The recent declaration by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) that a daily food budget of ₱64 per person is sufficient to avoid being classified as “food poor” has stirred a mix of disbelief, frustration, and satire across the country.
The figure, which translates to a mere ₱21 per meal, has exposed a significant disconnect between statistical models and the lived experiences of millions of Filipinos.
National Statistician Claire Dennis Mapa acknowledged that the current methodology is insufficient but maintained that the computation is based on the “least cost” approach. This explanation, however, has done little to assuage public discontent, especially when faced with the reality of rising food prices, inflation, and the undeniable struggles of daily life for many.
The PSA’s reliance on a “minimum basic needs” model to calculate the poverty threshold is, in theory, a way to measure the most cost-effective means of meeting nutritional requirements.
But in practice, it has proven to be overly simplistic, failing to account for the complexities of real-world living conditions.
For instance, the food bundle used in these calculations might include basic items like monggo, malunggay, and fried fish, but it overlooks the broader context of food accessibility, the varying cost of living across regions, and the nutritional needs of different demographic groups.
Moreover, the assertion that this figure is a reliable benchmark for avoiding food poverty seems more like a mathematical exercise than a reflection of human dignity. The backlash from various sectors, including public officials and ordinary citizens, underscores the urgency for a reassessment of how these thresholds are set.
The government’s forthcoming review of the poverty threshold methodology offers a crucial opportunity to align these statistics with reality. It is imperative that this review incorporates a more nuanced understanding of what it means to live above the poverty line. This should include a realistic appraisal of food prices, living costs, and the diversity of dietary needs across the country.
More importantly, poverty measurement should not be an abstract concept, detached from the day-to-day struggles of the population. Instead, it should serve as a tool for empowerment, driving policies that genuinely uplift and improve the quality of life for all Filipinos.
The current threshold may be a product of rigorous statistical methods, but if it fails to resonate with the experiences of those it seeks to measure, then it fails in its most fundamental purpose.
The ₱64 food poverty threshold is a stark reminder that numbers, while important, are not the full story.
As the government moves forward with its review, let this be a moment to recalibrate our metrics—not just to track poverty but to eradicate it in a manner that reflects the true cost of living with dignity in the Philippines.
