating anything for the whole day and night

(1.2%) were still experienced by some households, particularly in the lower wealth quintiles.

To cope with scarcity, households sacrificed the quality and quantity of their diet by eating

foods not preferred (38.6%), eating a monotonous diet (34.3%), eating undesirable food

(28.7%), reducing their intake (25.3%) and reducing the number of meals typically eaten

(10.7%).

Majority of the households in all regions consumed nine (9) to ten (10) different food groups

per week which indicates relatively diverse diets. Cereals (99.5%), vegetables (98.6%), spices,

condiments and beverages (96.1%), and fish (91.7%) were the most consumed food groups by

households.

About 4 in 10 households worried about acquiring food. Most food groups were accessed

mainly through purchasing/buying. Only vegetables, fruits, and to a limited extent roots and

tubers and some cereals were own-produced. Thus, the purchasing capacity of the household

greatly affects food security status.

Among the regions, ARMM suffered most from food insecurity and had the least varied food

intake, consuming only five to eight food groups. It was followed by Eastern Visayas and other

provinces in Mindanao.

Nine (9) in ten (10) households consumed foods that were relatively energy-dense, had high

quality of protein and micronutrients as depicted by average food consumption scores of above

42, thus were considered to have acceptable food consumption.

The poorest wealth quintiles had alarmingly high proportions of households (>60%) with poor

food consumption.

40




The high diversity of the households‟ diet and acceptable food consumption scores (FCS>42) in almost

all the regions may be indicative of a reasonable level of food security in the country. However, energy

needs are still not being met. It is possible that the tools being used to measure food security may not be

classifying households appropriately, as the cut-offs that were applied were set from research conducted

mostly in African countries. It may be worthwhile to assess whether a more sensitive cut-off needs to be

applied for the Philippine setting.

Likewise, there were still households who had to sacrifice the quality and quantity of their diet because

they had no money or capacity to grow or trade for food. To continue the improvement in our country‟s

status on food security, its three dimensions - food availability, food access and food utilization - should

be addressed simultaneously.

There is still much to be done; programs created to improve Philippine food security status should be

scaled up and directed to vulnerable areas such as the Mindanao regions, particularly ARMM, and in

some areas in the Visayas and MIMAROPA as well as to those belonging in the lowest quintile. Note

that undernutrition prevalence was also high in these areas (see Facts and Figures: Anthropometric

Survey). If we are to reduce hunger and undernutrition, these regions must be prioritized and more

cohesive and comprehensive interventions that address poverty, nutrition and food security should be

implemented.

41




5. REFERENCES

Books/Journals:

Adams, I. (2013). The Health Benefits of Dark Green Leafy Vegetables. Lexington, KY: University of

Kentucky College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service.

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 Nutrition Research Institute-Department of Science and Technology. (2008). Facts and

Figures Updating 2005. Taguig, Philippines: Author.

Food and Nutrition Research Institute-Department of Science and Technology. (2011). Facts and

Figures 2008. Taguig, Philippines: Author.

Food and Nutrition Research Institute-Department of Science and Technology. (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

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).

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). (2011). Food security for a planet

under pressure. Transition to sustainability: interconnected challenges and solution. Policy

Brief No. 2.

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

First edition. Rome, Italy: UN-WFP.

Websites:

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.

42




Photograph credits:

Pandesal, Filipino Sweet Rolls [digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://pigpartsandbeer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11pandesal2.jpg

Frodesiak, A., (Photographer). (2011, June 24) Steamed rice in bowl. [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamed_rice#/media/File:LSteamed_rice_in_bowl_01.jpg

Potato [digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://pngimg.com/upload/potato_png2391.png

Yacon Molasses [digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://vikingrx.com/yaconmolasses/

Cooper, A. (Photographer). (2010, February 28). Star apple. [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Apple_(Kaimito).jpg

Milk, Fresh [digital image]. Retrieved from

https://barbadosunderground.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/why-is-emerald-city-and-carlton-

importing-fresh-milk

Ice cream [digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http:/buildyourappetite.blogspot.com/2011_04_01/dirty-ice-cream-or-sorbetes.html

Cooking Oil [digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.sunstarinvestments.co.za/portfolio_item/coconut-oil.html

Salt [digital image]. Retrieved from http://www.saltinstitute.org/news-articles/the-truth-about-salt-

and-your-body/

6. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Percentage of households consuming the 16 food groups of the food frequency questionnaire by region: Philippines, 2013

Region n

Food Groups

Cereals

& Prod.

Vit.

A-Rich

Veg. &

Tubers

White

Tubers

and

Roots

Dark Leafy,

Green Veg.,

incl. wild

ones

Other

Veg., incl.

wild veg.

Vit.

A-

Rich

Fruits

Other

Fruits

Including

Wild Fruits

Meat,

Fresh &

Process

ed

Organ

Meats

(Iron-

Rich)

Eggs Fish and

Shellfish

Legumes

Nuts and

Seeds

Milk &

Milk

Product

Oils &

Fats Sweets

Spices,

Condiments

Beverages

Philippines 35,573 99.5 73.2 48.5 92.8 84.3 51.8 73.6 79.9 16.2 82.8 91.7 38.9 51.8 91.2 84.1 96.1

NCR 3,439 99.9 78.9 59.6 92.2 85.6 65.9 72.9 92.9 19.3 89.5 94.6 37.8 61.1 93.3 82.9 97.8

CAR 1,462 99.5 67.5 52.7 92.3 80.2 49.3 70.3 79.8 16.0 79.3 79.0 49.8 48.0 86.9 81.3 92.3

I. Ilocos 2,211 99.7 75.5 49.7 95.4 90.9 45.7 67.9 85.7 19.8 87.5 91.6 47.2 48.2 91.4 85.5 96.6

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 99.5 71.3 43.5 93.7 92.8 57.7 80.9 84.6 18.2 82.1 87.8 60.1 48.2 91.8 87.7 95.3

III. Central Luzon 2,953 99.5 74.2 44.6 90.0 89.3 49.5 75.4 88.9 18.1 89.4 89.3 33.4 49.9 93.3 84.5 97.1

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 98.7 70.2 44.0 86.2 81.0 56.0 72.6 83.8 17.0 84.3 89.3 37.5 52.2 89.1 75.3 92.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 99.1 64.6 39.9 90.2 81.0 51.2 70.7 62.7 9.5 74.6 91.0 36.4 45.1 87.5 84.2 94.0

V. Bicol 2,189 99.3 65.8 51.5 93.9 84.8 50.7 78.4 72.7 13.6 77.3 94.2 37.1 55.6 94.0 93.3 98.3

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 99.6 75.5 42.6 96.3 85.8 44.5 71.8 77.6 18.9 81.7 95.9 42.9 56.6 88.3 81.7 97.6

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 99.3 82.5 47.0 97.5 85.7 51.9 76.2 79.5 15.7 80.4 90.0 53.0 57.4 92.2 84.5 97.7

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 99.9 62.5 47.6 92.5 72.0 34.4 71.2 66.2 11.6 70.6 94.7 26.4 45.1 90.7 91.3 97.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 99.9 70.1 53.1 97.0 80.1 42.9 77.8 70.0 14.3 77.7 95.6 34.0 45.6 90.5 81.4 96.8

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 99.2 70.4 51.1 96.0 81.9 49.9 78.5 73.0 17.4 83.1 90.7 35.5 52.4 88.9 80.0 90.2

XI. Davao 1,812 99.5 80.3 45.8 96.7 87.9 52.9 72.2 77.6 10.8 83.8 94.2 33.5 48.1 95.3 90.2 97.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 99.2 80.8 45.8 97.6 89.4 50.5 74.9 70.8 13.1 78.8 91.4 37.2 42.6 93.3 89.1 96.3

ARMM 1,080 100.0 46.6 49.2 81.9 58.5 38.2 60.9 35.4 7.3 63.2 84.6 20.6 22.3 79.2 84.5 89.8

Caraga 1,565 99.7 70.5 52.5 96.2 82.0 46.4 69.4 75.0 15.0 80.6 95.0 31.7 52.6 92.0 93.2 98.3 43

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

3

44




Appendix 2. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of cereals consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n

Frequency of Consumption

Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six

Times a Week Everyday

Philippines 35,573 0.6 0.4 1.0 1.6 96.4

NCR 3,439 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.9 97.9

CAR 1,462 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 98.5

I. Ilocos 2,211 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 98.3

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 98.7

III. Central Luzon 2,953 0.5 1.1 2.9 3.6 91.8

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 1.3 0.6 1.6 1.7 94.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 0.9 0.2 0.9 2.1 95.9

V. Bicol 2,189 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 98.5

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.6 97.7

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 98.3

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 0.2 0.1 0.6 1.2 98.0

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1,454 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 98.4

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 0.8 0.4 0.6 2.7 95.4

XI. Davao 1,812 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.2 97.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN 1,768 0.8 0.5 1.7 2.4 94.6

ARMM 1,080 0.0 1.4 4.7 6.7 87.2

Caraga 1,565 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 98.4

45




Appendix 3. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich vegetables and tubers


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 26.8 20.2 38.3 8.4 6.4

NCR 3,439 21.2 22.2 44.1 7.9 4.6

CAR 1,462 32.5 17.9 34.5 7.3 7.9

I. Ilocos 2,211 24.5 18.9 40.1 11.5 5.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 29.8 19.9 36.6 8.4 5.3

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 35.4 20.2 32.0 6.6 5.8

V. Bicol 2,189 34.2 26.2 32.9 3.6 3.1






XI. Davao 1,812 19.8 18.6 40.8 10.3 10.6


ARMM 1,080 53.4 14.5 20.8 5.6 5.8

Caraga 1,565 29.5 19.6 38.4 6.9 5.6

46




Appendix 4. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of white tubers and roots consumption


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 51.5 19.3 21.4 4.5 3.3

NCR 3,439 40.4 22.2 28.8 6.0 2.6

CAR 1,462 47.3 16.1 24.3 6.1 6.2

I. Ilocos 2,211 50.3 20.3 23.9 4.2 1.3



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 56.0 18.0 19.7 3.8 2.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 60.1 14.5 17.1 4.4 3.9

