USDA cancels food security report that anti-hunger advocates say showed the effects of food policies – Aberdeen Insider

Termination of U.S. Food Security Data Collection and Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the cancellation of the Household Food Security Report, a key data collection instrument for monitoring progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger). Anti-hunger organizations have described the report as essential for evidence-based policymaking. The USDA justified the decision by labeling the report “redundant, costly, politicized,” and a tool for “fear-mongering.” This action creates a significant data gap in assessing food insecurity, directly impacting the nation’s ability to track and achieve targets under SDG 2.

Impact on Evidence-Based Policymaking and SDG Accountability

The termination of the report raises concerns regarding the commitment to transparent and accountable institutions, a cornerstone of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Without this annual data, the ability of policymakers, researchers, and civil society to measure the effectiveness of hunger-alleviation programs is severely compromised.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Data’s Essential Role

• Advocacy groups, including the Iowa Hunger Coalition, utilized the report to analyze the direct impact of federal and local policies on food insecurity rates.
• The data was foundational for understanding how policy decisions affect children and families, ensuring that investments in programs aimed at ending hunger are efficient and effective, in line with SDG 2 targets.
• Organizations like Feeding America relied on the survey as a primary element for its comprehensive reports on hunger, which highlight geographic and demographic disparities, a key concern for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, CEO of Feeding America, noted the report was crucial for identifying trends, such as the impact of inflation or the positive outcomes of investments in nutrient-dense foods on both food security (SDG 2) and health outcomes (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being).

Historical Context and Utility of the Report

1. Established in 1995, the report was generated from the CPS Food Security Supplement, a partnership between the USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals).
2. It provided a consistent national benchmark for measuring food security and insecurity annually.
3. The data has been instrumental in revealing how economic conditions and policy interventions directly influence household access to adequate food.
4. The report helped identify that the deepest food security challenges often occur in rural counties, providing critical information for targeted interventions under SDG 10.

Coinciding Policy Changes and Projected Setbacks for SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The cancellation of the food security report coincides with the enactment of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which introduces significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a primary tool in addressing SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 in the United States.

Congressional Budget Office Analysis of SNAP Reductions

An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the new law will directly undermine progress on poverty and hunger reduction. Key findings include:

• A reduction of $187 billion, approximately 20%, in federal funding for SNAP through 2034.
• An estimated 4 million people who rely on SNAP will have their food assistance terminated or substantially reduced.
• The cuts are implemented through changes to the Thrifty Food Plan, new state funding requirements, expanded work requirements, and revised eligibility based on immigration status.

State-Level Impact Projections

The Iowa Hunger Coalition projects that the legislative changes will result in a substantial loss of funding at the state level, directly impacting Iowans’ ability to access food. The estimated loss for SNAP in Iowa is nearly $50 million in 2026, rising to over $200 million per fiscal year by 2034.

Contradictory Narratives on Food Insecurity Trends

A significant discrepancy exists between the USDA’s justification for canceling the report and data from other sources, including the USDA’s own recent findings.

Official Justification vs. Available Data

• USDA Claim: The department’s news release stated that “trends in the prevalence of food insecurity have remained virtually unchanged” despite increased SNAP spending.
• Contradictory Evidence: This claim is disputed by advocates like Paige Chickering of the Iowa Hunger Coalition, who cites Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap study showing a national increase in food insecurity of over 3% in the last two years. Furthermore, the USDA’s own survey results from September 2024 showed a sharp increase in food insecurity rates from 2021 to 2023.
• Anecdotal Evidence: Food banks and pantries report experiencing “higher and higher demand,” corroborating the data that indicates a worsening food security situation, representing a regression on SDG 2.

Concerns from Civil Society Partners

Leaders from national anti-hunger organizations have expressed deep concern that eliminating the report removes a critical tool for accountability and progress. Anne Filipic, CEO of Share Our Strength, stated that the data has been vital to “illuminate how policy decisions impact how children and families across America experience hunger.” The loss of this low-cost, high-value data risks obscuring the true state of hunger in the nation and hinders the collective effort to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The entire article revolves around the issue of hunger and food insecurity in the United States. It discusses the cancellation of the Household Food Security Report, a key tool for measuring hunger, and the impact of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a federal program designed to combat hunger. The article quotes organizations like the Iowa Hunger Coalition and Feeding America, whose missions are directly aligned with achieving zero hunger.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article connects food insecurity to poverty by focusing on SNAP, a social protection system for low-income individuals and families. The Congressional Budget Office analysis mentioned in the article states the new law “takes away food assistance” from vulnerable populations, directly impacting their financial stability and ability to meet basic needs, which is a core component of poverty reduction.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • This goal, specifically its targets related to data, monitoring, and accountability, is central to the article’s main conflict. The cancellation of the USDA’s food security report is presented as a loss of “essential data” needed for evidence-based policymaking. The article highlights how various organizations (government agencies like USDA and HHS, and non-profits like Feeding America and Share Our Strength) used this data to “analyze the impact of certain policies on food insecurity” and “ensure we’re wisely investing taxpayer dollars.” The loss of this data undermines the capacity for monitoring progress and holding institutions accountable.

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

1. 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.
   • The article directly addresses this target by discussing “food insecurity,” which is the state of not having reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food. The cuts to SNAP, which provides “food assistance,” and the debate over measuring the number of people who “face food insecurity” are central to this target. The article notes that “Millions of American children are facing food insecurity.”
2. 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.
   • The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a prime example of a “nationally appropriate social protection system.” The article details significant cuts to this program, noting that the CBO report estimates “4 million people that rely on SNAP will see their food assistance terminated, or reduced substantially,” which is a direct challenge to achieving substantial coverage for the poor and vulnerable.
3. Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by… characteristics relevant in national contexts.
   • While the US is not a developing country, the principle of this target is directly relevant. The article is about the cancellation of a long-standing, reliable data source—the Household Food Security Report, issued “annually since 1995.” This report is described as “essential data” that provided “consistent national benchmarks” and helped to “illuminate how policy decisions impact how children and families across America experience hunger.” Its elimination represents a significant decrease in the availability of high-quality, reliable data for policymaking.

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

1. Indicator for Target 2.1 (Implied: 2.1.2 Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population):
   • The article is centered on the measurement of this exact indicator. The “Household Food Security Reports,” which are being canceled, were the primary source for this data. The article provides specific measurements related to this indicator, such as “47 million people in the nation face food insecurity,” “one in five children is food insecure,” and the fact that “food insecurity rates nationally have increased more than 3% in the last two years.” These statistics are direct examples of the indicator used to track progress on Target 2.1.
2. Indicator for Target 1.3 (Implied: 1.3.1 Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems):
   • The article provides data points that measure the coverage and adequacy of the SNAP social protection system. It mentions the estimated “4 million people that rely on SNAP” who will lose or see a reduction in benefits. It also quantifies the scale of the cuts in funding, such as the “$187 billion, or about 20%, of federal funding to SNAP through 2034.” These figures serve as measures of the proportion of the vulnerable population covered by this social protection system and the level of that coverage.
3. Indicator for Target 17.18 (Implied: 17.18.1 Statistical capacity for SDG monitoring):
   • The existence, quality, and continuity of the “Household Food Security Report” itself serves as an indicator of statistical capacity. The article explains that this report, based on the “CPS Food Security Supplement,” has been the “foundational” tool since 1995 for the “study of food insecurity in our country.” Its cancellation is a direct negative measure of the nation’s statistical capacity to monitor hunger and the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing it, as it creates “gaps” and a “risk of losing consistent national benchmarks.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: aberdeeninsider.com