Cultural Food Practices, Socioeconomic Status and Food Insecurity among Marachi Smallholder Farmers in Butula Sub-County

Cultural Food Practices, Socioeconomic Status and Food Insecurity among Marachi Smallholder Farmers in Butula Sub-County

Gladys Nangila Hopillo¹, Prof Charity Iruma Irungu¹ & Dr. Precious Joan Wapukha³

¹School of Education and Social Sciences, St Paul’s University, Kenya

³Department of Education, Kibabii University, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000019

Received: 18 August 2025; Accepted: 25 August 2025; Published: 26 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Food insecurity persists as a critical human rights concern, particularly among smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, where established cultural norms and socioeconomic limitations influence household access to sufficient nourishment. This study investigated the mediating effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between cultural food practices and food insecurity among 394 proportionately stratified smallholder farmers from the Marachi community in Butula Sub-County, Kenya. This study was grounded on symbolic interaction theory, social capital theory and capability approach. The resulting data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences using descriptive, Pearson correlation and regression analysis along with Sobel testing and bootstrapping. Correlation analysis results revealed that cultural food practices (r = 0.977, p = 0.000) and socioeconomic status (r = 0.975, p = 0.000) exhibited statistically significant strong positive correlation with food insecurity. Moreover, mediation analysis indicated that cultural food practices significantly predicted socioeconomic status (β = .8600, p < .0001; R² = .9502) and had a substantial direct impact on food insecurity (β = .9676, p < .0001; R² = .9545). In contrast, the direct effect of socioeconomic status on food insecurity was not significant (β = .0093, p = .8704), and the indirect effect of cultural practices through socioeconomic status was minimal. Consequently, cultural food practices rather than socioeconomic status dictated disparities in food insecurity, prompting us to assert that interventions should emphasize culturally attuned nutrition education and fair food distribution methods in conjunction with conventional economic assistance. This study recommends that policymakers collaboratively design community-driven initiatives with local elders to confront restrictive taboos and reinforce beneficial traditions, incorporate credit and market connections consistent with local customs, and undertake longitudinal mixed-methods research on intergenerational changes in cultural food norms, the gendered dynamics of food distribution, and the potential mediating effects of social capital and agricultural extension services.

Key Words: Culture, Cultural Food Practices, socioeconomic status, Food Insecurity, Smallholder Farmers

INTRODUCTION

Food security is recognized as a fundamental human right in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is further supported by global initiatives such as the 1996 World Food Summit and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Despite this, more than 61% of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa continues to experience moderate to severe food insecurity (Macalalad, 2020; Ouko & Odiwuor, 2023). Smallholder farmers, responsible for more than 80% of local food supplies, face significant vulnerabilities stemming from climatic variability, infrastructural deficits, and socio-economic constraints (Jayne et al., 2021; Munyuli et al., 2022).

In rural communities, especially among smallholder farmers, cultural norms frequently determine food consumption patterns, access to food, and allocation within households (Harris-Fry et al., 2018). The influence of socioeconomic status on the outcomes of these cultural practices is significant. Socioeconomic status influences access to resources including income, education, and technology, which in turn affect the capacity to adopt or modify advantageous cultural practices while reducing those that could worsen food insecurity (Pinard et al., 2016; Bukachi et al., 2022). Higher socioeconomic status facilitates access to a wider range of food options, advanced storage technologies, and markets, while lower socioeconomic status may restrict access to these resources and perpetuate detrimental food practices (Cho, 2021). The mediating effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between cultural food practices and food insecurity remains underexplored.

This study sought to examine the role of socioeconomic status in mediating the relationship between cultural food practices and food insecurity among smallholder farmers in Butula Sub-County, with a focus on the Marachi community. The Marachi community’s dependence on subsistence farming and ingrained cultural practices concerning food provision, consumption, and distribution offers a distinctive framework for analyzing the interplay between cultural and socioeconomic factors in food security. Comprehending this dynamic will facilitate the development of culturally sensitive and economically equitable interventions to enhance food security in rural farming communities. This study provides insights that would assist policymakers, development practitioners, and local leaders in designing and implementing food security interventions that honor and utilize Marachi cultural norms while addressing fundamental economic inequities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this study three theories were used. Symbolic interaction theory was used to explain cultural food practices while capability approach was used to explain food insecurity. Social capital theory was used to explain the mediating effect of socioeconomic status. Symbolic Interaction Theory, articulated by Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds (2020), offers a framework for the analysis of social behavior through the examination of daily interactions and the meanings individuals attribute to symbols. The theory, based on the work of Herbert Blumer, George Herbert Mead, and Max Weber, posits that human behavior is shaped by shared meanings, trust, and culturally embedded symbols that emerge through interaction. This study employs theoretical frameworks to analyze food distribution and coping strategies among smallholder farmers in the Marachi ethnic community of Butula sub-county, highlighting that food sharing serves as both a symbolic act and a culturally embedded practice. Practices such as supplying extra food to household heads or sharing within networks rely on trust, reciprocity, and symbolic associations, which influence household resilience to food insecurity. The theory highlights the important function of informal institutions and social networks in accessing resources, especially food, with food banks and community support exemplifying hope and a sense of belonging. Critics argue that symbolic interactionism lacks macro-level analysis, often overlooking power structures, institutional dynamics, and unconscious behaviors (Khan, 2024; Rimban et al., 2023), and does not adequately consider how structural inequalities constrain individual agency. Despite these limitations, the theory remains important for understanding the construction and dissemination of meaning in everyday life, particularly in relation to food insecurity and social assistance practices.