V. Bicol 2,189 48.5 22.8 21.5 3.4 3.8






XI. Davao 1,812 54.3 18.9 19.3 4.7 2.8


ARMM 1,080 50.8 12.7 18.3 7.0 11.2

Caraga 1,565 47.5 19.6 23.2 5.5 4.1

47




Appendix 5. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of dark green leafy vegetables


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 0.1 12.9 41.0 23.1 22.9

NCR 3,439 0.0 17.7 50.2 21.8 10.3

CAR 1,462 0.2 11.1 37.9 25.4 25.4

I. Ilocos 2,211 0.0 7.8 38.9 30.3 23.0



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 0.3 19.0 45.9 20.9 14.0

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 0.1 12.9 39.6 21.1 26.3

V. Bicol 2,189 0.0 17.6 45.6 17.8 18.9






XI. Davao 1,812 0.1 6.7 34.3 24.3 34.6


ARMM 1,080 0.0 13.3 38.8 20.9 27.1

Caraga 1,565 0.0 10.9 36.2 22.0 30.8

48




Appendix 6. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of other vegetables consumption and


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 15.7 18.7 41.9 14.7 9.1

NCR 3,439 14.4 25.5 41.9 13.2 4.9

CAR 1,462 19.8 14.8 37.5 14.0 13.9

I. Ilocos 2,211 9.1 12.3 48.4 21.7 8.4



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 19.0 21.9 40.4 12.2 6.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 19.0 15.3 41.5 12.6 11.5

V. Bicol 2,189 15.2 24.4 43.5 10.5 6.4






XI. Davao 1,812 12.1 14.6 44.6 15.8 12.8


ARMM 1,080 41.6 15.9 27.9 7.1 7.6

Caraga 1,565 18.0 16.5 39.6 14.3 11.7

49




Appendix 7. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of vitamin A-rich fruits consumption


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 48.2 15.8 22.3 6.5 7.1

NCR 3,439 34.1 16.7 31.3 8.0 9.9

CAR 1,462 50.7 11.8 22.0 7.2 8.4

I. Ilocos 2,211 54.3 14.9 20.8 5.3 4.8



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 44.0 16.7 22.8 8.0 8.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 48.8 14.9 18.7 6.6 11.1

V. Bicol 2,189 49.3 15.6 20.4 6.4 8.3






XI. Davao 1,812 47.1 17.8 24.6 4.7 5.8


ARMM 1,080 61.8 16.5 16.5 1.9 3.2

Caraga 1,565 53.6 16.1 20.3 5.4 4.7

50




Appendix 8. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of other fruits consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 26.4 15.3 30.9 11.2 16.2

NCR 3,439 27.1 14.5 31.6 11.0 15.9

CAR 1,462 29.7 12.5 30.1 12.3 15.4

I. Ilocos 2,211 32.1 16.5 30.3 8.8 12.3



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 27.4 17.1 30.0 10.9 14.7

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 29.3 14.0 29.6 9.5 17.6

V. Bicol 2,189 21.6 13.5 32.7 11.9 20.3






XI. Davao 1,812 27.8 17.3 28.9 10.3 15.7


ARMM 1,080 39.2 18.7 24.3 6.6 11.2

Caraga 1,565 30.7 16.4 31.5 8.7 12.8

51




Appendix 9. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of meat consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 20.1 26.2 33.1 11.9 8.7

NCR 3,439 7.1 14.9 40.4 21.8 15.9

CAR 1,462 20.2 26.2 32.5 11.0 10.1

I. Ilocos 2,211 14.3 27.9 40.2 10.2 7.4



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 16.2 21.6 36.3 15.4 10.5

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 37.3 30.6 22.8 5.2 4.2

V. Bicol 2,189 27.4 34.4 28.7 5.4 4.1






XI. Davao 1,812 22.4 29.0 31.0 10.1 7.6


ARMM 1,080 64.6 20.3 12.3 1.1 1.7

Caraga 1,565 25.0 35.3 28.0 6.9 4.8

52




Appendix 10. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of organ meats (iron-rich) consumption


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 83.8 10.6 4.8 0.6 0.3

NCR 3,439 80.7 12.5 5.4 0.9 0.5

CAR 1,462 84.0 8.4 6.9 0.6 0.1

I. Ilocos 2,211 80.2 11.7 7.0 1.0 0.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 83.0 10.7 5.1 0.8 0.4

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 90.5 6.2 2.4 0.5 0.5

V. Bicol 2,189 86.4 9.1 3.7 0.4 0.3






XI. Davao 1812 89.2 7.3 3.1 0.2 0.3


ARMM 1,080 92.7 4.2 2.6 0.3 0.2

Caraga 1,565 85.0 10.1 3.7 0.7 0.5

53




Appendix 11. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of egg consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 17.3 14.4 38.8 15.3 14.2

NCR 3,439 10.5 11.3 39.9 18.9 19.5

CAR 1,462 20.7 12.2 43.1 13.5 10.5

I. Ilocos 2,211 12.5 12.7 43.2 18.2 13.5



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 15.7 12.4 38.3 17.5 16.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 25.4 14.3 36.9 10.7 12.8

V. Bicol 2,189 22.7 17.0 38.2 10.7 11.4






XI. Davao 1,812 16.2 16.5 40.7 14.1 12.6


ARMM 1,080 36.8 20.8 28.8 5.8 7.9

Caraga 1,565 19.4 15.6 35.6 13.1 16.2

54




Appendix 12. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of fish and shellfish consumption and


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 8.3 10.9 34.2 20.8 25.9

NCR 3,439 5.4 8.6 40.1 26.4 19.5

CAR 1,462 21.0 18.5 40.9 13.0 6.5

I. Ilocos 2,211 8.4 13.2 42.1 20.0 16.4



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 10.7 9.6 34.8 21.7 23.1

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 9.0 9.0 26.5 14.1 41.4

V. Bicol 2,189 5.8 10.6 33.7 18.5 31.4






XI. Davao 1,812 5.8 11.4 31.4 23.5 27.9


ARMM 1,080 15.5 18.3 29.2 16.5 20.6

Caraga 1,565 5.0 8.9 24.0 18.6 43.4

55




Appendix 13. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of legumes, nuts and seeds consumption


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 61.1 21.9 13.4 2.1 1.5

NCR 3,439 62.2 26.2 9.6 1.3 0.8

CAR 1,462 50.2 21.7 21.1 4.1 2.9

I. Ilocos 2,211 52.8 26.6 17.5 1.8 1.2



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 62.6 22.1 12.1 2.0 1.2

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 63.6 20.2 12.8 2.0 1.3

V. Bicol 2,189 62.9 22.4 12.0 1.5 1.1




IX. Zamboanga Peninsula 1454 66.0 16.2 13.1 2.4 2.3


XI. Davao 1,812 66.5 17.7 13.3 1.4 1.1


ARMM 1,080 79.4 10.8 6.8 1.4 1.5

Caraga 1,565 68.3 18.1 10.7 1.8 1.0

56




Appendix 14. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of milk and milk products consumption


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 48.2 4.7 9.5 5.3 32.3

NCR 3439 38.9 4.4 10.5 5.7 40.5

CAR 1,462 52.0 3.3 12.3 4.8 27.7

I. Ilocos 2,211 51.8 3.5 10.2 5.6 28.9



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 47.8 6.0 10.0 5.5 30.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 54.9 5.0 7.7 4.1 28.3

V. Bicol 2,189 44.5 3.5 10.3 5.2 36.6

VI. Western Visayas 2513 43.4 3.3 7.4 6.6 39.2





XI. Davao 1,812 51.9 4.2 8.4 4.6 30.9


ARMM 1,080 77.7 3.3 5.8 1.6 11.7

Caraga 1,565 47.4 5.2 8.8 5.3 33.4

57




Appendix 15. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of oils and fats consumption and


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 8.8 4.5 22.9 18.8 44.9

NCR 3,439 6.7 2.1 18.3 20.6 52.3

CAR 1,462 13.1 2.8 21.7 13.4 48.9

I. Ilocos 2,211 8.7 4.5 29.0 21.8 36.1



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 10.9 3.0 17.9 17.4 50.8

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 12.5 5.7 25.6 16.6 39.7

V. Bicol 2,189 6.0 4.9 28.7 19.3 41.2






XI. Davao 1,812 4.7 6.0 24.3 24.1 41.0


ARMM 1,080 20.8 8.5 25.3 16.2 29.3

Caraga 1,565 8.0 8.0 30.7 16.2 37.0

58




Appendix 16. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of sweets consumption and region:

Philippines, 2013

Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 15.9 2.2 8.4 8.7 64.9

NCR 3,439 17.1 1.9 8.1 10.3 62.6

CAR 1,462 18.7 1.9 10.5 6.6 62.3

I. Ilocos 2,211 14.5 2.1 8.7 8.3 66.4



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 24.7 2.8 10.7 7.6 54.3

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 15.8 1.8 7.3 7.6 67.5

V. Bicol 2,189 6.7 1.1 6.4 7.0 78.8






XI. Davao 1,812 9.8 2.4 7.1 10.9 69.8


ARMM 1,080 15.6 2.0 7.2 10.0 65.2

Caraga 1,565 6.9 3.0 8.1 8.1 74.0

59




Appendix 17. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of spices, condiments and beverages


Region n


Did not

consume

Once a

Week

Two to Three

Times a Week

Four to Six


Philippines 35,573 4.0 1.6 7.0 9.7 77.8

NCR 3,439 2.2 1.2 6.0 9.9 80.7

CAR 1,462 7.7 1.3 8.4 8.1 74.6

I. Ilocos 2,211 3.4 1.0 6.6 11.2 77.7



IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 7.5 3.2 13.3 12.5 63.6

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 6.0 1.8 9.0 9.2 74.1

V. Bicol 2,189 1.7 1.1 6.6 7.7 82.8






XI. Davao 1,812 2.4 0.9 3.7 8.1 84.8


ARMM 1,080 10.2 2.5 8.9 8.4 70.0

Caraga 1,565 1.7 1.5 5.8 6.5 84.5

60




Appendix 18. Percentage distribution of households by food consumption category and province:

Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n

Food Consumption Category

Poor Borderline Acceptable

(0-28) (>28-42) (>42)

