Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Food insecurity and hunger in the United States

Food insecurity in the United States is defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food, while hunger refers to the uncomfortable or painful sensation caused by insufficient caloric intake, typically captured under very low food security. In 2023, 13.5 percent of U.S. households—equating to 18 million—affected all members at some point, with prevalence varying by demographics such as higher rates among households with children (14.4 percent) and those led by single mothers (over 30 percent). Very low food security, involving disrupted eating patterns and reduced intake, afflicted about 5 percent of households that year.^[1]^[1] Federal programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which delivers electronic benefits for food purchases to eligible low-income individuals, represent the primary policy response, serving over 40 million participants annually and correlating with reduced food insecurity rates among recipients.^[2] Studies attribute SNAP participation to a 20-30 percent drop in very low food security risk, alongside economic multipliers from benefit spending, though participation does not eliminate underlying vulnerabilities and rates have risen post-pandemic amid inflation and labor market shifts.^[3]^[4]^[1] Root causes stem predominantly from economic factors including low wages, unemployment, and poverty, with 74.8 percent of affected households exhibiting role-related risks like disability, job loss, or dependent children; structural issues such as residential segregation exacerbate access disparities despite national food abundance exceeding caloric needs by over 20 percent.^[5]^[6] Controversies surround measurement validity, as the USDA's Household Food Security Survey Module includes subjective worries and quality compromises rather than solely physiological hunger, potentially inflating estimates compared to direct caloric deficit metrics, while co-occurrence with obesity in 20-30 percent of insecure households challenges narratives of widespread starvation.^[7]^[8]

Definitions and Measurement

USDA Food Security Module

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses household food security through the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), a standardized set of questions integrated into the annual Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.^[9] The module consists of 18 items for households with children under age 18—10 items focused on adult experiences and 8 on child experiences—or a 10-item version for households without children, inquiring about conditions over the past 12 months.^[10] These items capture self-reported experiences such as worries about running out of food, reduced dietary quality or variety due to financial constraints, decreased food intake by adults or children, and instances of skipped meals or weight loss from inadequate consumption.^[11] Responses are scored on a continuous scale from 0 to 18 affirmative answers, with thresholds determining categorization: 0–1 indicates high food security; 2–4 marginal food security (combined with high as "food secure"); 5–8 low food security; and 9–18 very low food security.^[9] Households are classified as food insecure if they report low or very low food security, defined as instances of uncertainty about food supply or receipt of inadequate quality, variety, or desirable foods at any time during the year, even if not consistently.^[11] This approach emphasizes experiential indicators rather than direct measures of caloric intake or nutritional outcomes, relying on respondent perceptions of access constraints.^[12] In 2023, 13.5 percent of U.S. households (approximately 18 million) were food insecure according to this metric.^[12] Very low food security, characterized by multiple indications of reduced food intake or disrupted eating patterns among adults or children, affected 5.1 percent of households (about 6.8 million), distinguishing it from broader food insecurity by focusing on more severe, physiologically impactful disruptions akin to hunger, though USDA avoids the term "hunger" in routine reporting to emphasize the spectrum of experiences.^[11]^[12]

Criticisms of Measurement Approaches

The USDA's Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) primarily relies on subjective self-reports from households about experiences such as worrying about food running out or cutting meal sizes, which critics argue conflates transient financial anxiety with physiological hunger or malnutrition.^[13]^[14] These questions, numbering 10 for screening or 18 for full assessment, do not incorporate objective metrics like anthropometric assessments (e.g., body mass index or stunting rates) or verified caloric intake data, leading to potential overestimation of severe deprivation.^[15] Studies have highlighted misinterpretation of terms by respondents, particularly among subpopulations like college students, where the module's phrasing yields inconsistent prevalence rates compared to alternative validated scales.^[16] Empirical analyses reveal weak correlations between HFSSM-reported food insecurity and actual undernutrition indicators in the US, where clinical malnutrition rates remain near zero despite reported insecurity affecting over 10% of households annually.^[14] For instance, approximately 25% of food-insecure households per the survey fall in the top three income quintiles, suggesting factors beyond scarcity—such as behavioral choices or reporting biases—inflate figures without corresponding evidence of widespread starvation.^[17] Objective nutrition-based measures, including those from international bodies like the FAO, indicate US per capita food supply consistently exceeds requirements by 30-50%, with daily caloric availability around 3,600-3,800 kcal per person in recent decades, far surpassing the 2,000-2,500 kcal needed for most adults.^[18]^[19] The coexistence of high food insecurity rates with obesity—over 42% of US adults classified as obese in 2023—exemplifies the "obesity-hunger paradox," where self-reported insecurity correlates positively with excess weight rather than deficiency, attributed to reliance on cheap, calorie-dense foods during periods of perceived constraint.^[20] Peer-reviewed reviews confirm this association persists across demographics, challenging the survey's validity as a proxy for hunger by failing to distinguish qualitative dietary issues from quantitative shortages.^[21]^[22] In September 2025, the USDA terminated future iterations of the annual Household Food Security Report, citing redundancy with other poverty metrics and the survey's subjective nature as "liberal fodder" prone to fearmongering without substantiating claims of mass hunger.^[23]^[14] This decision, while criticized by advocacy groups for obscuring trends, aligns with methodological critiques emphasizing the need for hybrid approaches integrating direct nutritional surveillance over experience-based scales alone.^[24]^[25]

