The impacts of Bolsa Família, Cisterns, and PRONAF on rural women’s food practices in Northeast Brazil: a qualitative analysis

TL;DR

This study explores how three Brazilian social programs affect rural women's food practices, highlighting both benefits and limitations in addressing gender inequality and nutrition.

Contribution

The study provides novel insights into how social programs in rural Brazil influence food practices and gender roles, emphasizing the need for gender-sensitive reforms.

Findings

The cistern program improved water access and diversified farming without disrupting local practices.

Bolsa Família increased dietary variety but did not improve nutritional quality.

PRONAF credit decisions remained male-dominated, limiting women's participation in agriculture.

Abstract

Brazilian Zero Hunger strategy included the cash-transfer program Bolsa Família, the credit to strengthen family farming PRONAF, and providing cisterns. Understanding the effects of this strategy in rural areas and pondering gender is crucial as women play an essential role in family’s dietary decisions and agriculture. This study explored perceptions of women from a rural community in Northeast Brazil regarding the impact of the three programs mentioned on their food practices.

A qualitative study was conducted in a rural setting with severe drought. Seventeen women, 18 to 87 years old, were selected through convenience sampling and interviewed in-depth. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

This study examines rural women’s perceptions of three Brazilian social programs (Bolsa Família, Cisterns, PRONAF) across food production, distribution, preparation, consumption, and waste management. The cistern program significantly impacted food production and preparation by saving time, improving water access, and enabling diversified farming. PRONAF allowed some families to purchase livestock, but with traditional gender roles persisting, credit decisions remained male-dominated. Bolsa Família impacted food preparation and consumption by enabling access and increasing dietary variety but did not necessarily enhance nutritional quality. Key limitations of the programs regarding food practices include: 1 failure to address structural gender inequalities in agriculture that could allow an active role for women in agriculture and support distribution of production; 2 insufficient measures to counter rising processed food consumption; and 3 waste management systems that lag behind increased consumption, leading to practices harmful to both health and the environment. The cistern program stands out by addressing multiple needs (water, time, agriculture) without disrupting local practices.

Interviewees have more access to and diversity of food. Their diet is still composed of no or minimally processed food, but an increase in the consumption of ultra-processed food was observed. Their power of decision is restricted to the domestic sphere, with little participation in using PRONAF. Transformative change requires gender-sensitive program redesigns—such as empowering women in credit decisions—and better integration of waste management and nutrition education. Without these reforms, programs risk improving food access while leaving systemic inequities unresolved.