Philippines 35,573 1.7 8.0 90.3

NCR5 3,439 0.2 2.5 97.3

District I 560 0 3.0 97.0

District II 1,115 0.4 2.4 97.2

District IIII 799 0.1 2.8 97.1

District IV 965 0.1 2.1 97.8

CAR 1,462 2.8 12.8 84.4

Abra 246 4.0 16.9 79.2

Benguet 622 1.2 7.7 91.1

Ifugao 145 1.4 12.0 86.6

Kalinga 181 8.9 21.0 70.1

Mountain Province 157 2.5 19.7 77.8

Apayao 111 2.7 14.2 83.1

I. Ilocos 2,211 0.8 8.5 90.7

Ilocos Norte 291 0 4.8 95.2

Ilocos Sur 323 0.6 7.4 92.0

La Union 345 1.7 10.4 87.9

Pangasinan 1,252 0.8 9.1 90.1

II. Cagayan Valley 1,847 1.8 9.8 88.4

Cagayan 654 2.4 9.8 87.7

Isabela 867 1.4 9.6 89.0

Nueva Vizcaya 221 1.3 7.2 91.5

Quirino 105 2.0 17.3 80.7

III. Central Luzon 2,953 1.1 6.0 92.9

Bataan 199 2.0 7.0 91.0

Bulacan 831 1.1 6.6 92.3

Nueva Ecija 618 0.8 4.7 94.5

Pampanga 652 1.8 6.3 91.9

Tarlac 395 0.3 7.1 92.6

Zambales 202 0.5 3.5 96.0

Aurora 56 0.0 5.4 94.6

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,429 2.0 6.6 91.4

Batangas 714 0.5 6.6 92.8

Cavite 814 2.3 5.20` 92.5

Laguna 728 1.1 6.0 93.0

Quezon 586 6.1 9.5 84.4

Rizal 587 0.6 6.7 92.8

61




Continuation of Appendix 18…

Region / Province n



(0-28) (>28-42) (>42)

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,559 3.0 11.7 85.3

Marinduque 163 1.2 9.8 89.0

Occidental Mindoro 246 3.4 12.7 83.9

Oriental Mindoro 478 2.9 12.4 84.7

Palawan 457 3.1 11.4 85.4

Romblon 215 3.7 11.2 85.1

V. Bicol 2,189 1.4 9.3 89.3

Albay 509 1.2 8.2 90.6

Camarines Norte 200 2.0 8.3 89.7

Camarines Sur 687 1.0 9.8 89.2

Catanduanes 107 3.8 4.7 91.6

Masbate 321 1.9 10.5 87.6

Sorsogon 365 0.8 10.8 88.4

VI. Western Visayas 2,513 1.1 6.3 92.6

Aklan 157 1.3 8.2 90.6

Antique 194 1.5 8.2 90.2

Capiz 287 2.4 7.6 90.0

Iloilo 801 1.1 5.0 93.9

Negros Occidental 1,010 0.8 6.3 92.9

Guimaras 64 0.0 4.7 95.3

VII. Central Visayas 2,536 1.1 7.3 91.7

Bohol 494 1.6 9.5 88.9

Cebu 1,503 0.7 5.9 93.4

Negros Oriental 492 2.1 9.8 88.2

Siquijor 47 0.0 4.3 95.7

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,033 1.9 12.7 85.4

Eastern Samar 215 3.8 21.1 75.1

Leyte 910 2.1 11.5 86.5

Northern Samar 255 2.7 18.5 78.8

Western Samar 350 1.1 11.7 87.1

Southern Leyte 204 0.0 8.1 91.9

Biliran 99 0.0 4.0 96.0

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula6 1,454 1.4 10.9 87.7

Zamboanga Del Norte 487 2.2 13.5 84.3

Zamboanga Del Sur 711 1.3 9.3 89.5

Zamboanga Sibugay 218 0.0 11.5 88.5

62





Region / Province n



(0-28) (>28-42) (>42)

X. Northern Mindanao 1,723 2.7 10.3 87.0

Bukidnon 453 3.7 14.0 82.4

Camiguin 59 1.7 10.2 88.1

Lanao del Norte 361 3.3 12.4 84.3

Misamis Occidental 282 1.1 6.4 92.6

Misamis Oriental 568 2.4 7.8 89.8

XI. Davao 1,812 1.9 9.2 89.0

Davao del Norte 345 3.2 7.8 89.0

Davao del Sur 975 1.4 7.8 90.8

Davao Oriental 231 2.2 13.2 84.6

Compostela Valley 261 1.8 12.9 85.3

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN7 1,768 3.2 12.8 84.0

North Cotabato 501 3.9 19.1 77.0

South Cotabato 693 2.7 7.9 89.4

Sultan Kudarat 294 2.8 14.5 82.7

Sarangani 220 4.4 14.8 80.9

ARMM8 1,080 12.6 26.0 61.5

Basilan9 139 7.3 20.3 72.4

Lanao del Sur 318 12.3 25.1 62.6

Maguindanao 378 4.8 23.9 71.3

Sulu 151 31.2 29.8 39.0

Tawi-Tawi 132 16.7 29.1 54.2

Caraga 1,565 1.5 8.6 89.9

Agusan del Norte 440 0.7 7.9 91.4

Agusan del Sur 375 3.3 14.4 82.4

Surigao del Norte 346 0.7 3.7 95.6

Surigao del Sur 404 1.5 8.1 90.5

5 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, La Piñas, Parañaque, Pasay

6 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

7 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.

8 excluding the cities of Isabela and Cotabato

9 including the City of Isabela

63




Appendix 19. Percentage distribution of households by food security status and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


Food

Secure

Mildly Food

Insecure

Moderately

Food

Insecure

Severely

Food

Insecure

Philippines 35,635 34.1 15.1 34.1 16.7

NCR5 3,448

District I 561 46.0 26.3 19.4 8.4

District II 1,121 49.4 14.9 24.4 11.3

District IIII 797 52.1 13.0 24.8 10.1

District IV 969 55.8 15.3 21.5 7.4

CAR 1,466

Abra 247 23.0 15.5 33.4 28.1

Benguet 625 45.9 20.5 26.1 7.4

Ifugao 145 60.0 14.5 23.5 2.0

Kalinga 181 31.1 16.3 39.5 13.1

Mountain Province 157 43.5 14.7 31.8 10.0

Apayao 111 44.4 16.1 26.0 13.6

I. Ilocos 2,212

Ilocos Norte 291 32.7 19.9 39.9 7.5

Ilocos Sur 323 30.7 18.9 41.8 8.7

La Union 347 27.7 18.7 35.1 18.6

Pangasinan 1,251 25.5 16.6 38.9 19.1

II. Cagayan Valley 1,846

Cagayan 657 44.9 12.4 28.0 14.7

Isabela 863 36.2 17.1 34.4 12.4

Nueva Vizcaya 221 39.7 21.7 28.7 9.9

Quirino 105 25.7 16.9 39.0 18.4

III. Central Luzon 2,964

Bataan 201 45.4 20.4 25.8 8.4

Bulacan 837 36.1 17.0 31.0 15.9

Nueva Ecija 615 27.3 13.9 38.3 20.5

Pampanga 657 42.9 23.1 26.2 7.8

Tarlac 396 27.1 14.6 37.4 21.0

Zambales 202 26.3 33.7 28.7 11.4

Aurora 56 39.3 26.8 26.8 7.1

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448

Batangas 713 41.9 17.4 29.6 11.2

Cavite 817 46.9 14.4 24.0 14.8

Laguna 740 44.1 16.0 26.9 13.1

Quezon 590 28.6 22.6 35.4 13.5

Rizal 588 43.7 12.5 27.1 16.8

64





Region / Province n


Food

Secure

Mildly Food

Insecure

Moderately

Food

Insecure

Severely

Food

Insecure

IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558

Marinduque 162 21.0 23.5 39.5 16.1

Occidental Mindoro 245 20.6 14.2 38.4 26.8

Oriental Mindoro 479 37.8 14.5 28.4 19.3

Palawan 457 23.8 11.7 34.7 29.8

Romblon 215 20.4 11.2 47.9 20.5

V. Bicol 2,197

Albay 514 24.6 11.4 45.4 18.6

Camarines Norte 201 28.1 16.4 42.6 13.0

Camarines Sur 689 27.3 14.2 41.8 16.8

Catanduanes 107 26.2 16.8 43.9 13.1

Masbate 321 20.0 16.8 47.0 16.2

Sorsogon 365 19.8 15.6 48.0 16.7

VI. Western Visayas 2,512

Aklan 157 48.0 6.5 27.6 17.9

Antique 194 30.8 17.9 38.5 12.8

Capiz 287 24.4 13.8 38.0 23.8

Iloilo 803 34.9 18.2 33.6 13.2

Negros Occidental 1,009 32.0 13.4 37.8 16.9

Guimaras 62 30.7 8.1 32.3 29.0

VII. Central Visayas 2,536

Bohol 495 31.2 20.6 35.2 13.1

Cebu 1,502 42.0 13.0 32.1 12.9

Negros Oriental 492 31.6 15.2 39.0 14.2

Siquijor 47 25.5 25.5 38.3 10.6

VIII. Eastern Visayas 2,028

Eastern Samar 214 14.1 6.0 43.4 36.6

Leyte 905 22.4 13.6 43.8 20.3

Northern Samar 256 16.3 12.9 46.2 24.7

Western Samar 350 14.0 12.0 40.4 33.6

Southern Leyte 204 20.6 11.8 50.3 17.3

Biliran 99 22.3 12.2 28.2 37.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula6 1,447

