Report: Forty percent of region’s population faces food insecurity – Mid Hudson News

Regional Food Security Assessment: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Overview of Regional Food Security Status

A report issued by the Benjamin Center at SUNY New Paltz, based on interviews with over 1,600 individuals, provides a critical assessment of food security across the four-county region of Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan, and Ulster. The findings present a mixed landscape regarding the region’s progress towards key Sustainable Development Goals.

• Overall Food Security: 62% of households in the region are classified as food secure.
• Dependence on Assistance: Of the food-secure households, 11% achieve this status only through the support of nutritional assistance programs.

Alignment with SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The study’s findings directly measure progress towards SDG 2, which aims to end hunger and ensure access to food for all. While a majority of households are food secure, a significant portion of the population remains vulnerable, highlighting persistent challenges in achieving this goal.

• Prevalence of Food Insecurity: 38% of households in the region experience food insecurity, indicating a substantial gap in achieving Zero Hunger.
• Role of Nutritional Support: Public assistance programs are fundamental to food security in the region.
  1. Approximately three in ten households receive some form of nutritional public assistance, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  2. About one in twenty households rely entirely on SNAP for their nutritional needs, underscoring the program’s role as a critical lifeline.

Challenges to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The data reveals significant disparities among different demographic groups, directly addressing the core objectives of SDG 10. While food insecurity affects all communities, its prevalence and characteristics differ starkly along racial lines, indicating systemic inequalities in food access and economic stability.

• Disproportionate Impact: Food insecurity rates are higher among non-white households compared to white households.
• Absolute Numbers by Household: The report quantifies the scale of food insecurity and assistance dependency across racial groups.
  • Food Insecure Households:
    • White: 77,000
    • Hispanic: 34,000
    • Black: 16,000
  • Households Receiving Nutritional Assistance:
    • White: 59,000
    • Hispanic: 22,000
    • Black: 14,000

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

   The article addresses and connects to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The core subject of the article is food security and food insecurity within a four-county region. It directly discusses the prevalence of hunger by stating that only “Sixty-two percent of households in the region are food secure,” meaning 38% are not.
   • SDG 1: No Poverty: The article highlights the reliance on social safety nets, which are crucial for poverty alleviation. It mentions that “three in 10 households in the region get some kind of nutritional public assistance” like SNAP (food stamps), indicating a segment of the population requires financial or material assistance to meet basic needs, a key concern of SDG 1.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article explicitly points out disparities among different demographic groups. It states that “food insecurity rates are higher among non-white households” and provides a numerical breakdown of food insecure households by race (“77,000 white, 34,000 Hispanic, and 16,000 black food insecure households”), directly addressing the issue of inequality in access to basic resources.

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

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article’s focus on the 38% of households that are food insecure directly relates to this target of ending hunger and ensuring food access for all.
   • 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.” The article’s discussion of SNAP (“food stamps”) as a form of “nutritional public assistance” that helps 11% of households avoid insecurity is a direct reference to a social protection system in action, aligning with this target.
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity… or other status.” The article’s data showing that food insecurity disproportionately affects non-white households highlights the racial and ethnic inequalities that this target aims to eliminate.

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

   Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • For Target 2.1, Indicator 2.1.2 (Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population): The article provides a direct measurement for this indicator by stating that 62% of households are food secure, which implies a 38% prevalence of food insecurity in the region.
   • For Target 1.3, Indicator 1.3.1 (Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems): The article provides data relevant to this indicator. It states that “About three in 10 households in the region get some kind of nutritional public assistance,” which measures the coverage of the SNAP social protection system.
   • For Target 10.2, related to Indicator 10.2.1 (Proportion of people living below 50 per cent of median income, by… race): While the article does not use an income metric, it provides disaggregated data on a key well-being outcome (food security) by race. The finding that “food insecurity rates are higher among non-white households” and the specific numbers for white, Hispanic, and black households serve as a direct measure of inequality in outcomes, which is essential for monitoring progress on Target 10.2.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 2: Zero Hunger	Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food for all people.	Prevalence of food insecurity: The article states 38% of households in the region are food insecure (100% – 62% food secure).
   SDG 1: No Poverty	Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems for all.	Proportion of households covered by social protection systems: The article indicates “three in 10 households” receive nutritional public assistance (SNAP).
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social and economic inclusion of all, irrespective of race or ethnicity.	Disaggregated data on food insecurity by race/ethnicity: The article notes that “food insecurity rates are higher among non-white households” and provides specific numbers for white, Hispanic, and black households.

Source: midhudsonnews.com