About 2.7 billion people could not afford a healthy diet in 2025, according to the 2026 edition of The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. The United Nations report also estimates that 645 million people faced hunger that year.
Those figures challenge a familiar weakness in nutrition advice: the assumption that everyone can act on the same recommendations if they plan carefully enough. Knowledge matters, but food choices are also shaped by income, prices, transport, storage, time, cooking facilities, safety, culture and what local markets actually sell.
The report does not provide an individual meal plan, and its affordability measure is not a judgement of anyone's shopping. It is a population-level tool for asking whether people have the economic access needed to obtain a basic healthy diet.
Cost and affordability are not the same
The Food and Agriculture Organization distinguishes the cost of a healthy diet from its affordability. Cost is the price of the least expensive locally available combination of foods that meets a defined healthy-diet standard. Affordability compares that cost with people's incomes and the money they need for other essentials.
FAO's 2026 analysis puts the global average cost of a healthy diet at 4.28 purchasing-power-parity dollars per person per day, about 25 per cent higher than five years earlier. Purchasing-power parity is a statistical method that makes prices more comparable between countries. It is not the amount a reader should expect to spend in a local currency.
The measure uses a reference basket across six broad groups: starchy staples; animal-source foods; legumes, nuts and seeds; fruits; vegetables; and oils and fats. It is designed for monitoring economic access, not prescribing exactly what each person should eat. Dietary needs and suitable foods vary with age, health, culture, allergies, availability and other circumstances.
Why nutritious variety can cost more
Staple foods can provide energy relatively cheaply. A varied diet also needs sources of fibre, protein, vitamins, minerals and essential fats. Perishable foods often require refrigeration, careful transport and faster sale. Those costs, together with seasonal supply, market structure and losses between farm and shop, affect prices.
The 2026 report finds substantial differences between regions. In landlocked countries, transport through other countries can add costs. In some places, fruit or vegetables contribute heavily to the healthy-diet basket; elsewhere animal-source foods are the more expensive component. National averages can still hide sharp differences between cities, rural areas and seasons.
Household affordability also depends on income. A food basket can become unaffordable even if its price is stable when rent, energy, transport or healthcare costs rise. This is why telling people to budget better cannot solve a structural gap between income and the cost of basic needs.
What WHO means by a healthy diet
WHO's updated 2026 healthy-diet fact sheet describes four broad principles: adequacy, balance, moderation and diversity. It emphasises that healthy diets can take many forms and should reflect culture, locally available foods and individual circumstances.
That flexibility is important. Healthy eating is not one branded menu or a collection of premium products. Foods such as pulses, grains, frozen vegetables, canned vegetables without excessive sodium, seasonal produce, eggs and locally available protein foods can all contribute, depending on context.
The exact role of any food cannot be judged from a label such as “natural”, “clean” or “superfood”. Nutrition depends on the overall pattern, amount, frequency, preparation, access and the person's needs. Food safety also matters; a diet cannot be considered healthy if storage, water or preparation makes it unsafe.
Practical choices without pretending cost is irrelevant
Individual strategies cannot fix poverty or food systems, but some can reduce friction when choices exist:
- Compare unit prices rather than package prices where labels make this possible
- Consider frozen or canned produce when it is affordable, suitable and easier to store
- Use familiar pulses, grains or other lower-cost staples as part of varied meals
- Plan around foods that are genuinely available rather than an idealised online menu
- Reduce avoidable waste by buying realistic amounts and using perishable foods first
- Check community, school, workplace or public programmes without shame where these are available
These suggestions are options, not tests of discipline. A person may lack a freezer, time, a safe kitchen, predictable income or shops that stock suitable products. Dietary restrictions, disability, illness and cultural or religious needs can also change what is practical.
People with a diagnosed condition, swallowing difficulty, allergy, pregnancy-related need or risk of malnutrition may require individual advice from a suitably qualified professional. A general news article cannot determine those needs.
Why personal responsibility is only part of the picture
FAO's analysis focuses on changes across food systems: production, transport, storage, market information, competition, trade and targeted public investment. These affect which foods reach communities and at what price.
Public policy can also shape school food, social protection, food marketing, labelling and the retail environment. The most effective mix will differ between countries. A single subsidy or information campaign is unlikely to address every barrier.
This does not make personal preference irrelevant. People choose food for taste, identity, celebration, familiarity and convenience as well as nutrition. It means those choices take place inside economic and physical constraints. Respectful guidance starts by asking what is possible before recommending change.
What the headline figure cannot show
The 2.7 billion estimate is modelled from food prices, income distributions and a standardised healthy-diet basket. Like any global indicator, it simplifies a complicated reality.
It cannot show exactly what each household eats, how food is shared, whether someone has cooking equipment or whether local foods are culturally acceptable. It does not measure every hidden cost or the quality and safety of every item. Changes in methods or data coverage can also affect comparisons over time.
The figure is nevertheless useful for a specific purpose: it shows that healthy eating cannot be treated only as an education problem. If diverse, nutritious food is economically out of reach, information alone will not create access.
Key takeaways
- The 2026 UN report estimates that about 2.7 billion people could not afford a healthy diet in 2025
- Cost, income, access, storage and local availability shape food choices alongside knowledge and preference
- Practical nutrition guidance should offer flexible options without blaming individuals for structural barriers
Sources
- FAO: The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026
- FAO: Why affordability matters
- FAO: Statement on understanding and addressing the high cost of a healthy diet
- WHO: Healthy diet fact sheet, 26 January 2026
General information disclaimer: This article provides general food-literacy and public-health information. It does not prescribe a diet or replace advice from a suitably qualified professional for an individual's medical, nutritional or accessibility needs.