Zamboanga del Norte 488 13.7 15.1 42.9 28.3

Zamboanga del Sur 707 23.9 11.3 43.7 21.1

Zamboanga Sibugay 219 31.0 9.2 37.4 22.4

65





Region / Province n


Food

Secure

Mildly Food

Insecure

Moderately

Food

Insecure

Severely

Food

Insecure

X. Northern Mindanao 1,730

Bukidnon 455 19.2 10.2 45.9 24.7

Camiguin 59 23.7 8.5 50.9 17.0

Lanao del Norte 360 26.3 9.5 36.6 27.6

Misamis Occidental 282 23.5 10.9 45.7 19.9

Misamis Oriental 574 23.8 13.1 40.2 22.9

XI. Davao 1,816

Davao del Norte 345 29.9 13.4 38.5 18.3

Davao del Sur 979 31.6 13.3 36.7 18.4

Davao Oriental 231 15.7 9.9 46.5 27.9

Compostela Valley 261 16.2 9.8 48.9 25.1

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN7 1,773

North Cotabato 503 18.0 11.7 40.5 29.9

South Cotabato 693 28.6 12.4 39.1 19.9

Sultan Kudarat 295 25.0 13.7 34.0 27.4

Sarangani 220 22.8 6.7 39.1 31.4

ARMM8 1,084

Basilan9 135 19.5 8.3 39.0 33.2

Lanao del Sur 319 9.2 10.8 31.0 49.1

Maguindanao 377 15.0 5.6 37.7 41.8

Sulu 154 2.7 3.9 41.4 52.1

Tawi-Tawi 132 9.0 7.5 42.5 41.0

Caraga 1,570

Agusan del Norte 443 25.9 12.5 48.3 13.3

Agusan del Sur 376 19.6 10.1 46.3 24.1

Surigao del Norte 346 25.4 14.2 45.7 14.8

Surigao del Sur 405 21.9 13.4 47.2 17.5










66




FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE PER QUESTION (HFIAS) ACROSS PROVINCES AND REGIONS

Appendix 20. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience worrying about food and

province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,

sometimes Yes, often

Philippines 35,635 36.5 21.7 25.5 16.4

NCR5 3,448 51.1 16.2 21.8 10.9

District I 561 42.6 14.5 28.1 14.9

District II 1,121 50.1 14.7 22.8 12.5

District IIII 797 49.9 16.2 21.9 12.1

District IV 969 57.6 18.9 17.3 6.3

CAR 1,466 44.2 27.1 18.5 10.2

Abra 247 25.9 25.1 24.2 24.8

Benguet 625 47.5 29.3 15.3 7.9

Ifugao 145 53.7 21.7 17.9 6.6

Kalinga 181 34.3 36.1 21.8 7.8


Apayao 111 50.7 22.4 19.8 7.2

I. Ilocos 2,212 31.5 29.3 25.7 13.5

Ilocos Norte 291 36.8 29.6 23.0 10.7

Ilocos Sur 323 34.7 32.2 23.2 9.9

La Union 347 30.8 26.2 25.5 17.6

Pangasinan 1,251 29.7 29.4 27.0 13.9


Cagayan 657 44.7 25.5 21.7 8.1

Isabela 863 37.3 29.0 22.4 11.4

Nueva Vizcaya 221 37.9 23.6 30.5 8.0

Quirino 105 27.5 38.4 19.9 14.2


Bataan 201 47.9 21.5 20.2 10.4

Bulacan 837 42.6 23.6 20.7 13.0

Nueva Ecija 615 32.7 24.4 28.9 13.9

Pampanga 657 46.7 27.3 15.4 10.6

Tarlac 396 29.8 17.7 25.3 27.3

Zambales 202 30.7 37.6 16.4 15.3

Aurora 56 39.3 14.3 32.1 14.3

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 45.5 24.1 20.7 9.8

Batangas 713 44.1 22.5 22.4 10.9

Cavite 817 49.0 22.4 18.4 10.2

Laguna 740 49.0 21.1 20.1 9.8

Quezon 590 37.4 32.1 24.9 5.5

Rizal 588 45.0 24.6 18.7 11.6

67





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 32.4 20.7 26.8 20.0

Marinduque 162 37.7 30.2 19.8 12.4



Palawan 457 27.6 24.9 29.6 18.0

Romblon 215 27.3 19.6 27.5 25.5

V. Bicol 2,197 29.2 18.6 29.0 23.2

Albay 514 29.5 19.4 31.3 19.8

Camarines Norte 201 32.5 20.7 27.0 19.7

Camarines Sur 689 31.9 17.1 29.3 21.8

Catanduanes 107 38.4 22.4 23.4 15.9

Masbate 321 26.2 16.2 30.8 26.7

Sorsogon 365 21.6 20.4 26.3 31.7


Aklan 157 41.6 19.8 21.1 17.5

Antique 194 24.0 42.1 25.7 8.2

Capiz 287 22.5 28.3 28.3 20.9

Iloilo 803 29.6 28.4 26.7 15.2


Guimaras 62 43.6 8.1 30.7 17.7


Bohol 495 30.9 26.7 29.2 13.2

Cebu 1,502 41.2 20.0 23.2 15.6

Negros Oriental 492 30.9 24.0 25.9 19.3

Siquijor 47 34.0 29.8 31.9 4.3


Eastern Samar 214 20.4 15.9 29.8 33.9

Leyte 905 27.3 20.2 27.9 24.7

Northern Samar 256 25.3 19.7 29.0 26.0

Western Samar 350 18.0 21.6 30.6 29.9

Southern Leyte 204 25.8 11.5 35.0 27.8

Biliran 99 28.3 26.3 27.1 18.2

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula6 1,447 25.3 14.7 33.4 26.7




68





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 26.1 18.1 31.7 24.1

Camiguin 59 28.8 22.0 28.8 20.3

Lanao del Norte 360 28.4 18.2 24.9 28.5



XI. Davao 1,816 29.4 19.3 31.9 19.4

Davao del Norte 345 32.6 26.9 30.8 9.8

Davao del Sur 979 33.4 18.3 27.8 20.5

Davao Oriental 231 18.6 15.5 49.5 16.3


XII. SOCCSKSARGEN7 1,773 27.1 21.1 31.2 20.6

North Cotabato 503 24.0 12.4 37.2 26.4

South Cotabato 693 31.4 21.6 27.4 19.6

Sultan Kudarat 295 25.3 33.6 24.6 16.5

Sarangani 220 22.4 25.5 36.9 15.2

ARMM8 1,084 14.7 26.6 34.0 24.7

Basilan9 135 21.0 39.1 19.4 20.4

Lanao del Sur 319 10.4 11.4 35.3 42.9

Maguindanao 377 19.3 21.0 39.2 20.5

Sulu 154 8.2 41.9 35.6 14.3

Tawi-Tawi 132 11.3 39.9 26.6 22.2

Caraga 1,570 28.1 15.1 30.9 26.0

Agusan del Norte 443 32.3 14.1 29.4 24.2

Agusan del Sur 376 25.9 16.9 34.0 23.2


Surigao del Sur 405 23.1 16.9 33.3 26.7










69




Appendix 21. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of not having to eat

preferred foods and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 39.7 21.7 25.3 13.3

NCR5 3,448 56.4 16.7 19.0 7.9

District I 561 53.0 18.1 21.1 7.9

District II 1,121 55.3 14.7 21.1 8.9

District IIII 797 55.9 16.1 19.6 8.4

District IV 969 59.9 19.0 15.0 6.1

CAR 1,466 46.2 23.5 21.1 9.2

Abra 247 28.0 22.3 30.7 19.1

Benguet 625 51.2 22.9 16.9 9.0

Ifugao 145 62.0 17.7 17.0 3.3

Kalinga 181 34.0 27.9 28.0 10.1


Apayao 111 48.9 26.0 21.6 3.6

I. Ilocos 2,212 32.0 28.8 28.7 10.5

Ilocos Norte 291 35.0 30.6 25.1 9.2

Ilocos Sur 323 35.0 31.3 27.2 6.5

La Union 347 32.0 25.4 28.9 13.8

Pangasinan 1,251 30.5 28.8 29.9 10.8


Cagayan 657 47.7 24.7 20.1 7.5

Isabela 863 41.2 25.6 22.7 10.5

Nueva Vizcaya 221 44.8 21.9 23.9 9.5

Quirino 105 30.7 32.5 25.6 11.3


Bataan 201 50.4 22.3 20.9 6.4

Bulacan 837 41.7 27.0 20.4 11.0

Nueva Ecija 615 35.5 28.4 26.0 10.2

Pampanga 657 48.1 27 18.0 6.8

Tarlac 396 32.3 14.1 31.3 22.2

Zambales 202 30.2 40.6 16.4 12.8

Aurora 56 50.0 23.2 17.9 8.9

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 49.4 23.2 19.6 7.8

Batangas 713 50.5 18.9 21.3 9.4

Cavite 817 53.4 21.4 17.5 7.7

Laguna 740 53.7 20.4 17.6 8.3

Quezon 590 38.1 34.0 23.2 4.7

Rizal 588 48.0 23.7 19.8 8.6

70





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 32.8 20.5 29.2 17.5

Marinduque 162 34.6 25.9 27.2 12.4



Palawan 457 28.5 23.4 30.9 17.2

Romblon 215 25.0 17.3 35.4 22.3

V. Bicol 2,197 31.5 18.6 30.7 19.3

Albay 514 30.5 21.4 31.0 17.2

Camarines Norte 201 36.5 21.3 26.6 15.6

Camarines Sur 689 35.0 17.8 27.3 20.0

Catanduanes 107 33.6 17.8 32.7 15.9

Masbate 321 30.9 14.6 37.7 16.7

Sorsogon 365 23.4 18.1 32.3 26.2


Aklan 157 53.8 23.7 15.4 7.1

Antique 194 34.9 40.4 17.5 7.2

Capiz 287 33.6 30.7 18.3 17.5

Iloilo 803 43.4 25.4 19.7 11.5


Guimaras 62 38.7 21.0 21.0 19.4


Bohol 495 37.1 25.2 25.8 11.9

Cebu 1,502 46.0 19.5 21.9 12.5

Negros Oriental 492 36.7 23.5 23.4 16.4

Siquijor 47 29.8 29.8 31.9 8.5


Eastern Samar 214 18.3 8.8 30.5 42.4

Leyte 905 27.1 21.0 32.3 19.6

Northern Samar 256 21.0 23.8 31.9 23.2

Western Samar 350 21.3 23.6 31.8 23.4

Southern Leyte 204 25.0 15.3 34.8 24.9

Biliran 99 27.3 26.3 24.3 22.2





71





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 22.9 19.1 39.1 18.9

Camiguin 59 27.1 20.3 30.5 22.0

Lanao del Norte 360 28.2 18.4 29.9 23.5



XI. Davao 1,816 33.2 17.6 34.4 14.8

Davao del Norte 345 37.0 25.9 29.7 7.5

Davao del Sur 979 38.0 17.3 30.8 13.9

Davao Oriental 231 18.6 11.3 51.7 18.5



North Cotabato 503 25.0 14.1 36.8 24.2

South Cotabato 693 33.9 22.2 28.3 15.6

Sultan Kudarat 295 28.4 30.1 29.8 11.8

Sarangani 220 26.8 22.5 37.5 13.2

ARMM8 1,084 16.0 27.2 35.9 21.0

Basilan9 135 21.4 43.0 17.9 17.7

Lanao del Sur 319 13.1 14.5 36.2 36.2

Maguindanao 377 20.7 19.9 38.9 20.5

Sulu 154 7.5 37.1 42.9 12.6

Tawi-Tawi 132 12.7 42.3 32.0 13.0

Caraga 1,570 28.6 16.5 33.8 21.0

Agusan del Norte 443 31.6 15.5 34.7 18.3

Agusan del Sur 376 24.9 15.7 35.0 24.3


Surigao del Sur 405 27.6 20.0 35.8 16.6










72




Appendix 22. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having to eat just a few

kinds of foods and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 45.7 19.9 23.4 10.9