Prevalence and Trends

Historical Trends in Food Availability and Insecurity

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States maintained an agrarian economy characterized by widespread self-sufficiency, with over 40% of the population engaged in farming by 1900. Localized food shortages arose from crop failures, droughts, or seasonal constraints, but these rarely escalated to famine due to regional trade, migration, and household production; documented starvation deaths were sporadic and tied to individual misfortunes rather than systemic scarcity. Per capita food availability hovered around 3,500 kilocalories per day circa 1900, sufficient to meet basic needs amid a population reliant on home-grown staples like corn, wheat, and livestock.^[26]^[27] The twentieth century witnessed exponential gains in agricultural output, driven by mechanization, synthetic fertilizers, and hybrid crop varieties, elevating per capita caloric availability to approximately 3,800 kilocalories per day by 2000. Post-World War II advancements, including those paralleling the global Green Revolution—such as high-yield seeds and expanded irrigation—sharply reduced undernutrition rates, with farm productivity per worker rising over 2.5-fold from 1948 to the 1990s. Instances of outright starvation dwindled to negligible levels after the 1930s, when even during the Great Depression, reported deaths numbered in the low hundreds nationally, far below famine thresholds seen elsewhere.^[27]^[28]^[26] Formal measurement of household food insecurity commenced in 1995 via the USDA's Food Security Survey Module, which identified 11.9% of households as affected that year, with rates thereafter oscillating between 10% and 15%—patterns that tracked economic recessions more closely than fluctuations in aggregate supply. Very low food security, indicative of disrupted eating patterns or reduced intake, affected under 6% of households in most years through the 2010s, underscoring persistent abundance at the national level despite these metrics. This era's data reveal a divergence: food disappearance (a proxy for consumption) exceeded 3,900 kilocalories per capita daily by the late 1990s, yet insecurity reports persisted amid ample production.^[29]^[30]^[27]

Recent Data and Post-Pandemic Developments

In 2023, an estimated 13.5 percent of U.S. households—or 47.4 million individuals, including 13.8 million children—experienced food insecurity at some point during the year, marking a slight increase from 12.8 percent in 2022.^[12]^[31] Among households with children under age 18, the food insecurity rate stood at 17.9 percent.^[12] Food insecurity rates spiked to approximately 14 percent in 2020 amid pandemic-related economic disruptions, followed by partial recovery, with levels stabilizing near 13.5 percent through 2023.^[1] For 2024, preliminary estimates indicate food insecurity rates remained relatively stable at around 13.5 percent, consistent with ongoing economic pressures including inflation, though a final USDA report incorporating 2024 survey data was released in October 2025.^[32] Alternative analyses, such as those from Feeding America, reported a national food insecurity rate of 14.3 percent for 2023, with child food insecurity affecting nearly one in five children (13.4 million), and rates exceeding 20 percent in some rural counties.^[33]^[34] Geographic variation persists, with higher rates concentrated in Southern states; for instance, the three-year average (2021–2023) reached 18.9 percent in Arkansas and 14.7 percent across the Southern region overall.^[1]^[35] In September 2025, the USDA announced the termination of its annual Household Food Security Survey after the 2024 edition, citing redundancy with other federal poverty and nutrition metrics.^[23]^[17]