Social capital theory posits that social networks function as a form of capital, similar to physical or human capital, which individuals can utilize to achieve social and economic outcomes (Gannon & Roberts, 2020). The theory, originating from early sociologists like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, was further advanced by Bourdieu (1986), who offered a structured view of social capital as resources accessible through persistent networks, often constrained by power dynamics related to age, class, gender, or race. Coleman defined social capital as embedded in social structures that foster norms and collective actions, while Putnam (1993) emphasized the intangible assets present in associations that enhance reciprocity, trust, and identity (Gannon & Roberts, 2020). Social capital is defined as the intangible resources obtained through social relationships and interactions (Son, 2020; Leddy et al., 2020). Families and voluntary associations play a crucial role in shaping social capital, especially through culturally ingrained norms of sharing, trust, and reciprocity, which contribute to tackling challenges such as food insecurity (Saha, 2021). Social capital theory is subject to criticism due to its conceptual ambiguity and the potential for promoting exclusionary practices or social fragmentation (Gannon & Roberts, 2020; Bartelmay, 2023). This research employed social capital theory to examine the influence of cultural food practices and food distribution patterns on food insecurity among smallholder farmers in the Marachi community of Butula Sub-county, Kenya.

The Capability Approach, developed by Amartya Sen in 1999 and further refined by Martha Nussbaum in 2011, emphasizes individuals’ actual freedoms, referred to as “capabilities,” to transform available resources into desired “functionings” (Robeyns, 2021). The food security framework differentiates between the possession of food (a capability) and the achievement of sufficient nutrition (a functioning). The significance of individual agency, social engagement, and health is highlighted in the transformation of access into meaningful well-being (Ikejiaku, 2024; Robeyns, 2021). This research utilized the Capability Approach to evaluate how household food distribution practices influence the genuine opportunities for nourishment accessible to smallholder farmers. The study analyzed coping strategies as manifestations of agency within resource constraints, recognizing the ongoing challenges in operationalizing and measuring these freedoms and addressing structural limitations (Lim, 2020; Gross & Wilson, 2020).

Culture influences food security by establishing ingrained beliefs and practices that determine acceptable food choices, the order of consumption, and methods of food production, preparation, and storage. Zaino et al. (2022) assert that culture conveys values and norms through generations, influencing community reactions to scarcity. Similarly, Harris-Fry et al. (2018) highlight its significance in shaping moral evaluations regarding food access. UNESCO’s designation of culture as the “fourth pillar” of food security highlights its significance in development; interventions that overlook local perspectives frequently do not succeed (Wiktor-Mach, 2020; Duxbury, Kangas & De Beukelaer, 2019). Alonso et al. (2018) and Bonvillain (2020) examine the imposition of age- and gender-based dietary rules by cultural dictates, while Olum et al. (2017) analyze their effects on availability, access, and utilization. Anthropological research demonstrates that culture serves as the foundation for both formal and informal institutions that enable dialogue and collective action concerning food (Birungi et al., 2023; Saint Ville et al., 2019).

Empirical studies demonstrate the dual influence of culture on food security. Birungi et al. (2019) and Sorato (2024) illustrate that diverse culinary traditions and communal sharing can improve resilience through the promotion of mutual aid and nutrient-rich preservation methods. Taboos and gendered proscriptions, including meat restrictions in religious contexts (Theisen, 2020) and preferential feeding of men (Baudish et al., 2024), restrict dietary diversity and contribute to malnutrition (Eichler, 2021; Vonthron, Perrin & Soulard, 2020). Traditional storage methods, such as Korean kimchi-making and African sun-drying, enhance shelf life and nutrient bioavailability (Cho, 2021; Aworh, 2024). However, the advantages may not be accessible to the most impoverished households if contributions to communal stores are uneven (Morris et al., 2020; Fatema & Kibriya, 2023). Comparative research from Central Appalachia’s adaptive food traditions (Batey et al., 2023) to Kenya’s Marmanet Ward, where shared decision-making mitigates scarcity (Nyambura, Philomena & Susan, 2023) demonstrates that culturally sensitive, locally led interventions are essential for leveraging culture’s protective potential while addressing its limitations.