NCR5 3,448 62.4 14.8 16.9 6.0

District I 561 64.8 13.3 14.8 7.0

District II 1,121 60.7 14.4 18.5 6.5

District IIII 797 60.2 14.3 18.7 6.8

District IV 969 64.7 16.3 14.6 4.4

CAR 1,466 52.6 21.8 18.7 7.0

Abra 247 33.6 26.3 26.7 13.4

Benguet 625 59.9 18.4 15.5 6.1

Ifugao 145 64.8 18.7 15.2 1.3

Kalinga 181 39.0 28.0 22.3 10.7


Apayao 111 51.6 25.9 18.9 3.6

I. Ilocos 2,212 39.9 28.0 24.6 7.6

Ilocos Norte 291 44.1 27.5 22.0 6.5

Ilocos Sur 323 45.5 26.3 20.7 7.4

La Union 347 42.9 24.5 23.7 8.9

Pangasinan 1,251 36.8 29.4 26.4 7.5


Cagayan 657 54.6 22.3 17.8 5.3

Isabela 863 47.7 23.2 21.5 7.6

Nueva Vizcaya 221 54.9 20.4 17.9 6.8

Quirino 105 34.4 34.3 20.8 10.5


Bataan 201 64.8 16.4 14.9 4.0

Bulacan 837 50.4 22.9 18.3 8.5

Nueva Ecija 615 38.0 24.9 27.6 9.6

Pampanga 657 61.2 18.2 13.7 6.9

Tarlac 396 41.6 16.9 24.5 16.9

Zambales 202 47.1 27.2 13.9 11.8

Aurora 56 62.5 12.5 19.6 5.4

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 55.6 20.9 17.1 6.3

Batangas 713 56.7 18.0 16.7 8.7

Cavite 817 58.4 20.9 15.2 5.5

Laguna 740 57.8 18.7 16.3 7.3

Quezon 590 48.2 28.9 20.3 2.6

Rizal 588 54.8 19.7 18.5 7.1

73





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 38.4 20.2 26.4 14.9

Marinduque 162 34.6 31.5 19.8 14.2



Palawan 457 32.7 21.9 30.3 15.2

Romblon 215 33.5 17.3 32.0 17.2

V. Bicol 2,197 36.9 18.1 29.6 15.4

Albay 514 35.9 18.6 30.5 15.0

Camarines Norte 201 44.6 19.2 23.0 13.2

Camarines Sur 689 37.9 18.0 28.9 15.1

Catanduanes 107 44.9 8.4 33.7 13.1

Masbate 321 35.3 16.5 35.8 12.4

Sorsogon 365 31.3 21.2 26.9 20.7


Aklan 157 56.4 17.2 19.3 7.1

Antique 194 41.1 37.8 15.5 5.7

Capiz 287 36.0 28.7 21.7 13.6

Iloilo 803 49.7 22.9 18.5 8.9


Guimaras 62 40.3 17.7 22.6 19.4


Bohol 495 47.1 19.0 23.8 10.1

Cebu 1,502 50.5 17.6 20.9 11.0

Negros Oriental 492 41.9 19.4 24.4 14.3

Siquijor 47 46.8 21.3 25.5 6.4


Eastern Samar 214 21.5 13.5 31.1 33.9

Leyte 905 32.8 19.4 30.6 17.2

Northern Samar 256 24.8 23.9 31.3 20.1

Western Samar 350 24.8 25.7 33.2 16.4

Southern Leyte 204 30.8 13.8 34.5 20.9

Biliran 99 30.3 22.3 34.3 13.2





74





Region / Province n


No Yes,

rare

Yes,



Bukidnon 455 27.8 20.6 37.8 13.9

Camiguin 59 28.8 18.6 33.9 18.6

Lanao del Norte 360 32.2 16.1 31.9 19.9



XI. Davao 1,816 37.9 17.5 32.0 12.6

Davao del Norte 345 39.2 28.1 26.3 6.4

Davao del Sur 979 43.6 16.0 28.6 11.8

Davao Oriental 231 22.8 14.7 48.2 14.3



North Cotabato 503 29.7 13.1 36.6 20.5

South Cotabato 693 38.7 20.9 28.1 12.3

Sultan Kudarat 295 32.9 28.9 28.7 9.5

Sarangani 220 30.3 20.3 37.4 12.0

ARMM8 1,084 19.0 29.9 31.3 19.8

Basilan9 135 27.8 43.7 11.6 16.9

Lanao del Sur 319 18.1 17.0 33.0 31.9

Maguindanao 377 21.8 21.3 36.4 20.6

Sulu 154 6.0 47.1 35.0 11.9

Tawi-Tawi 132 16.5 41.5 27.5 14.5

Caraga 1,570 33.7 16.8 31.5 18.0

Agusan del Norte 443 38.5 13.4 32.9 15.2

Agusan del Sur 376 29.5 17.1 31.4 22.0


Surigao del Sur 405 30.3 20.7 33.0 15.9










75




Appendix 23. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having to eat foods

they really do not want to eat and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 52.5 18.9 20.3 8.4

NCR5 3,448 69.8 12.5 13.1 4.7

District I 561 72.3 9.0 13.3 5.4

District II 1,121 66.9 13.8 14.5 4.9

District IIII 797 66.6 14.0 13.7 5.8

District IV 969 74.4 11.5 10.7 3.4

CAR 1,466 62.7 18.7 14.1 4.5

Abra 247 42.4 25.6 23.0 9.0

Benguet 625 71.0 13.8 11.1 4.1

Ifugao 145 74.4 13.8 10.5 1.3

Kalinga 181 55.6 28.8 12.8 2.8


Apayao 111 58.8 18.8 18.9 3.6

I. Ilocos 2,212 48.9 25.0 20.5 5.5

Ilocos Norte 291 55.2 23.6 18.2 3.1

Ilocos Sur 323 51.7 25.1 19.5 3.7

La Union 347 53.3 22.8 17.1 6.9

Pangasinan 1,251 45.6 26.0 22.3 6.2


Cagayan 657 57.9 22.0 15.7 4.4

Isabela 863 53.7 21.7 19.1 5.5

Nueva Vizcaya 221 62.3 16.3 17.1 4.4

Quirino 105 42.2 29.4 20.8 7.6


Bataan 201 69.3 12.4 13.4 4.9

Bulacan 837 53.2 22.2 16.6 7.9

Nueva Ecija 615 45.6 21.7 25.8 6.9

Pampanga 657 62.8 18.5 13.1 5.6

Tarlac 396 44.2 15.5 26.0 14.4

Zambales 202 58.4 21.9 10.0 9.8

Aurora 56 69.6 12.5 10.7 7.1

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 60.9 19.3 15.1 4.7

Batangas 713 63.5 15.3 14.9 6.3

Cavite 817 63.4 18.6 13.6 4.4

Laguna 740 61.6 16.6 16.1 5.7

Quezon 590 54.6 26.3 16.6 2.5

Rizal 588 59.5 21.8 14.7 4.0

76





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 46.2 18.9 23.2 11.7

Marinduque 162 45.7 24.7 21.0 8.6



Palawan 457 39.4 22.1 26.8 11.7

Romblon 215 44.7 13.5 28.3 13.4

V. Bicol 2,197 43.6 18.7 25.8 11.9

Albay 514 42.1 17.6 27.0 13.3

Camarines Norte 201 48.0 17.7 24.9 9.5

Camarines Sur 689 47.1 18.6 23.1 11.3

Catanduanes 107 44.9 15.9 26.2 13.1

Masbate 321 40.3 20.5 29.9 9.3

Sorsogon 365 39.1 20.1 26.3 14.5


Aklan 157 66.7 14.1 14.7 4.5

Antique 194 55.4 26.5 15.0 3.1

Capiz 287 44.0 28.3 19.0 8.7

Iloilo 803 58.2 21.7 15.1 5.0


Guimaras 62 45.2 17.7 24.2 12.9


Bohol 495 53.02 20.23 20.99 5.76

Cebu 1,502 56.80 17.96 16.31 8.93

Negros Oriental 492 48.80 19.33 21.53 10.34

Siquijor 47 55.32 14.89 19.15 10.64


Eastern Samar 214 27.3 9.7 32.0 31.2

Leyte 905 40.1 19.6 28.9 11.5

Northern Samar 256 30.7 20.3 30.4 18.6

Western Samar 350 31.6 23.3 31.1 14.0

Southern Leyte 204 33.3 15.0 35.4 16.3

Biliran 99 44.5 20.2 22.2 13.2





77





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 36.6 19.5 33.3 10.6

Camiguin 59 35.6 27.1 30.5 6.8

Lanao del Norte 360 39.7 17.4 28.8 14.2



XI. Davao 1,816 46.9 15.4 28.5 9.2

Davao del Norte 345 50.5 22.1 21.6 5.8

Davao del Sur 979 51.4 14.6 25.6 8.4

Davao Oriental 231 36.4 12.1 40.8 10.7



North Cotabato 503 39.5 14.1 31.0 15.5

South Cotabato 693 46.7 21.3 22.4 9.6

Sultan Kudarat 295 39.3 30.7 23.7 6.3

Sarangani 220 40.0 19.2 30.6 10.2

ARMM8 1,084 24.0 31.1 29.2 15.8

Basilan9 135 26.2 42.2 15.3 16.3

Lanao del Sur 319 25.9 18.4 29.3 26.4

Maguindanao 377 29.0 22.1 34.3 14.5

Sulu 154 7.3 52.5 27.2 13.1

Tawi-Tawi 132 18.8 43.1 27.3 10.8

Caraga 1,570 38.9 16.8 31.1 13.2

Agusan del Norte 443 42.0 14.0 31.8 12.2

Agusan del Sur 376 32.6 15.2 35.2 17.0


Surigao del Sur 405 39.9 21.4 29.2 9.5










78




Appendix 24. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having to eat smaller