Primary Causes

Households with incomes below the federal poverty line (FPL) experience food insecurity at rates approximately three times the national average, with 38.7 percent of such households affected in 2023 compared to 13.5 percent overall.^[36]^[1] Eligibility thresholds for federal nutrition assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are set at 130 percent of the FPL for gross monthly income, underscoring the tight economic margins where food access becomes precarious for low-earning families.^[37]^[38] Elevated food prices compound these pressures, with the Consumer Price Index for all food rising 3.9 percent in 2021 and 9.0 percent in 2022, contributing to a cumulative increase of roughly 13 percent over those two years alone before moderating.^[39] Competing essential expenses, particularly housing which consumes over 30 percent of budgets in many low-income households, further strain disposable income available for groceries.^[40] Despite these rises, the share of U.S. disposable personal income devoted to food remains historically low at approximately 10.6 percent in 2024, reflecting overall agricultural productivity gains that keep food relatively affordable in absolute terms, though insufficient for the bottom income quintiles where fixed costs dominate.^[41] Unemployment fluctuations directly amplify food insecurity risks, as evidenced by longitudinal analyses linking job loss to heightened household hardship; for instance, the national unemployment rate peaking at 14.8 percent in April 2020 correlated with a sharp rise in food insecurity prevalence to 10.5 percent that year, roughly doubling baseline risks for affected workers.^[42]^[43] Year-to-year variations in unemployment explain a significant portion of changes in national food insecurity rates, independent of other factors.^[42]

Government Policy and Welfare Incentives

Government policies, particularly through welfare programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), create welfare cliffs where small increases in earnings can lead to abrupt loss of benefits, resulting in effective marginal tax rates exceeding 100% for some low-income households. These cliffs arise because phase-outs in SNAP and related programs, combined with income taxes and reduced eligibility for other aid, can cause a family to lose more in total support than the additional income gained from working more hours or securing a better job. For instance, analyses of benefit "bundles" for low-income families show that effective marginal rates often surpass 50% and can reach over 100% at certain income thresholds due to nonlinear phase-outs, discouraging transitions to self-sufficiency.^[44]^[45]^[46] SNAP participation has been linked to reduced labor force engagement among able-bodied adults, with studies indicating that work requirements implemented in the 1990s and sporadically since correlate with lower caseloads and higher employment rates, suggesting disincentives in the absence of such mandates. Economic research on welfare programs more broadly demonstrates that prolonged receipt fosters dependency, as benefits substitute for wages and alter household behavior toward lower workforce attachment, with intergenerational transmission evident where parental welfare use predicts child participation. SNAP caseloads averaged 41.7 million persons per month in fiscal year 2024, reflecting expansion beyond cyclical unemployment and contributing to these dynamics despite no explicit constitutional right to food in the U.S., which results in a patchwork of federal transfers rather than market-oriented solutions.^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]^[51] Agricultural subsidies under the Farm Bill exacerbate food insecurity by distorting markets toward overproduction of commodity crops like corn, which comprise key inputs for inexpensive processed foods high in sugars and starches, while under-supporting fruits, vegetables, and nutrient-dense options. These policies, which allocate roughly half of federal farm subsidies to corn and soy, have skewed production incentives, lowering costs for ultra-processed items and contributing to dietary patterns that perpetuate health issues intertwined with hunger, rather than promoting balanced nutrition.^[52]^[53]^[54] Expansive fiscal and monetary policies in the early 2020s, including trillions in pandemic-related spending and accommodative Federal Reserve actions, fueled inflation that disproportionately affected food prices, with grocery costs rising over 20% cumulatively from 2021 to 2023 amid supply chain strains and demand surges. This eroded purchasing power for low-income households, amplifying insecurity despite welfare expansions, as real food affordability declined sharply before moderating in 2024. Labor economics underscores how such transfer-heavy approaches, without corresponding incentives for productivity, sustain cycles of reliance on aid over economic mobility.^[55]^[56]^[57]