Empirical studies across various populations consistently show that food insecurity is prevalent and influenced by multiple factors. Owen et al. (2020) reported that more than one-third of college students in the United States faced food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, with economic disruptions, including job loss and housing changes, increasing the likelihood of hardship by two to five times. Pollard and Booth (2019) indicate that 8–20% of households in high-income countries experience food insecurity due to income inequality and inadequate social protection. They note that while food banks provide immediate relief, they do not tackle the underlying structural issues. Pinard et al. (2016) created hunger-coping scales indicating that greater food insecurity is associated with heightened dependence on trade-offs, rationing, and financial strategies. Meanwhile, Godsell et al. (2019) demonstrate intricate relationships between perceived socioeconomic status and eating behaviors. Bukachi et al. (2022) examined informal urban settings in Nairobi and identified that women, despite being the primary food providers, face obstacles in obtaining diverse and nutritious foods, highlighting the interplay between socioeconomic status and gender in influencing nutritional outcomes.

In low- and middle-income contexts, narrative and cross-sectional reviews by Pereira and Oliveira (2020) and Kathuri et al. (2020) highlight that COVID-19 intensified food insecurity due to disrupted supply chains and insufficient policy responses. Additionally, chronic poverty, large household size, and the absence of extension services contribute to ongoing insecurity in Kenya’s ASAL regions. Systematic reviews (Demétrio et al., 2020; Tarasuk et al., 2019) establish connections between social variables; such as race, education, and social assistance, and maternal and household nutritional outcomes. Econometric analyses conducted in Malawi and Ethiopia identify covariate shocks, landholding size, and demographic pressures as significant predictors (Zafar & Zehra, 2022; Awad & Singh, 2018; Feyisa, 2018; Dube et al., 2018). These findings indicate that although economic factors are crucial, psychosocial, demographic, and policy-related determinants and the strategies households employ in response differ significantly by context, emphasizing the necessity for locally tailored, multi-sectoral interventions.

METHODOLOGY

This study utilized a quantitative approach to examine the mediating effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between cultural food practices and food insecurity among smallholder farmers. The study concentrated on a cohort of 24,376 smallholder farmers, from which a sample of 394 respondents was extracted by proportionate stratified random sampling to ensure representation across diverse groupings. Ethical approval was obtained from both St. Paul’s University and NACOSTI, with all participants providing informed consent, so ensuring confidentiality and voluntary participation. The resulting data was analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 27, applying statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and regression analysis. The study employed Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4, the Sobel test, and bootstrapping to assess the mediating effect of socio-economic status.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Reliability of the study results from 361 respondents was checked using Cronbach alpha. Study results revealed that cultural food practices recorded 0.982 for the 13statements while food insecurity recorded 0.975 for the 5 statements.  On the other hand, socioeconomic status recorded 0.932 for the 8 statements. This indicates that the two variables exceeded the 0.700 threshold indicating reliability of the data. A five point Likert ranging from strongly agree (1) and strongly disagree (5) was used.

The results in Table 1 indicate that various cultural practices are regarded as significantly impacting food security. Cultural behaviors around food sharing (mean = 1.862, SD = 1.013), cultural taboos and dietary restrictions (mean = 4.064, SD = 0.826), and choices between cultivating cash crops and food crops (mean = 4.202, SD = 0.934) exhibited significant variation with the majority of the respondents disagreeing with the statement. The low average for food sharing signifies robust consensus that this practice bolsters food security, whereas the high averages for food taboos and crop choices denote substantial dissent. This implies that these activities were perceived unfavorably or as constraints on food access and production.

Moderate concordance was noted in conventional dietary patterns (mean = 2.945, SD = 1.503), cultural norms governing food distribution (mean = 2.767, SD = 1.497), and the impact of festivals and ceremonies on food accessibility (mean = 2.698, SD = 1.449). Respondents conveyed a neutral to somewhat affirmative position about these factors, suggesting that although they are present, they do not exert a predominant or consistent influence across homes. The cultural significance of certain foods (mean = 3.061, SD = 1.502) and traditional food preservation techniques (mean = 3.670, SD = 1.533) were perceived to exert a moderate influence on food security.

Notably, the roles of elders in food allocation (mean = 2.216, SD = 1.264), cultural rituals (mean = 2.072, SD = 1.298), and financial burdens associated with tradition (mean = 2.119, SD = 1.176) garnered comparatively low mean scores, suggesting consensus that these cultural elements influence food security. This indicates that certain cultural norms might have enhanced food security; such as food sharing and traditional preservation, while others, particularly those that restrict access or create disparities such as taboos and prohibitive rituals, could obstruct food availability and equitable distribution within households.

