The USDA announced Sept. 20 that it would end its Household Food Security reports, calling them “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”
USDA has conducted these studies for more than 30 years and will release one final study in October.
“Trends in the prevalence of food insecurity have remained virtually unchanged, regardless of an over 87% increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) spending between 2019 and 2023,” the USDA said in a news release.
While the department says it will continue to prioritize statutory requirements and use more timely and accurate data sets, when necessary, those in the food recovery space condemn the ending of this study.
Joni Kusminsky, senior director of communications and public affairs for Greater Boston area-based Spoonfuls, says organizations such as Spoonfuls rely on the information in the Household Food Security Report.
“The Household Food Security Report has been among the most cited measures of food insecurity in the United States for the past three decades,” she says. “Its findings have spanned political administrations — Democrat and Republican. Those of us in this space, organizations working to address hunger, including Spoonfuls and its partners, have long relied on this data as a credible gauge of how well efforts are working (or not working) to address food insecurity in the United States and here in Massachusetts, where Spoonfuls operates.”
Eric Mitchell, president of the Alliance to End Hunger, says ending this survey is a signal that tracking and battling hunger is no longer a priority.
“For decades, the annual survey has served as a barometer of the effectiveness of our nation’s policies and programs supporting lower-income people and families,” he says. “With continuing worries about food inflation, as well as significant cuts to America’s largest food assistance program — SNAP — this move is a blow to policymakers and advocates who rely on the data to improve the lives of our food-insecure neighbors.”
Kusminsky says organizations outside the food insecurity space may not truly understand the implications of the end of this report. However, she adds that terminating the report will likely mask the impact of a lack of federal investment in programs such as SNAP.
“What this report reveals (and what terminating this report won’t change) is the importance of a robust safety net, where rates of food insecurity reflect federal investments in programs like SNAP,” she says.
Kusminsky says it’s likely that smaller, privately funded studies will attempt to measure food insecurity rates, but that could create a confusing patchwork of information about the true scope of food insecurity in the country.
“We simply won’t have as clear or comprehensive a picture of food insecurity as we do now,” she says. “This lack of data will make it harder to assess the impact of cuts to safety net programs, potentially leaving food programs (like pantries) in a lurch when they’re not able to adequately prepare for an onslaught of need.”
Kusminsky also says food pantries may not understand whether upticks in need are a widespread trend or an isolated event — essentially the “why” behind the need.
“Eliminating the data won’t eliminate the problem of hunger nor the need to be both responsive and proactive to solve it,” she says.
Mitchell urges the USDA to reconsider its decision, saying this data helps improve lives and strengthen communities.
“It is further troubling that the decision comes amid predictions that hunger may increase in the coming months and years,” he says. “Hunger will not disappear simply because it is no longer tracked.”
The Food Bank for New York City says its network of more than 800 food pantries has been feeding twice as many New Yorkers since the pandemic.
“The Administration can stop tracking data, but our neighbors in need still exist: hard-working families, seniors, and children whose need for food assistance remains urgent,” the organization said in a statement. “With 1.4 million New Yorkers facing food insecurity, we will continue to do what we have always done: serve our neighbors with dignity and ensure families have access to the food they need.”
Kusminsky, too, says Spoonfuls has seen a rise in food insecurity through the currently available data and partner organizations that receive recovered food from Spoonfuls. She says Spoonfuls expects the need to continue to grow with the future cuts to SNAP, which will reverberate down to those partner organizations.
“Food recovery is a tool we have to reduce waste and feed people who can use this food,” she says. “But that charge gets tougher when you can’t as readily demonstrate, with empirical data, that people are in need. Meanwhile, though, it doesn’t change the fact that people are, in fact, in need. Advancing real, practical solutions to tackle hunger (like food recovery) alongside policy-driven solutions that bolster our safety net is still key.”
