Anglo scholarship is primarily centred around the idea it was from political errors-bordering on negligence-but it was not with the intent of destroying the Ukrainian people as a national group. Hence while it was mismanagement to the point where it was perhaps even criminal, it was not genocidal. I am not pro-Stalin but from what I gather there is not evidence that the Ukrainian people were systemically targeted to destroy their national group as such.
IF anything has a legitimate claim to genocide it'd be the forced denomadisation of the Kazakh people and the agrarian reform there which was much more obviously outrageously stupid and led to the deaths of a huge portion of the population + the ethnic cleansing of others. I don't know enough about it to have a proper opinion on what you'd classify it as though to be honest.
Obviously Ukrainian historiography is very different but I've not read any of it (because it's in Ukrainian) so I cannot assess if they have access to better sources or what-e.g., what the actual historiographical reason is for the divergence in conclusions.