meal and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 57.0 17.7 18.1 7.2

NCR5 3,448 73.8 11.6 10.3 4.4

District I 561 80.0 6.2 8.9 4.9

District II 1,121 70.9 12.3 11.7 5.1

District IIII 797 70.0 13.8 10.9 5.3

District IV 969 76.9 11.8 8.8 2.6

CAR 1,466 68.5 17.3 10.6 3.6

Abra 247 44.5 27.5 20.2 7.8

Benguet 625 76.6 13.1 7.7 2.7

Ifugao 145 79.9 9.7 9.8 0.7

Kalinga 181 63.4 24.7 8.1 3.9


Apayao 111 65.9 17.9 14.4 1.8

I. Ilocos 2,212 51.8 24.5 18.8 4.9

Ilocos Norte 291 58.8 22.7 16.5 2.0

Ilocos Sur 323 57.6 23.2 14.9 4.3

La Union 347 52.4 22.5 19.1 6.1

Pangasinan 1,251 48.6 25.8 20.3 5.3


Cagayan 657 61.1 20.6 14.5 3.8

Isabela 863 61.0 18.9 15.7 4.5

Nueva Vizcaya 221 66.2 13.6 14.3 5.9

Quirino 105 53.2 24.8 19.1 2.9


Bataan 201 72.8 12.4 10.4 4.5

Bulacan 837 61.1 18.5 15.0 5.4

Nueva Ecija 615 49.4 24.4 20.8 5.4

Pampanga 657 75.9 11.2 10.5 2.4

Tarlac 396 50.7 15.2 24.2 9.9

Zambales 202 70.3 17.4 6.9 5.4

Aurora 56 71.4 12.5 12.5 3.6

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 66.0 18.0 12.2 3.9

Batangas 713 69.9 14.5 10.5 5.1

Cavite 817 68.0 17.1 11.8 3.1

Laguna 740 68.7 13.2 13.5 4.6

Quezon 590 59.9 26.2 11.8 2.2

Rizal 588 61.2 21.2 13.2 4.4

79





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 50.4 17.7 21.8 10.1

Marinduque 162 58.0 19.1 17.3 5.6



Palawan 457 42.9 19.2 25.6 12.3

Romblon 215 40.8 19.1 29.3 10.7

V. Bicol 2,197 51.5 16.7 22.7 9.1

Albay 514 49.8 17.1 23.4 9.8

Camarines Norte 201 57.4 15.7 19.9 7.0

Camarines Sur 689 52.0 16.6 22.5 9.0

Catanduanes 107 58.0 14.9 17.7 9.4

Masbate 321 53.3 14.3 26.2 6.3

Sorsogon 365 46.5 19.6 22.2 11.7


Aklan 157 54.5 19.1 16.6 9.8

Antique 194 53.4 29.6 14.0 3.1

Capiz 287 47.9 28.0 17.6 6.5

Iloilo 803 59.4 20.7 14.0 5.9


Guimaras 62 50.0 22.6 11.3 16.1


Bohol 495 59.3 19.2 16.0 5.6

Cebu 1,502 59.9 16.7 15.1 8.3

Negros Oriental 492 52.9 18.1 18.7 10.3

Siquijor 47 61.7 17.0 19.2 2.1


Eastern Samar 214 29.5 11.1 32.1 27.3

Leyte 905 44.9 17.4 29.1 8.7

Northern Samar 256 38.1 23.9 25.4 12.6

Western Samar 350 37.2 23.9 26.1 12.8

Southern Leyte 204 40.2 12.3 36.2 11.4

Biliran 99 44.6 21.2 25.1 9.1





80





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 38.7 22.7 29.0 9.7

Camiguin 59 40.7 22.0 28.8 8.5

Lanao del Norte 360 41.3 16.4 28.0 14.4



XI. Davao 1,816 48.7 16.3 26.3 8.7

Davao del Norte 345 54.6 19.9 20.0 5.5

Davao del Sur 979 53.5 15.8 23.3 7.4

Davao Oriental 231 34.5 15.7 39.6 10.2



North Cotabato 503 38.1 16.3 30.6 15.0

South Cotabato 693 49.7 20.3 22.7 7.3

Sultan Kudarat 295 45.6 29.7 21.7 3.1

Sarangani 220 40.6 20.7 31.6 7.1

ARMM8 1,084 23.1 28.7 32.2 15.9

Basilan9 135 29.7 43.2 10.9 16.3

Lanao del Sur 319 23.3 13.7 36.6 26.4

Maguindanao 377 27.1 19.2 37.8 16.0

Sulu 154 7.7 54.3 26.1 11.9

Tawi-Tawi 132 19.6 40.8 30.4 9.2

Caraga 1,570 46.6 16.2 28.0 9.3

Agusan del Norte 443 50.6 14.1 27.6 7.8

Agusan del Sur 376 39.0 15.0 34.7 11.3


Surigao del Sur 405 46.1 17.7 26.4 9.8










81




Appendix 25. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having to eat fewer

meals in a day and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 78.0 11.3 7.9 2.8

NCR5 3,448 87.5 6.0 4.7 1.8

District I 561 89.7 3.0 5.0 2.3

District II 1,121 86.1 6.6 5.1 2.2

District IIII 797 88.0 6.6 4.3 1.2

District IV 969 87.9 6.5 4.3 1.3

CAR 1,466 87.8 8.3 3.1 0.8

Abra 247 74.9 19.0 4.9 1.2

Benguet 625 93.2 4.4 1.8 0.6

Ifugao 145 96.1 1.3 2.6 0.0

Kalinga 181 82.6 11.4 4.3 1.7


Apayao 111 80.2 16.2 2.7 0.9

I. Ilocos 2,212 77.9 14.1 6.2 1.8

Ilocos Norte 291 86.0 9.2 4.1 0.7

Ilocos Sur 323 84.5 11.8 2.8 0.9

La Union 347 79.6 13.1 5.9 1.4

Pangasinan 1,251 73.9 16.1 7.6 2.4


Cagayan 657 81.7 12.2 5.0 1.1

Isabela 863 81.9 10.7 5.6 1.8

Nueva Vizcaya 221 90.2 4.5 4.0 1.3

Quirino 105 71.1 20.2 5.8 2.9


Bataan 201 87.3 6.9 3.9 2.0

Bulacan 837 78.0 10.4 8.7 2.9

Nueva Ecija 615 75.0 11.7 11.6 1.8

Pampanga 657 88.2 7.2 3.8 0.9

Tarlac 396 71.7 13.7 11.3 3.3

Zambales 202 81.7 10.9 5.0 2.5

Aurora 56 85.7 8.9 1.8 3.6

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 81.5 10.3 6.0 2.2

Batangas 713 84.7 8.6 5.2 1.6

Cavite 817 80.0 10.7 7.1 2.2

Laguna 740 82.1 8.1 6.2 3.5

Quezon 590 81.5 11.8 5.8 1.0

Rizal 588 79.5 12.9 5.2 2.5

82





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 72.1 11.6 10.8 5.6

Marinduque 162 85.8 8.6 3.7 1.9



Palawan 457 64.1 14.5 13.7 7.7

Romblon 215 70.7 13.5 9.8 6.1

V. Bicol 2,197 78.0 9.6 9.4 3.1

Albay 514 77.2 11.3 8.3 3.2

Camarines Norte 201 81.0 9.5 7.5 2.0

Camarines Sur 689 78.2 8.2 10.1 3.6

Catanduanes 107 86.9 7.5 3.8 1.9

Masbate 321 73.5 10.8 13.2 2.5

Sorsogon 365 78.2 9.3 8.8 3.8


Aklan 157 79.5 10.3 8.3 2.0

Antique 194 71.4 19.9 7.8 1.0

Capiz 287 66.4 21.6 9.0 3.1

Iloilo 803 78.9 13.6 4.7 2.8


Guimaras 62 71.0 14.5 6.5 8.1


Bohol 495 80.5 12.4 4.9 2.2

Cebu 1,502 83.2 9.5 4.8 2.5

Negros Oriental 492 79.8 11.3 6.7 2.2

Siquijor 47 91.5 0.0 6.4 2.1


Eastern Samar 214 59.7 11.5 15.3 13.5

Leyte 905 73.0 10.8 13.0 3.2

Northern Samar 256 66.7 14.1 11.7 7.5

Western Samar 350 53.6 19.8 18.4 8.2

Southern Leyte 204 75.7 9.4 11.5 3.4

Biliran 99 58.7 19.1 17.2 5.0





83





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 68.7 14.5 14.0 2.8

Camiguin 59 76.3 15.3 8.5 0.0

Lanao del Norte 360 68.9 11.8 12.4 6.9



XI. Davao 1,816 71.2 15.1 10.6 3.1

Davao del Norte 345 70.4 21.2 6.4 2.0

Davao del Sur 979 73.2 14.1 9.9 2.8

Davao Oriental 231 66.2 10.9 17.5 5.5



North Cotabato 503 66.5 15.7 13.2 4.6

South Cotabato 693 70.2 15.2 11.0 3.5

Sultan Kudarat 295 64.0 21.4 13.5 1.0

Sarangani 220 54.7 22.9 19.4 3.1

ARMM8 1,084 41.8 28.3 19.8 10.2

Basilan9 135 68.8 25.4 2.9 2.9

Lanao del Sur 319 41.2 17.5 22.6 18.7

Maguindanao 377 42.8 30.2 19.4 7.7

Sulu 154 29.0 38.4 24.3 8.4

Tawi-Tawi 132 30.3 37.9 25.2 6.7

Caraga 1,570 81.4 7.3 9.5 1.9

Agusan del Norte 443 85.4 5.6 8.1 0.9

Agusan del Sur 376 74.9 10.4 11.5 3.2


Surigao del Sur 405 80.0 6.2 11.9 2.0










84




Appendix 26. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of having no food of any