Table 1 Cultural Practices Descriptive Statistics

Moreover, the five-point Likert scale results where 1 signifies strong agreement and 5 indicates strong disagreement, the results in Table 2 reveal that the majority of respondents conveyed disagreement to neutrality over the influence of their household’s socioeconomic status on food insecurity. The statement indicating that their socioeconomic situation facilitated their attempts to diversify crops as a strategy to address food insecurity received the highest mean score of 3.887 (SD = 1.075). This was subsequently accompanied by the conviction that the household’s socioeconomic level enhances the efficacy of food distribution procedures among family members, with a mean of 3.941 (SD = 0.989). The high mean scores indicate that respondents tended to express neutrality or disagreement, suggesting that the majority of households do not view their socioeconomic status as substantially enhancing food diversification or equitable food distribution.

Additional indicators, including the impact of high socioeconomic status on the implementation and efficacy of food storage (mean = 3.792, SD = 1.021), the facilitation of modern post-harvest practices (mean = 3.748, SD = 1.103), or the mediation of the relationship between cultural norms and food security outcomes (mean = 3.828, SD = 1.027), similarly indicate a neutral to slightly disagreeing stance. The results indicate a prevailing belief that, although the potential benefits linked to elevated socioeconomic status, numerous households do not derive substantial advantages from implementing food security techniques such as enhanced storage, post-harvest management, or crop planning.

Moreover, the sole assertion with significant consensus was that the household’s socioeconomic position positively influences communal food sharing, which had a mean of 2.000 (SD = 1.208). This indicates that comparatively affluent households are more inclined to endorse communal initiatives like food sharing, reflecting a dependence on collective coping strategies during periods of food crisis. In conclusion, although socioeconomic status contributes to certain community support networks, its perceived impact on enhancing food security through contemporary practices and strategic food management is still constrained for numerous households.

Table 2 Household Social Economic Status Statistics

Additional results on correlation analysis presented in tale 3 outlines critical food insecurity indicators evaluated using a five-point Likert scale, where 1 signifies strong agreement and 5 denotes strong disagreement. The findings demonstrate that income level significantly affects the sufficiency of food production and distribution among households. The claim that compensation levels influence food distribution efficiency in households, particularly during periods of food scarcity, garnered a low mean score of 1.814 (SD = 0.783), indicating strong agreement among respondents. Similarly, the viewpoint that the sufficiency of food production to satisfy household requirements annually is affected by income level had a mean of 1.862 (SD = 0.858), signifying that income substantially influences food production adequacy.

Participants acknowledged the influence of income level on familial food allocation. The claim that the transparency of the food distribution system among family members is influenced by economic status produced a mean of 1.934 (SD = 0.841), while the assertion that the efficacy of food distribution methods in providing sufficient nourishment for all household members is contingent upon income level yielded a mean of 2.133 (SD = 0.948). The findings demonstrate that income levels influence both food availability and its equal distribution, which are essential determinants of food insecurity.

In contrast, the viewpoint that traditional or cultural standards influence food distribution systems is moderated by financial status, resulting in a mean of 3.100 (SD = 1.221), which suggests a more neutral stance. This suggests that while economic determinants substantially impact real food security, their influence on cultural norms may be relatively diminished. The study highlights that food insecurity is closely associated with income levels, affecting production, distribution, and households’ ability to cope with shortages. Addressing these economic disparities is essential for devising effective food security solutions.

Table 3 Food Insecurity Descriptive Statistics

Further, Table 4 presents the findings of the correlation study investigating the associations between cultural food practices, socioeconomic status, and food insecurity. The research revealed a strong positive association between cultural food habits and socioeconomic position (r = .975, p < 0.01), suggesting that households exhibiting more pronounced cultural food behaviors generally possessed superior socioeconomic conditions. Cultural food behaviors exhibited a strong positive correlation with food insecurity (r = .977, p < 0.01), indicating that these traditions significantly affected household management of food insufficiency. Socioeconomic position exhibited a robust positive link with food insecurity (r = .953, p < 0.01), underscoring the significant influence of economic standing on food security outcomes. All associations were statistically significant at the 0.01 level, underscoring the interrelatedness of cultural, economic, and food security concerns.

Table 4 Correlation Analysis Results

This section investigates the hypothesis (H0₁) that socioeconomic status significantly mediates the link between cultural food practices and food insecurity among smallholder farmers in the Marachi village of Butula, Busia County. The study results are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5 Cultural Practices, Socioeconomic Status and Food Insecurity Interaction

Map of column names to model coefficients:

The findings from the mediation analysis concerning cultural food practices (X), socioeconomic status (M), and food insecurity (Y) are encapsulated in two models. In Model 1, cultural food practices were a significant predictor of socioeconomic status, exhibiting a strong positive coefficient (β = .8600, p < .0001) and accounting for 95.02% of the variance (R² = .9502). This suggests that improvements in cultural food practices correlate with a rise in household socioeconomic status, indicating a significant relationship between cultural behaviors and economic placement of households.

