The Last U.S. Hunger Data: What We Lose with the Termination of the USDA’s Household Food Security in the United States Report – CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Report on Household Food Security in the United States: Emphasizing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Background and Bipartisan Origins of the Report

The Household Food Security in the United States report has its origins in the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (NNMRRA), a bipartisan initiative cosponsored by 47 Republican and Democratic members of Congress and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. The act aimed to strengthen national nutrition monitoring and tasked the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to develop a ten-year plan to assess the dietary and nutritional status of the U.S. population.

By 1994, a consensus on measuring food insecurity was reached, leading to the first nationwide questionnaire in 1995 under President Bill Clinton. Since then, the survey has been administered annually, with results published in household food security reports every year, providing critical data aligned with SDG 2: Zero Hunger, and SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being.

Political Neutrality and Impact on Food Security Programs

The report has maintained bipartisan support and has not been politicized. Despite claims to the contrary, it positively reflected the first Trump administration’s record on food security. For example, during the economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, food insecurity remained stable at 10.5% of U.S. households, largely due to comprehensive support packages including direct assistance to families.

The report has informed legislative discussions on federal funding for food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs are vital to achieving SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. Funding decisions are influenced by multiple public and industry interests and are typically determined through the Farm Bill or emergency measures.

Assessment of Redundancy Claims

The USDA’s termination of the report cited redundancy and access to more timely data sets. However, no other report matches the Household Food Security report in duration or comprehensiveness. Differences between USDA’s food security data and the U.S. Census Bureau’s food sufficiency data include:

1. Response Rates: USDA’s survey had a 74% response rate in 2023, whereas the Census Bureau’s survey had only 1-10% response to food sufficiency questions.
2. Reporting Frequency: USDA reports annually; Census Bureau reports biweekly or bimonthly.
3. Survey Depth: USDA uses up to 18 questions; Census Bureau uses a single question on food sufficiency.

These distinctions underscore the unique value of the USDA report in monitoring food security, which is critical for SDG 2 and SDG 3.

Future Implications and Recommendations

The termination of the report may obscure the increasing trend of food insecurity observed since 2021, driven by economic shocks and high food prices. The anticipated cuts to SNAP in 2026 could exacerbate food insecurity, undermining progress toward SDG 1 and SDG 2.

Food insecurity is recognized as a national security threat and a public health concern. Historical precedents, such as the National School Lunch Act of 1946, highlight the importance of nutrition for national well-being and security. Current challenges include:

• Rising difficulty in military recruitment due to obesity and malnutrition.
• Annual health costs exceeding $50 billion related to poor diets.

These issues relate directly to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

Policy Opportunities to Enhance Food Security Monitoring

Policymakers are encouraged to reverse the decision to terminate the report to maintain a robust understanding of food insecurity nationwide. Additionally, expanding survey questions to better assess food quality could support SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG 13: Climate Action by promoting diverse and sustainable diets.

Improved data collection would enable targeted interventions to improve both the quantity and quality of food consumed, advancing the health of individuals and the nation.

Conclusion

The Household Food Security in the United States report has been a cornerstone for monitoring food insecurity for over 25 years, directly supporting multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Its continuation and enhancement are essential for informed policymaking aimed at eradicating hunger, reducing inequalities, and promoting health and well-being across the nation.

Report prepared by Caitlin Welsh, Director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article focuses extensively on food insecurity and federal food assistance programs such as SNAP and WIC, directly relating to ending hunger and ensuring access to safe, nutritious food.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article discusses diet-related health concerns, malnutrition, and the impact of poor diets on health costs, linking food security to overall health outcomes.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Food insecurity disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, and the article highlights the role of federal assistance programs aimed at reducing such inequalities.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The bipartisan nature of the food security report and its role in informing policy and funding decisions relates to building effective, accountable institutions.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving targets on stunted and wasted children under 5 years of age.
   • Target 2.3: Double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, including through secure and equal access to land, technology, and markets (implied through food assistance programs).
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: Reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and well-being (linked to diet-related health issues).
   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including access to quality essential health-care services (implied through addressing malnutrition and health costs).
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: 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 (related to equitable access to food assistance).
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (reflected in bipartisan support and use of data to inform policy).

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Food Insecurity Rate
   • The article references the percentage of U.S. households experiencing food insecurity (e.g., 10.5% in 2019 and 2020), which is a direct indicator measuring progress towards SDG 2 targets.
2. Participation and Funding Levels of SNAP and WIC Programs
   • Funding levels and participation rates in federal food assistance programs are implied indicators of efforts to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition.
3. Survey Response Rates and Questionnaire Data
   • The USDA’s comprehensive food security questionnaire response rates (74% in 2023) and the number and type of questions (18 questions covering quantity and quality of food) serve as indicators of data quality and comprehensiveness.
4. Health Cost Data Related to Poor Diets
   • Annual health costs attributed to poor diets (e.g., $50 billion) serve as an indirect indicator of the impact of food insecurity and malnutrition on health systems.
5. Military Recruitment Fitness Standards
   • Rates of military applicants failing to meet weight standards due to malnutrition or obesity are implied indicators of population health related to food security.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: csis.org