kind in the household and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


Philippines 35,635 90.0 6.4 2.8 0.8

NCR5 3,448 94.4 3.7 1.2 0.7

District I 561 96.9 1.8 0.7 0.5

District II 1,121 91.5 5.5 1.7 1.3

District IIII 797 95.6 2.3 1.5 0.5

District IV 969 96.0 3.3 0.6 0.2

CAR 1,466 92.0 5.9 1.8 0.3

Abra 247 80.5 16.3 3.2 0.0

Benguet 625 95.1 3.7 1.1 0.2

Ifugao 145 98.7 0.6 0.6 0.0

Kalinga 181 89.7 6.0 2.7 1.7


Apayao 111 89.1 8.2 1.8 0.9

I. Ilocos 2,212 89.3 8.1 1.9 0.6

Ilocos Norte 291 95.9 3.1 1.0 0.0

Ilocos Sur 323 95.7 2.8 1.2 0.3

La Union 347 86.9 9.0 2.9 1.1

Pangasinan 1,251 86.9 10.4 2.0 0.7


Cagayan 657 89.8 7.8 2.0 0.5

Isabela 863 92.0 5.6 1.7 0.7

Nueva Vizcaya 221 94.1 4.1 1.8 0.0

Quirino 105 82.6 11.6 3.9 1.9


Bataan 201 95.6 1.9 2.0 0.5

Bulacan 837 88.4 6.9 3.4 1.3

Nueva Ecija 615 85.2 10.6 3.5 0.7

Pampanga 657 95.0 3.1 1.6 0.3

Tarlac 396 88.1 7.6 3.8 0.5

Zambales 202 95.0 4.5 0.5 0.0

Aurora 56 96.4 1.8 1.8 0.0

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 90.1 6.3 3.0 0.6

Batangas 713 93.1 4.6 1.7 0.6

Cavite 817 88.2 7.0 4.2 0.6

Laguna 740 91.7 4.1 3.2 1.0

Quezon 590 90.5 8.0 1.2 0.3

Rizal 588 87.1 8.4 4.0 0.6

85





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 83.9 8.0 5.8 2.3

Marinduque 162 90.7 4.9 1.9 2.5



Palawan 457 79.3 9.5 8.8 2.4

Romblon 215 85.5 7.5 3.2 3.8

V. Bicol 2,197 91.8 4.8 2.9 0.5

Albay 514 90.1 5.0 4.3 0.6

Camarines Norte 201 94.1 2.9 2.6 0.5

Camarines Sur 689 91.6 5.1 2.6 0.7

Catanduanes 107 94.4 4.7 0.0 0.9

Masbate 321 89.4 7.2 3.1 0.3

Sorsogon 365 94.7 2.8 2.2 0.3


Aklan 157 89.9 7.6 1.9 0.6

Antique 194 90.3 8.1 1.1 0.5

Capiz 287 82.4 15.9 1.4 0.3

Iloilo 803 92.8 6.0 1.3 0.0


Guimaras 62 82.3 12.9 3.2 1.6


Bohol 495 90.0 6.7 2.4 1.0

Cebu 1,502 94.8 3.6 1.2 0.4

Negros Oriental 492 94.1 4.9 1.0 0.0

Siquijor 47 95.7 0.0 4.3 0.0


Eastern Samar 214 86.5 3.2 4.7 5.6

Leyte 905 87.7 7.3 4.1 1.0

Northern Samar 256 84.8 6.2 5.9 3.1

Western Samar 350 80.4 9.9 7.5 2.3

Southern Leyte 204 93.5 3.5 2.5 0.5

Biliran 99 71.8 15.1 12.1 1.0





86





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 82.1 11.9 5.8 0.2

Camiguin 59 94.9 5.1 0.0 0.0

Lanao del Norte 360 85.7 8.2 3.6 2.5



XI. Davao 1,816 88.1 6.6 4.1 1.2

Davao del Norte 345 88.5 7.4 2.6 1.5

Davao del Sur 979 88.3 6.7 4.2 0.9

Davao Oriental 231 83.4 5.7 7.9 3.0



North Cotabato 503 84.4 9.2 4.6 1.7

South Cotabato 693 86.1 8.9 4.0 1.0

Sultan Kudarat 295 77.5 14.6 7.5 0.4

Sarangani 220 81.1 13.9 4.6 0.4

ARMM8 1,084 70.5 19.0 8.2 2.3

Basilan9 135 83.7 14.4 1.8 0.0

Lanao del Sur 319 64.0 16.3 14.1 5.7

Maguindanao 377 72.4 17.6 8.6 1.3

Sulu 154 73.4 23.5 3.2 0.0

Tawi-Tawi 132 68.0 25.8 3.8 2.3

Caraga 1,570 91.9 4.3 3.3 0.5

Agusan del Norte 443 95.1 2.7 2.0 0.2

Agusan del Sur 376 87.9 5.9 5.4 0.8


Surigao del Sur 405 91.3 4.8 3.2 0.7










87




Appendix 27. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of going to sleep hungry

and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes,

rare

Yes,


Philippines 35,635 91.7 5.2 2.4 0.7

NCR5 3,448 95.0 3.0 1.3 0.7

District I 561 96.5 1.8 0.9 0.7

District II 1,121 93.1 4.0 1.4 1.4

District IIII 797 94.7 2.8 2.1 0.4

District IV 969 96.6 2.5 0.8 0.1

CAR 1,466 95.7 3.1 1.0 0.2

Abra 247 90.0 8.4 1.2 0.4

Benguet 625 97.7 1.5 0.6 0.2

Ifugao 145 99.4 0.6 0.0 0.0

Kalinga 181 93.5 3.2 3.3 0.0


Apayao 111 91.9 6.3 0.9 0.9

I. Ilocos 2,212 91.9 6.2 1.7 0.2

Ilocos Norte 291 95.6 3.8 0.7 0.0

Ilocos Sur 323 95.4 3.7 0.9 0.0

La Union 347 92.4 4.4 3.2 0.0

Pangasinan 1,251 90.1 7.8 1.7 0.3


Cagayan 657 92.3 6.2 1.4 0.2

Isabela 863 93.4 5.2 1.3 0.2

Nueva Vizcaya 221 96.0 2.2 1.3 0.4

Quirino 105 90.4 5.8 2.9 0.9


Bataan 201 96.1 2.5 1.0 0.5

Bulacan 837 89.7 6.6 2.8 0.9

Nueva Ecija 615 88.5 8.7 2.4 0.5

Pampanga 657 95.3 2.9 1.2 0.6

Tarlac 396 90.1 6.8 2.3 0.8

Zambales 202 95.0 4.5 0.5 0.0

Aurora 56 94.6 3.6 0.0 1.8

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 91.9 5.2 2.5 0.5

Batangas 713 94.2 4.1 1.7 0.0

Cavite 817 91.0 5.9 2.7 0.4

Laguna 740 92.4 3.6 3.0 1.0

Quezon 590 92.7 6.0 1.0 0.3

Rizal 588 89.2 6.7 3.7 0.4

88





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 87.2 6.7 4.8 1.3

Marinduque 162 93.2 4.3 1.9 0.6



Palawan 457 84.7 8.3 5.5 1.5

Romblon 215 91.6 3.7 2.8 1.9

V. Bicol 2,197 93.7 3.6 2.2 0.6

Albay 514 92.9 4.3 2.0 0.8

Camarines Norte 201 96.5 2.0 1.0 0.5

Camarines Sur 689 93.6 3.0 2.8 0.6

Catanduanes 107 94.4 1.9 2.8 0.9

Masbate 321 92.6 5.2 1.9 0.3

Sorsogon 365 94.0 3.8 1.9 0.3


Aklan 157 98.1 1.3 0.6 0.0

Antique 194 90.8 7.7 0.5 1.0

Capiz 287 90.1 8.6 1.4 0.0

Iloilo 803 95.5 3.5 0.9 0.1


Guimaras 62 90.3 8.1 0.0 1.6


Bohol 495 92.6 4.4 2.2 0.8

Cebu 1,502 95.5 2.6 1.5 0.4

Negros Oriental 492 96.1 3.7 0.2 0.0

Siquijor 47 95.7 4.3 0.0 0.0


Eastern Samar 214 86.8 4.7 5.1 3.3

Leyte 905 89.7 5.3 4.1 1.0

Northern Samar 256 89.5 5.8 4.0 0.8

Western Samar 350 82.4 9.0 7.5 1.1

Southern Leyte 204 93.5 3.0 2.6 1.0

Biliran 99 72.7 15.2 11.1 1.0





89





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 90.7 5.1 4.1 0.2

Camiguin 59 91.5 6.8 1.7 0.0

Lanao del Norte 360 86.5 6.3 4.2 3.0



XI. Davao 1,816 88.4 6.9 4.0 0.7

Davao del Norte 345 87.0 9.4 2.8 0.8

Davao del Sur 979 90.6 5.3 3.8 0.3

Davao Oriental 231 80.6 9.3 8.4 1.7



North Cotabato 503 85.8 7.6 4.1 2.5

South Cotabato 693 87.3 7.4 4.3 1.0

Sultan Kudarat 295 79.3 15.4 5.3 0.0

Sarangani 220 81.8 13.7 4.5 0.0

ARMM8 1,084 72.1 17.3 7.7 2.9

Basilan9 135 89.4 9.2 1.4 0.0

Lanao del Sur 319 64.9 18.0 11.3 5.8

Maguindanao 377 72.9 16.3 8.2 2.6

Sulu 154 67.6 24.2 8.2 0.0

Tawi-Tawi 132 75.6 18.3 3.0 3.0

Caraga 1,570 92.8 4.3 2.7 0.2

Agusan del Norte 443 94.4 3.6 1.8 0.2

Agusan del Sur 376 90.4 6.2 3.5 0.0


Surigao del Sur 405 90.6 4.4 4.3 0.7










90




Appendix 28. Percentage distribution of households by frequency of experience of going a whole day and

night without eating and province: Philippines, 2013

Region / Province n


No Yes,

rare

Yes,


Philippines 35,635 96.1 2.7 0.9 0.3

NCR5 3,448 98.0 1.0 0.5 0.5

District I 561 99.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

District II 1,121 96.5 1.5 0.7 1.3

District IIII 797 98.0 1.1 0.7 0.3

District IV 969 99.2 0.6 0.2 0.0

CAR 1,466 97.3 2.0 0.4 0.2

Abra 247 95.3 3.9 0.8 0.0

Benguet 625 98.5 1.4 0.0 0.2

Ifugao 145 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kalinga 181 94.1 3.8 1.6 0.5