Moreover, model 2 included cultural food patterns and socioeconomic level as predictors of food insecurity. Cultural dietary practices exerted a significant direct influence on food insecurity (β = .9676, p < .0001), but socioeconomic status shown a non-significant impact (β = .0093, p = .8704). The model explained 95.45% of the variance in food insecurity (R² = .9545), emphasizing the preeminent influence of cultural food practices over socioeconomic status in shaping family food insecurity results. The bootstrap confidence intervals reinforced the validity of these estimations, especially concerning cultural customs. The indirect effect of cultural food practices on food insecurity via socioeconomic status was negligible and not statistically significant (effect = .0080, BootLLCI = -0.0637, BootULCI = 0.0980). This indicates that the influence of cultural dietary behaviors on food insecurity was predominantly direct, rather than mediated by socioeconomic level.

The linear equation for direct effect of cultural food practices (X) on food insecurity (Y) can be represented as:

Y = β₀ + β₇CFP + ϵ = −0.1688+0.9676CFP + ϵ

Where:

β₀ = −0.1688 is a constant for food insecurity

Β₁ = 0.9676 is the coefficient for cultural food practices (direct effect) on food insecurity

CFP represents the coefficient for cultural food practices

ϵ represents the error term

The linear equation for the direct effect of cultural food practices (X) on socioeconomic status (M) is as follows:

M = CFP + ϵ = 0.0093SES + 0.9676CFP + ϵ

Where:

a = 0.0093 is the constant for cultural food practices

Direct effect of socioeconomic status (M) on food insecurity (Y)

Y = bSES + c′FDP + ϵ = 0.0093SES + 0.9676CFP + ϵ​

Where:

b = 0.0093 is the effect of socioeconomic status on food insecurity

c′ = 0.9676 is the direct effect of cultural food practices on food insecurity after controlling for socioeconomic status

Indirect effect = a x b = 0.8600 × 0.0093 = 0.0080

Total Effect = c′+ (a × b) = 0.9676+ 0.0080 = 0.9756

Final linear equation on the effect of cultural food practices and socioeconomic status on food insecurity: Y = 0.0093SES + 0.9676CFP + ϵ

On the other hand the linear equation for the total effect of cultural food practices on food insecurity:

Y = 0.9756CFP + ϵ

From the study results, the direct effect of postharvest behavior on socioeconomic status was substantial, evidenced by a coefficient of 0.9755, which suggests that enhancements in postharvest behavior significantly improved socioeconomic status. The analysis indicated that socioeconomic status has a direct effect on food insecurity, evidenced by a coefficient of 0.3211, which implies that increased socioeconomic status correlates with lower levels of food insecurity. Postharvest behavior significantly influenced food insecurity, evidenced by a coefficient of 0.8153, even when accounting for socioeconomic status. The indirect effect was determined by multiplying the effect of postharvest behavior on socioeconomic status (0.9755) by its effect on food insecurity (0.3211), resulting in a value of 0.3132, thereby supporting the role of socioeconomic status as a mediator. The cumulative effect, integrating both direct and indirect influences, was measured at 1.1285, indicating that socioeconomic status and postharvest behavior significantly impacted food insecurity. All coefficients were statistically significant, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis that socioeconomic status had no statistically significant mediating effect on the relationship between cultural food practices and food insecurity among smallholder farmers from the Marachi community from Butula subcounty, Busia County. This confirms that both postharvest behavior and socioeconomic status significantly impact food insecurity.

The study findings highlight the important influence of cultural practices on food security, as these practices establish the beliefs and norms that govern food choices, preparation, and consumption. This is consistent with the findings of Zaino et al. (2022), who argue that culture conveys values and norms through generations, thus affecting community responses to food scarcity. This study illustrates the significant impact of cultural food practices, highlighting how established behaviors can bolster resilience via traditional knowledge related to food storage, preparation, and sharing. Communal sharing and nutrient-rich preservation methods, such as sun-drying in African cultures, enhance food security by prolonging shelf life and improving nutrient bioavailability (Cho, 2021; Aworh, 2024). This study highlights challenges associated with cultural food restrictions, including gendered dietary practices that may restrict access to diverse and nutritious foods, as noted by Theisen (2020) and Baudish et al. (2024). These restrictions lead to food insecurity by limiting dietary diversity and worsening malnutrition, especially among women and vulnerable populations in the community.