Behavioral and Personal Responsibility Factors

Household structure influences food insecurity through time and resource allocation tradeoffs, with single-parent households facing elevated risks independent of income levels. In 2023, households headed by single mothers experienced food insecurity at rates approximately 2.5 times higher than married-couple households with children, at 25 percent versus 10 percent.^[58]^[59] This disparity persists after controlling for socioeconomic factors, as single parents often juggle employment, childcare, and meal preparation, leading to reliance on costlier or less efficient food strategies.^[60] Poor financial management and literacy exacerbate insecurity by impairing budgeting for essentials amid adequate caloric availability. Low-income households demonstrating higher financial literacy are 20-30 percent less likely to report food insecurity, as measured by the USDA's Household Food Security Survey Module, due to better prioritization of expenditures on staples over discretionary items.^[61]^[62] Substance use disorders further compound this, correlating with insecurity rates up to 70 percent among affected individuals, often through diverted funds and impaired decision-making that overrides income sufficiency.^[63] Lifestyle preferences for convenience contribute independently, as food-insecure households frequently allocate budgets to dining out or prepared foods despite cheaper home-based alternatives. Surveys indicate that up to 20 percent of insecure households consume restaurant or takeout meals weekly, prioritizing immediacy over thrift, even as national caloric supply exceeds needs by 20-50 percent per capita.^[64] This pattern aligns with the obesity paradox, wherein 22-30 percent of food-insecure adults maintain overweight or obese status, reflecting choices for energy-dense, affordable options lacking nutritional balance rather than outright scarcity.^[65]^[66] Post-1960s cultural shifts toward consumerism and urban lifestyles have diminished thrift-oriented practices like bulk purchasing and home cooking, amplifying personal vulnerabilities. Time spent on food preparation by U.S. adults declined from 112 minutes daily for women in the 1960s to 66 minutes by 2008, correlating with increased reliance on processed and external sources amid normalized expectations of variety over preservation.^[67] These behavioral patterns underscore causal roles in perpetuating insecurity, distinct from aggregate economic pressures.

Immigration and Demographic Pressures

Households headed by immigrants or non-citizens in the United States face food insecurity rates 1.5 to 2 times higher than those headed by native-born citizens. For example, 23.7 percent of foreign-born low-income mothers reported food insecurity, compared to 12.7 percent of U.S.-born mothers.^[68] Among infants, 18.8 percent in immigrant-parent households experienced food insecurity, versus 11.3 percent in native-parent households.^[69] Non-citizen status independently elevates risk, with immigrant households overall showing disproportionate vulnerability due to eligibility restrictions and economic integration barriers.^[70] Undocumented immigrants remain ineligible for SNAP and most federal food assistance, yet U.S.-born children in mixed-status families qualify, resulting in elevated program participation rates among immigrant households—approximately 6.6 million eligible individuals across such families as of recent estimates.^[71] This dynamic burdens local and non-federal aid systems, including school meal programs available to all children regardless of parental status and emergency food distributions, which undocumented adults access at higher rates amid resource constraints. Larger household sizes prevalent in immigrant families, often exceeding native averages due to higher fertility and extended kin structures, further strain per capita food budgets.^[1] Economic pressures amplify these effects, as empirical models indicate a 1 percent unemployment increase doubles food insecurity growth among immigrants relative to natives (1.6 percent versus 0.8 percent rise).^[72] Outflows via remittances, common among immigrant workers, reduce household disposable income for domestic needs, though direct causal links to insecurity vary. While over 2 million immigrants labor in agriculture and food production—bolstering supply—their concentration in urban areas heightens localized demand on assistance networks, offsetting contributions amid higher overall welfare reliance in mixed families.^[73]