Apayao 111 95.5 3.6 0.0 0.9

I. Ilocos 2,212 97.1 2.5 0.2 0.2

Ilocos Norte 291 99.0 0.7 0.3 0.0

Ilocos Sur 323 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0

La Union 347 95.6 3.8 0.3 0.3

Pangasinan 1,251 96.6 3.0 0.2 0.3


Cagayan 657 96.0 3.6 0.5 0.0

Isabela 863 97.2 2.3 0.5 0.0

Nueva Vizcaya 221 98.7 0.5 0.4 0.4

Quirino 105 91.2 5.9 2.0 0.9


Bataan 201 99.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

Bulacan 837 94.8 3.7 1.3 0.2

Nueva Ecija 615 94.4 4.8 0.9 0.0

Pampanga 657 98.1 1.2 0.4 0.3

Tarlac 396 94.9 4.6 0.5 0.0

Zambales 202 98.5 1.5 0.0 0.0

Aurora 56 98.2 0.0 0.0 1.8

IV-A. CALABARZON 3,448 95.2 3.2 1.3 0.3

Batangas 713 96.6 2.4 0.8 0.1

Cavite 817 94.5 3.9 1.4 0.2

Laguna 740 95.8 1.9 1.7 0.6

Quezon 590 95.9 3.3 0.3 0.5

Rizal 588 93.3 4.4 2.1 0.2

91





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,


IV-B. MIMAROPA 1,558 92.1 4.5 2.6 0.8

Marinduque 162 98.2 0.0 0.6 1.2



Palawan 457 91.0 4.9 3.2 0.9

Romblon 215 94.9 3.7 1.4 0.0

V. Bicol 2,197 97.9 1.5 0.5 0.2

Albay 514 98.0 1.6 0.0 0.4

Camarines Norte 201 98.5 1.0 0.0 0.5

Camarines Sur 689 97.6 1.4 1.0 0.0

Catanduanes 107 99.1 0.9 0.0 0.0

Masbate 321 97.2 2.8 0.0 0.0

Sorsogon 365 98.1 0.8 0.8 0.3


Aklan 157 97.6 2.5 0.0 0.0

Antique 194 94.9 4.1 1.1 0.0

Capiz 287 91.5 7.5 1.0 0.0

Iloilo 803 98.1 1.7 0.3 0.0


Guimaras 62 88.7 9.7 0.0 1.6


Bohol 495 95.4 2.4 1.6 0.6

Cebu 1,502 97.8 1.5 0.6 0.1

Negros Oriental 492 98.6 1.5 0.0 0.0

Siquijor 47 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Eastern Samar 214 95.8 2.8 1.4 0.0

Leyte 905 95.4 2.8 1.4 0.4

Northern Samar 256 94.6 2.7 1.6 1.2

Western Samar 350 89.0 6.7 3.8 0.6

Southern Leyte 204 97.5 1.0 1.0 0.5

Biliran 99 77.8 13.1 8.1 1.0


Zamboanga del Norte 488 99.2 0.8 0 0



92





Region / Province n


No Yes, rare Yes,



Bukidnon 455 96.7 2.1 1.3 0.0

Camiguin 59 98.3 1.7 0.0 0.0

Lanao del Norte 360 95.1 2.5 1.4 1.1



XI. Davao 1,816 95.6 3.2 1.0 0.3

Davao del Norte 345 97.2 2.5 0.3 0.0

Davao del Sur 979 96.9 2.6 0.5 0.1

Davao Oriental 231 87.8 5.8 5.1 1.3



North Cotabato 503 94.0 4.4 0.8 0.8

South Cotabato 693 94.9 3.9 1.3 0.0

Sultan Kudarat 295 88.9 9.1 2.1 0.0

Sarangani 220 96.3 3.2 0.5 0.0

ARMM8 1,084 87.1 9.6 2.4 0.9

Basilan9 135 96.1 2.5 1.4 0.0

Lanao del Sur 319 82.1 11.7 4.1 2.1

Maguindanao 377 88.3 8.6 2.3 0.8

Sulu 154 85.8 13.0 1.2 0.0

Tawi-Tawi 132 89.5 9.0 1.5 0.0

Caraga 1,570 97.7 1.5 0.6 0.2

Agusan del Norte 443 98.4 1.3 0.2 0.0

Agusan del Sur 376 95.4 3.3 1.1 0.3


Surigao del Sur 405 98.0 1.0 0.8 0.3










93




Appendix 29. Mean dietary diversity score of households by wealth quintile and region: Philippines, 2013

Region Wealth

quintile n Mean SE

C.I.

L.L. U.L.

Philippines

Poorest 8,266 8.7 0.0 8.6 8.7

Poor 7,600 9.2 0.0 9.2 9.3

Middle 7,012 9.5 0.0 9.5 9.6

Rich 6,432 9.8 0.0 9.7 9.8

Richest 6,004 10.2 0.0 10.1 10.2

NCR

Poorest 96 9.2 0.2 8.8 9.5

Poor 313 9.5 0.1 9.3 9.7

Middle 578 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.8

Rich 1,033 9.9 0.1 9.8 10.0

Richest 1,401 10.3 0.1 10.2 10.4

CAR

Poorest 291 8.4 0.2 8.0 8.8

Poor 316 9.0 0.2 8.7 9.3

Middle 236 9.4 0.2 9.1 9.7

Rich 261 9.5 0.2 9.2 9.9

Richest 332 10.0 0.2 9.5 10.5

I. Ilocos

Poorest 266 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.3

Poor 510 9.2 0.1 9.0 9.4

Middle 598 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.6

Rich 416 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2

Richest 400 10.5 0.1 10.3 10.7

II. Cagayan Valley

Poorest 282 8.8 0.2 8.5 9.1

Poor 469 9.3 0.2 9.0 9.6

Middle 488 9.8 0.1 9.6 10.0

Rich 347 10.2 0.1 10.0 10.4

Richest 257 10.4 0.1 10.2 10.7

III. Central Luzon

Poorest 145 8.8 0.2 8.5 9.0

Poor 451 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.2

Middle 684 9.3 0.1 9.2 9.4

Rich 841 9.6 0.1 9.5 9.7

Richest 796 10.0 0.1 9.9 10.2

IV-A. CALABARZON

Poorest 269 8.4 0.2 8.1 8.7

Poor 514 8.7 0.1 8.6 8.9

Middle 703 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.2

Rich 914 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.5

Richest 997 9.9 0.1 9.7 10.0

94





Region Wealth

quintile n Mean SE

C.I.

L.L. U.L.

IV-B. MIMAROPA

Poorest 516 8.2 0.2 7.9 8.5

Poor 349 8.9 0.1 8.6 9.1

Middle 325 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5

Rich 224 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.9

Richest 129 10.1 0.1 9.9 10.4

V. Bicol

Poorest 684 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.2

Poor 527 9.6 0.1 9.5 9.8

Middle 503 9.7 0.1 9.6 9.9

Rich 274 10.2 0.1 10.0 10.4

Richest 197 10.4 0.1 10.2 10.6

VI. Western Visayas

Poorest 756 8.8 0.1 8.6 9.0

Poor 706 9.3 0.1 9.2 9.5

Middle 495 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.9

Rich 312 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2

Richest 225 10.3 0.1 10.1 10.5

VII. Central Visayas

Poorest 650 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.3

Poor 610 9.5 0.1 9.3 9.7

Middle 536 9.9 0.1 9.7 10.0

Rich 393 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2

Richest 343 10.2 0.1 10.0 10.4

VIII. Eastern Visayas

Poorest 737 8.5 0.1 8.4 8.7

Poor 541 9.0 0.1 8.8 9.2

Middle 359 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.6

Rich 225 9.8 0.1 9.5 10.0

Richest 170 10.1 0.1 9.8 10.3

IX. Zamboanga Peninsula

Poorest 627 8.7 0.1 8.5 8.9

Poor 325 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5

Middle 205 9.7 0.1 9.5 10.0

Rich 160 10.2 0.1 9.9 10.5

Richest 114 10.2 0.2 9.8 10.5

X. Northern Mindanao Poorest 474 8.6 0.1 8.4 8.9

Poor 454 9.3 0.1 9.0 9.5

Middle 316 9.4 0.2 9.1 9.7

Rich 270 9.9 0.1 9.6 10.1

Richest 180 10.1 0.2 9.8 10.4

95





Region Wealth

quintile n Mean SE

C.I.

L.L. U.L.

XI. Davao

Poorest 554 8.8 0.2 8.5 9.1

Poor 443 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5

Middle 327 9.8 0.1 9.6 10.0

Rich 299 10.1 0.1 10.0 10.3

Richest 183 10.4 0.1 10.2 10.6

XII. SOCCSKSARGEN

Poorest 602 8.5 0.1 8.2 8.8

Poor 449 9.3 0.1 9.1 9.5

Middle 338 9.7 0.1 9.5 9.9

Rich 231 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.2

Richest 136 10.4 0.1 10.2 10.6

ARMM

Poorest 768 7.4 0.2 7.1 7.8

Poor 177 8.7 0.2 8.2 9.1

Middle 80 9.5 0.3 9.0 10.0

Rich 35 9.2 0.4 8.4 10.0

Richest 14 10.1 0.8 8.6 11.6

Caraga

Poorest 549 9.1 0.1 8.9 9.3

Poor 446 9.4 0.1 9.2 9.6

Middle 241 9.8 0.1 9.6 10.0

Rich 197 10.0 0.1 9.8 10.3

Richest 130 10.4 0.1 10.2 10.6

96




97




Appendix 30. Questionnaires

This is owned by FNRI-DOST and cannot be

reproduced without the permission of the owner.

98






99






100






101






102






103






104






105






106






national nutrition survey food security...

Documents