How to talk to kids about food insecurity amid looming SNAP benefit cuts – ABC News

Report on the Impact of Potential SNAP Benefit Cessation on Sustainable Development Goals

A potential suspension of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) due to a federal government shutdown threatens to undermine progress on several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The uncertainty surrounding benefits for over 42 million Americans directly impacts efforts to achieve Zero Hunger (SDG 2), No Poverty (SDG 1), and Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3), while also highlighting challenges related to Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10) and the need for Strong Institutions (SDG 16) and Partnerships (SDG 17).

Direct Threats to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The potential halt of SNAP benefits represents a direct challenge to the fundamental goals of eradicating poverty and hunger. Anti-hunger organizations, including Feeding America and No Kid Hungry, have issued warnings regarding the severe consequences for millions of families.

• Scale of Impact: SNAP is a cornerstone of the nation’s food security infrastructure. For every one meal provided by the Feeding America network, SNAP provides nine, illustrating the program’s critical role in achieving SDG 2.
• Increased Poverty and Inequality: The cessation of benefits would push millions of vulnerable families deeper into poverty, exacerbating inequalities and directly contravening the objectives of SDG 1 and SDG 10.

Implications for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The threat of food insecurity creates significant emotional and psychological distress, particularly for children, jeopardizing their health and well-being as outlined in SDG 3.

Psychological Impact on Children

Medical experts report that the uncertainty alone is a source of considerable stress within households. Dr. Jade Cobern, a physician specializing in pediatrics, notes that children are highly perceptive of parental stress, with awareness beginning as early as age four. As they grow, they may connect news or social media discussions about the shutdown to the new challenges their parents are facing, even without a full understanding of food insecurity.

Guidance on Communicating with Children about Food Insecurity

Experts provide age-specific recommendations for parents on how to navigate these difficult conversations to mitigate psychological harm.

1. For Young Children (Under 8-9): Dr. Adjoa Smalls-Mantey, a board-certified psychiatrist, advises keeping explanations simple. It is sufficient to state that food might be scarce for a time without overwhelming them with specifics about SNAP or government functions. An analogy suggested by No Kid Hungry compares the shutdown to a pause in a recess game until players can agree on the rules.
2. For Older Children (Ages 10-12): At this age, children can handle more context. It is important to explain that the benefit cuts are due to a government shutdown and are not the parents’ fault. This clarity can prevent children from internalizing blame.
3. Reassurance and Shame Removal: Across all age groups, it is critical to reassure children that they are not responsible for the situation. If a child attempts to skip meals to save food for others, parents must reinforce that it is the adult’s responsibility to provide. Furthermore, parents should proactively remove any shame associated with using community resources like food banks.

The Role of Institutions and Partnerships (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

This situation underscores the importance of stable, functioning institutions (SDG 16) for maintaining social safety nets. In the absence of government support, the role of community partnerships (SDG 17) becomes paramount.

Community and Non-Profit Response

In response to the potential crisis, a network of non-profit organizations, food banks, and local community services has mobilized to provide support. Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, CEO of Feeding America, emphasizes that seeking assistance is a sign of strength and that these resources exist for all who need them. This collaborative effort demonstrates the power of partnerships in achieving the SDGs.

Available Support Resources

Families in need of immediate assistance can turn to several resources, including:

• Local food banks and community pantries.
• The 211 service, which connects individuals to local services via phone, text, or website.
• Resource lists provided by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

For families not facing food insecurity, experts recommend fostering empathy by volunteering at food pantries, an action that supports community solidarity and empowers children to have a positive impact.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article directly addresses poverty by focusing on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a social safety net for “more than 42 million low-income Americans.” The potential cessation of these benefits threatens to push these vulnerable families deeper into poverty, as they may be unable to afford basic necessities like food.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire piece revolves around the threat of “food insecurity” for millions of families if SNAP benefits are halted. It quotes anti-hunger organizations like “No Kid Hungry” and “Feeding America” and discusses the critical role of federal nutrition programs and community food banks in preventing hunger.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article highlights the mental health impacts of food insecurity. It notes that the uncertainty is “already creating emotional stress inside households, especially for families with children.” It quotes a physician and a psychiatrist who discuss the psychological effects on children and the importance of parental communication to mitigate stress and shame, directly connecting the issue to mental well-being.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The issue disproportionately affects a specific, vulnerable segment of the population: “low-income Americans.” By design, SNAP is a program that aims to reduce inequality by providing essential support to those with fewer economic resources. The potential cuts to this program would therefore exacerbate economic and social inequalities.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The root cause of the problem discussed is a “federal government shutdown.” This represents a failure of a key national institution to perform its duties effectively, leading to a breakdown in essential public services. The article illustrates how the malfunctioning of government institutions directly harms citizens and undermines social stability.

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

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
  
  Explanation: The article focuses on SNAP, which is a key “social protection system” in the United States. The text’s concern over the potential halt of this program for “42 million low-income Americans” directly relates to the implementation and reliability of such systems for the vulnerable.

• 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’s central theme is the threat to food access for millions. The potential “freeze in food assistance” directly jeopardizes the goal of ensuring year-round access to sufficient food for vulnerable populations, as highlighted by the work of organizations like “Feeding America” and “No Kid Hungry.”

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
  
  Explanation: The article explicitly discusses the promotion of mental health and well-being. It details the “emotional stress” caused by food insecurity and provides expert advice from a psychiatrist on how parents can talk to their children to reassure them and remove shame, which are preventative measures for mental health issues.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
  
  Explanation: The potential loss of SNAP benefits threatens the economic and social inclusion of low-income families. Access to food is a fundamental prerequisite for participation in society, and removing this support system disempowers and marginalizes the most vulnerable groups discussed in the article.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
  
  Explanation: The article identifies the “government shutdown” as the cause of the potential crisis. This event is a clear example of an institution failing to be “effective” and “accountable,” as its inability to function directly threatens the welfare of millions of citizens who rely on its programs.

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

• For Target 1.3 (Social Protection Systems):

  Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems.
  
  Explanation: The article provides a specific number for this indicator by stating that “more than 42 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP benefits” are at risk. This figure directly measures the population covered by this particular social protection system.

• For Target 2.1 (End Hunger):

  Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population.
  
  Explanation: While the article does not provide a statistical prevalence rate, the entire narrative is about the risk of “food insecurity.” The warnings from anti-hunger organizations and the discussion of families turning to “community food banks” imply that a halt in SNAP benefits would cause a sharp increase in the prevalence of food insecurity, which is the metric this indicator tracks.

• For Target 3.4 (Mental Health):

  Implied Indicator: Prevalence of mental health stress or anxiety related to economic shocks.
  
  Explanation: The article does not cite a formal indicator, but it provides qualitative evidence of declining mental well-being. The mention of “emotional stress inside households” and a psychiatrist’s advice on how to handle children’s anxiety are descriptions of mental health outcomes that could be measured to assess progress toward this target.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: goodmorningamerica.com