This study’s findings support empirical evidence indicating that socioeconomic status serves as a significant mediator in the relationship between cultural practices and food insecurity. Godsell et al. (2019) and Bukachi et al. (2022) illustrate that food insecurity is frequently intensified by socioeconomic inequalities, resulting in substantial obstacles for disadvantaged households in obtaining adequate and nutritious food. The results of this study connect postharvest behaviors and socioeconomic status to food insecurity, indicating that cultural practices influence food management, while economic status is crucial in determining food accessibility and quality. The study emphasizes the necessity of considering cultural and economic factors in the development of interventions, consistent with UNESCO’s advocacy for culturally sensitive solutions (Wiktor-Mach, 2020; Duxbury et al., 2019). The comparative research conducted in Kenya’s Marmanet Ward (Nyambura et al., 2023) indicates that culturally informed, locally led interventions are more effective in alleviating food insecurity by utilizing cultural resilience and promoting economic empowerment. This study emphasizes the necessity of multi-sectoral approaches that take into account cultural values and socioeconomic disparities in addressing food insecurity in rural farming communities.

Conversely, the small indirect effect of socioeconomic status (0.3132) in moderating the connection between postharvest behavior and food insecurity indicates that enhancements in socioeconomic conditions alone are inadequate to provide fair food security outcomes. The restricted mediating effect illustrates the impact of profound structural forces, especially intra-household gender dynamics and power relations, which limit the distributional effect of resources. According to Masamha et al. (2024), patriarchal norms frequently grant males excessive control over household money and agricultural production, thus diminishing women’s authority in food distribution, despite their pivotal role in food preparation and nutrition. Embiyale (2025) emphasizes that these inequities diminish the ability of socioeconomic advancements to result in improved dietary outcomes, especially for women and children. Ali (2024) asserts that decision-making authority and cultural norms around food distribution, particularly the preference for men at meals, undermine the efficacy of socioeconomic benefits. Bealem et al. (2025) also emphasize that unequal access to productive resources, inadequate financial literacy, and institutional barriers further diminish the capacity of socioeconomic resources to alleviate food poverty. These dynamics indicate that although socioeconomic status serves as a mediator, its impact is considerably diminished by entrenched female power structures and cultural disparities that sustain the unequal distribution and consumption of food within homes.

The theoretical implications of these findings are as follows; Symbolic Interactionism Theory and the Capability Approach highlight the intersection of micro-level meaning-making and macro-level freedoms in influencing food security outcomes. The emphasis of Symbolic Interactionism on the daily negotiation of shared symbols, exemplified by the practice of serving household heads first, is essential for comprehending the translation of cultural food practices into tangible coping strategies and resilience (Meltzer et al., 2020). Our findings indicate that the theory has limitations in addressing structural constraints; symbolic norms alone cannot ensure nourishment without the material support of socioeconomic status. The Capability Approach addresses the issue by conceptualizing food access not only in terms of availability (capability) but also as actual well-being (functioning), which is realized through the transformation of resources into nutrition and dignity (Sen, 1999; Robeyns, 2021). The integration of these perspectives indicates a comprehensive theoretical model wherein cultural symbols influence agency and aspirations, social capital offers the relational framework, and capabilities dictate the final attainment of food security.

The findings of the study have significant implications for Social Capital Theory, illustrating that socioeconomic status, defined as the accumulation of intangible resources such as trust, reciprocity, and network support, mediates the impact of cultural food practices on food insecurity. Classical formulations (Bourdieu, 1986; Putnam, 1993) highlight the advantages conferred by embedded networks. However, our findings indicate that in the Marachi context, culturally entrenched norms regarding food sharing and who eats first directly influence differential access to food resources (Gannon & Roberts, 2020). This observation confirms and extends Coleman’s (1990) perspective on social capital as a facilitator of collective action. The significant mediating role of SES underscores a critique of the theory regarding exclusionary dynamics (Bartelmay, 2023): networks that provide capital may also perpetuate gendered and age-based inequities in food distribution. This indicates that scholars of social capital should more explicitly incorporate cultural prescriptions and power relations into resource mobilization models.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that cultural food practices significantly influence food insecurity. Further, cultural practices significantly influenced socioeconomic status. However, socioeconomic status did not exert a significant direct effect on food insecurity, and did not mediate the relationship between cultural practices and food insecurity. The total effect of cultural practices and postharvest behaviors on food insecurity was significant, highlighting their significant influence on both socioeconomic status and food insecurity. The findings indicate that although economic interventions can mitigate food insecurity, cultural factors continue to exert a significant influence, highlighting the need for culturally sensitive solutions.

From the study findings, the following recommendations were made. First, to mitigate food insecurity in Marachi and comparable communities, the implementation of culturally tailored nutrition education is recommended to confront restrictive food taboos and enhance dietary diversity. Also, programs ought to be community-driven, utilizing local leaders and traditional knowledge in conjunction with contemporary nutritional practices. Also an integrated policy approach is essential, merging cultural awareness with agricultural support services to ensure that subsidies, credit, and market linkages are developed with consideration for local norms and practices, particularly those concerning food sharing and distribution.

