Food insecurity – LAist

Termination of U.S. Food Insecurity Survey and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the termination of its annual Household Food Security Report. This decision eliminates a key data source for monitoring food access and nutrition for low-income populations. The termination directly impacts the nation’s ability to track progress towards several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most critically SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and raises concerns about evidence-based policymaking for vulnerable communities.

Background of the Survey and Policy Context

For 30 years, the Household Food Security Report has provided essential data on food insecurity across both Republican and Democratic administrations. Its findings have been instrumental in shaping policies aimed at achieving food security and improved nutrition, central tenets of SDG 2.

This decision follows the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which tightens work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The policy change is projected to remove food assistance from an estimated 2.4 million individuals, directly affecting targets within SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Direct Impact on SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The cancellation of the report creates a significant data vacuum, undermining efforts to achieve SDG 2, which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition. The 2023 report highlighted the scale of the challenge, indicating that 47.4 million people, including nearly 14 million children, lived in food-insecure households.

• Loss of Measurement Tools: Without the annual survey, it becomes difficult to accurately measure hunger and malnutrition, which are key performance indicators for SDG 2.
• Impediment to Policy Evaluation: The absence of data prevents policymakers and advocates from assessing the impact of legislative changes, such as the new SNAP requirements, on food security.
• Obscured Trends: The USDA’s claim that trends “remained virtually unchanged” is contradicted by recent data. The 2023 report showed the largest rate of food insecurity since 2014 and a 3.2% increase in food-insecure children from the previous year, indicating a worsening situation that now cannot be officially tracked.

Broader Implications for Related SDGs

The cessation of data collection has cascading effects on other interconnected Sustainable Development Goals.

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty): Food insecurity is a primary dimension of poverty. The report provided crucial data for understanding the economic hardships faced by low-income households and for designing effective poverty-reduction strategies.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Inadequate nutrition is directly linked to poor health outcomes. The survey was a vital tool for public health officials monitoring the well-being of vulnerable populations, especially children.
3. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The report helped identify disparities in food access among different demographic groups, providing the evidence needed to formulate policies aimed at reducing inequality.
4. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The unilateral termination of a long-standing, non-partisan data report raises concerns about the erosion of institutional accountability and the commitment to transparent, evidence-based governance.

Stakeholder Analysis and Justification

Perspectives on the report’s termination are sharply divided, highlighting a conflict between administrative reasoning and expert consensus on data’s role in achieving the SDGs.

• USDA Justification: The department cited the survey as “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”
• Expert and Advocate Rebuttal: Anti-hunger organizations and policy analysts assert that the report is a “critical, reliable data source.” They argue that its termination will leave policymakers “flying blind” and that the claim of politicization has “no bearing in reality.” Experts suggest the decision may be intended to obscure the anticipated rise in food insecurity resulting from recent policy changes.

Conclusion

The final Household Food Security Report, covering 2024 data, is scheduled for release on October 22. Its discontinuation thereafter marks a significant setback for monitoring and addressing hunger and poverty in the United States. The loss of this data compromises the nation’s ability to measure progress, design effective interventions, and remain accountable to the targets outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the most prominent SDG addressed. The entire article revolves around food insecurity, which is the “lack of access to adequate nutrition for low-income Americans.” It discusses the measurement of hunger, policies affecting food access like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the consequences of hunger on millions of people, including children.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article connects food insecurity directly to poverty by focusing on “low-income Americans” and social safety nets. The discussion about expanding work requirements for SNAP, a program designed to assist low-income individuals, and the subsequent loss of benefits for millions, directly relates to poverty and the social protection systems designed to alleviate it.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: This goal is relevant through its emphasis on data, monitoring, and accountability (Target 17.18). The central issue of the article is the termination of the “Household Food Security Report,” a “critical, reliable data source” used by policymakers and advocates to understand and combat hunger. The cancellation of this survey undermines the ability to monitor progress on national goals related to hunger and poverty, which is a core principle of the SDG framework.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
     
     Explanation: The article directly addresses this target by discussing the “Household Food Security Report,” which measures the number of people who “were uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food.” It highlights vulnerable groups, stating that “47.4 million people lived in food insecure households in 2023,” including “nearly 14 million… children.”

2. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
     
     Explanation: The article discusses the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a key social protection system in the U.S. It notes that policy changes will “leave an estimated 2.4 million Americans without food aid,” which directly impacts the coverage and effectiveness of this system for the poor and vulnerable.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by… characteristics relevant in national contexts.
     
     Explanation: The article’s main focus is the cancellation of the annual food insecurity survey, which has been a “yearly fixture in understanding food insecurity” for 30 years. The loss of this “critical, reliable data source” directly contradicts the principle of ensuring the availability of high-quality data for policymaking and monitoring progress on national challenges like hunger. The article notes the data helps understand the scale of the problem for vulnerable Americans, including children.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Prevalence of food insecurity: The article explicitly states that the USDA report provides “yearly data on the lack of access to adequate nutrition” and that the “prevalence of food insecurity” is a key metric. This directly corresponds to SDG Indicator 2.1.2 (Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale).
• Number of people in food-insecure households: The article provides specific data points from the report, such as “47.4 million people lived in food insecure households in 2023.” This is a direct quantitative measure of the scale of the problem.
• Number of food-insecure children: The article disaggregates the data, noting that among the food insecure, “nearly 14 million were children.” It also mentions that the 2023 report showed the “number of food-insecure children in the United States increased by 3.2% compared to 2022’s annual report.” This serves as a specific indicator for a particularly vulnerable group.
• Number of beneficiaries of social protection programs: The article implies an indicator for Target 1.3 by stating that an “estimated 2.4 million Americans” will be left “without food aid” due to changes in SNAP requirements. This measures the reach and coverage of a key social protection system.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: laist.com