Benin vs Guinea-Bissau: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population over time
- Benin
- Guinea-Bissau
How they compare
Benin currently reports 65.6% against 62.5% in Guinea-Bissau, a difference of 3.1%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2017 it was Benin ahead.
Benin ranks 15th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 16th of 126 countries.
Benin has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Benin | Guinea-Bissau | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 65.4% | 61.8% | 3.5% | Benin |
| 2020s | 62.6% | 62.4% | 0.2% | Benin |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, Benin or Guinea-Bissau?
- Benin, at 65.6% against 62.5% in Guinea-Bissau as of 2023.
- What is the difference in prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population between Benin and Guinea-Bissau?
- 3.1%, with Benin ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Benin and Guinea-Bissau?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2017 to 2022.
- How do Benin and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population?
- Benin ranks 15th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 16th of 126 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The percentage of people in the population who live in households classified as moderately or severely food insecure. A household is classified as moderately or severely food insecure when at least one adult in the household has reported to have been exposed, at times during the year, to low quality diets and might have been forced to also reduce the quantity of food they would normally eat because of a lack of money or other resources.