Future research could investigate the long-term effect of cultural change on food security through longitudinal studies that monitor changes in food practices, especially among younger generations. These studies may provide important insights into the effects of changing cultural norms on socioeconomic outcomes and food security. Further research is necessary to comprehend the gendered dynamics of food decision-making in households. This entails examining the impact of power dynamics, specifically the roles of women in food distribution, on food security results. Future research should focus on identifying additional mediating factors beyond socioeconomic status, including social capital and access to extension services, to elucidate the pathways through which cultural practices affect food insecurity. This will enhance the precision of intervention strategies and ensure their appropriate targeting.

In summary, whereas cultural food practices correlated with improved socioeconomic status, their impact on food insecurity was not mediated by that variable, highlighting the direct significance of cultural norms and behaviors in determining food security conditions.

REFERENCES

1. Ali, M. (2024). The Role of Gender in Shaping Social Dynamics: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Journal for Current Sign, 2(2), 109-118.
2. Alonso, E. B., Cockx, L., & Swinnen, J. (2018). Culture and food security. Global food security, 17, 113-127.
3. Awad, A. (2023). The determinants of food insecurity among developing countries: Are there any differences? Scientific African, 19, e01512.
4. Aworh, O. C. (2024). Traditional dairy, meat and fish products of West Africa. In Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Western Africa(pp. 277-287). Academic Press.
5. Bealem, T. E., Ferguson, N., Thomas, T. S., Zerfu, T. A., & Bryan, E. (2025). Country profile–Ethiopia: Gender, climate change, and nutrition linkages. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
6. Bonvillain, N. (2020). Women and men: Cultural constructs of gender. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
7. Bartelmay, R. (2023). Social capital and higher education success for first-generation college students(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
8. Batey, L., DeWitt, E., Brewer, D., Cardarelli, K. M., & Norman-Burgdolf, H. (2023). Exploring food-based cultural practices to address food insecurity in rural Appalachia. Health Education & Behavior, 50(4), 529-537.
9. Baudish, I., Sahlin, K. R., Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Prins, H., & Pereira, L. (2024). Power & protein: Closing the ‘justice gap ‘for food system transformation. Environmental Research Letters, 19(8), 084058.
10. Birungi, A., Koita, Y., Roopnaraine, T., Matsiko, E., & Umugwaneza, M. (2023). Behavioural drivers of suboptimal maternal and child feeding practices in Rwanda: An anthropological study. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 19(1), e13420.
11. Bukachi, S. A., Ngutu, M., Muthiru, A. W., Lépine, A., Kadiyala, S., & Domínguez-Salas, P. (2022). Gender and sociocultural factors in animal source foods (ASFs) access and consumption in lower-income households in urban informal settings of Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 41(1), 30.
12. Cho, H. S. (2021). Food and nationalism. Communicating Food in Korea, 69.
13. Demétrio, F., Teles, C. A. D. S., Santos, D. B. D., & Pereira, M. (2020). Food insecurity in pregnant women is associated with social determinants and nutritional outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 25, 2663-2676.
14. Dube, A. K., Haji, J., & Zemedu, L. (2018). Determinants of food insecurity and coping strategies of rural households: The case of Shalla District, West Arsi Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 10(6), 200-212.
15. Embiyale, M. (2025). Intra-household Gender Dynamics and Time Poverty: Implications for Farm Income and Well-Being in Rural Ethiopia(Doctoral dissertation, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen).
16. Feyisa, M. N. (2018). Determinants of food insecurity among rural households of South Western Ethiopia. Journal of development and agricultural economics, 10(12), 404-412.
17. Gannon, B., & Roberts, J. (2020). Social capital: exploring the theory and empirical divide. Empirical Economics, 58(3), 899-919.
18. Godsell, S., Randle, M., Bateson, M., & Nettle, D. (2019). Food insecurity moderates the acute effect of subjective socioeconomic status on food consumption. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1886.
19. Gross, J., & Wilson, N. (2020). Cultural democracy: an ecological and capabilities approach. International journal of cultural policy, 26(3), 328-343.
20. Harris-fry, H. A., Paudel, P., Shrestha, N., Harrisson, B., Beard, J., Jha, S., Shrestha, B. P., Manandhar, D. S., Costello, A. M.D.L., Cortina-Borja, M. and Saville, N. M. (2018). Status and determinants of intra-household food allocation in Rural Nepal. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 1524–1536.
21. Ikejiaku, B. V. (Ed.). (2024). The Capability Approach and the Sustainable Development Goals: Inter/multi/trans Disciplinary Perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
22. Jayne, T. S., Fox, L., Fuglie, K., & Adelaja, A. (2021). Agricultural productivity growth, resilience, and economic transformation in sub-Saharan Africa. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU).
23. Lim, S. (2020). The capabilities approach to inclusive education: re-envisioning the individuals with disabilities education act’s least restrictive environment. Disability & Society, 35(4), 570-588.
24. Kathuri, N. J., Kisovi, L. M., & Obando, J. A. (2020). Socio-Economic Determinants of Food Insecurity at Household Level in Makueni County, Kenya. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 10(7).
25. Khan, S. R. (2024). Education, Inclusion, Pluralism and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of the Cultural Politics of Postcolonial Pakistan(Vol. 10). BRILL.
26. Macalalad, A. K. S. (2020). Hunger for Justiciability and Judicial Exigibility: Claiming the Human Rights to Adequate Food before Philippine Courts.  LJ, 93, 140.
27. Masamha, B., Uzokwe, V. N., & Thebe, V. (2024). Conceptualizing intra-household gender roles and power dynamics within the cassava food value chains: lessons from qualitative evidence among Tanzanian smallholder farmers. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 24(9), 24526-24550.
28. Meltzer, B., Petras, J., & Reynolds, L. (2020). Symbolic interactionism (RLE Social Theory): Genesis, varieties and criticism. Routledge.
29. Munyuli, T., Ombeni, J., Mushagalusa, B. B., Kubuya, A., Irenge, A., & Heradi, G. K. (2022). Diagnostic of The Current Livelihood Evolution, Farming Practices, Production Constraints, Post-Harvest Processing, Trading and Value-Chain Systems of Sweetpotato in North-Kivu Province, Eastern of DR Congo. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Bioresearch, 7(6), 11-93.
30. Ouko, K. O., & Odiwuor, M. O. (2023). Contributing factors to the looming food crisis in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities for policy insight. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2173716.
31. Nyambura, M. A., Philomena, M., & Susan, M. (2023). Influence of cultural norms and traditions on food insecurity among small-scale farmers in Marmanet Ward, Laikipia County, Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 11(1), 39-47.
32. Olum, S., Okello-Uma, I., Tumuhimbishe, G. A., Taylor, D., & Ongeng, D. (2017). The relationship between cultural norms and food security in Karamoja Sub-Region of Uganda. Journal of Food and nutrition Research, 5(6), 427-435.
33. Owen, M. R., Brito-Silva, F., Kirkland, T., Moore, C. E., Davis, K. E., Patterson, M. A., … & Tucker, W. J. (2020). Prevalence and social determinants of food insecurity among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nutrients, 12(9), 2515.
34. Pereira, M., & Oliveira, A. M. (2020). Poverty and food insecurity may increase as the threat of COVID-19 spreads. Public health nutrition, 23(17), 3236-3240.
35. Pinard, C., Smith, T. M., Calloway, E. E., Fricke, H. E., Bertmann, F. M., & Yaroch, A. L. (2016). Auxiliary measures to assess factors related to food insecurity: Preliminary testing and baseline characteristics of newly designed hunger-coping scales. Preventive medicine reports, 4, 289-295.
36. Pollard, C. M., & Booth, S. (2019). Food insecurity and hunger in rich countries—it is time for action against inequality. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(10), 1804.
37. Rimban, D. E., Amin, P. T., Munshi, M. B., & Singh, D. Y. (2023). SM Nazmuz Sakib’s Toxic Comparative Theory: Analyzing the Psychiatric Consequences of Sakibphobia in Sociological Evaluation using Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective Frameworks. Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective Frameworks (December 29, 2023).
38. Robeyns, I. (2021). The capability approach. In The Routledge handbook of feminist economics(pp. 72-80). Routledge.
39. Saha, L. J. (2021). Cultural and social capital in global perspective. Third international handbook of globalization, education and policy research, 777-788.
40. Saint Ville, A., Po, J. Y. T., Sen, A., Bui, A., & Melgar-Quiñonez, H. (2019). Food security and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES): ensuring progress by 2030. Food Security, 11, 483-491.
41. Sorato, A. (2024). Venetian Culinary Heritage Management: exploring authenticity in the realm of tourism and cultural identity through a visual analysis.
42. Tarasuk, V., Fafard St-Germain, A. A., & Mitchell, A. (2019). Geographic and socio-demographic predictors of household food insecurity in Canada, 2011–12. BMC public health, 19, 1-12.
43. Theisen, A. J. (2020). Religious implications for agriculture, diet, and social issues. The Macksey Journal, 1(1).
44. Vonthron, S., Perrin, C., & Soulard, C. T. (2020). Foodscape: A scoping review and a research agenda for food security-related studies. PloS one, 15(5), e0233218.
45. Wiktor-Mach, D. (2020). What role for culture in the age of sustainable development? UNESCO’s advocacy in the 2030 Agenda negotiations. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(3), 312-327.
46. Zaino, G., Recchiuto, C. T., & Sgorbissa, A. (2022). Culture-to-culture image translation and user evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01565.
47. Zafar, S., & Zehra, M. E. (2022). Determinants of food insecurity before and during COVID-19: An empirical analysis for Malawi. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 83, 103434.