Physical Health Effects and the Obesity-Hunger Paradox

Food insecurity is linked to deficiencies in micronutrients such as iron, vitamin A, and folate, but overt macronutrient deficits resembling starvation are rare, as evidenced by National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data showing that food-insecure adults often consume sufficient or excess calories, primarily from low-cost, nutrient-poor sources like refined grains and sugars.^[74] This pattern reflects a focus on caloric quantity over dietary quality, where economic constraints prioritize affordable, energy-dense foods that fail to meet broader nutritional needs.^[75] The obesity-hunger paradox underscores this dynamic, with food insecurity paradoxically correlating with higher obesity rates amid overall U.S. adult obesity prevalence of 42.4%.^[76] Among food-insecure households, obesity affects approximately 35-40% of adults, per analyses of NHANES and USDA data, as intermittent access to food prompts compensatory overeating of cheap, high-calorie items, exacerbating weight gain while limiting nutrient variety.^[22] This challenges narratives of pure scarcity, revealing instead how behavioral adaptations in a food-abundant environment—favoring processed carbs and fats—drive excess adiposity rather than undernutrition.^[20] Chronic disease risks are elevated, with food-insecure adults 2 to 3 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes and facing a 41% higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, independent of socioeconomic confounders, due to persistent consumption of obesogenic diets rather than caloric deprivation.^[77]^[78] Hypertension and related cardiometabolic factors also show 20-30% increased odds, linked to irregular eating patterns and reliance on hyperpalatable, low-nutrient foods.^[79] In pregnancy, food insecurity raises the risk of low birth weight, with affected mothers delivering infants at 8.2% low-birth-weight rate versus 6.1% in secure households, alongside higher odds of preterm birth, attributable to maternal nutrient gaps and stress rather than famine-level deficits.^[80] Overall U.S. malnutrition-related deaths remain low at around 6,762 annually as of 2020, comprising under 0.3% of total mortality, indicating that physical effects manifest more through diet-induced chronic conditions than acute hunger fatalities.^[81]

Developmental and Mental Health Consequences

Food insecurity in children is associated with diminished cognitive development and academic performance, as evidenced by longitudinal studies tracking households over multiple years. For instance, persistent food insecurity from early childhood correlates with lower reading and mathematics scores in kindergarten and beyond, with effects persisting into adolescence when insecurity recurs.^[82] ^[83] These deficits manifest as measurable gaps in standardized test performance, often ranging from 5 to 10 percent lower achievement levels compared to food-secure peers, independent of socioeconomic confounders in some analyses. Behavioral consequences include elevated risks of externalizing problems such as aggression and hyperactivity, as well as internalizing issues like anxiety and irritability, observed in cross-sectional and prospective data from U.S. cohorts.^[84] ^[85] Such effects are more pronounced with chronic exposure but appear partially reversible upon resolution of insecurity, owing to the episodic nature in U.S. contexts bolstered by safety nets.^[86] Mental health outcomes among those affected by food insecurity show heightened odds of depression and anxiety, approximately twofold in adults and 1.5-fold in children, based on nationally representative surveys adjusting for demographics.^[87] ^[88] However, causality is bidirectional: while material hardship from insecurity induces stress and rumination, pre-existing psychological distress impairs financial management and meal planning, perpetuating cycles of insecurity, as demonstrated in longitudinal analyses.^[89] ^[90] In children, these links contribute to emotional dysregulation, though interventions addressing acute episodes mitigate long-term impairment. Among older adults, food insecurity compounds social isolation, elevating risks of malnutrition-related cognitive decline and depressive symptoms, with studies reporting consistent associations between very low food security and worsened mental health trajectories.^[91] ^[92] Unlike in developing regions, severe early developmental stunting remains negligible in the U.S., affecting under 1 percent of children primarily due to food insecurity alone, contrasting sharply with global rates exceeding 20 percent; robust welfare programs buffer against chronic undernutrition.^[93] ^[94] This underscores the predominantly reversible impacts of episodic insecurity in a high-resource setting.

Economic Productivity Losses

Food insecurity contributes to economic productivity losses in the United States by elevating absenteeism rates and impairing long-term workforce participation. Working-age adults experiencing food insecurity face higher odds of health-related missed workdays, with incidence rate ratios exceeding 2.0 in vulnerable populations such as those with chronic conditions; for example, affected individuals averaged 4.36 missed days annually compared to 1.41 for food-secure counterparts, equating to potential daily productivity costs of around $354 per worker based on wage replacement models.^[95] These disruptions reduce overall labor output, as food-insecure households—over half of which include full-time employed adults—report greater work limitations tied to nutritional deficits and associated fatigue.^[96] Childhood exposure to food insecurity exacerbates these losses through diminished human capital formation, manifesting as elevated school absenteeism, hyperactivity, and tardiness that persist into adulthood. Affected children demonstrate lower educational attainment, with links to reduced math proficiency and higher dropout risks, translating to forgone lifetime earnings differentials of approximately $27,000 annually between non-graduates and degree holders per 2007 Census data.^[97] Opportunity cost analyses of such trajectories estimate broader GDP contractions from lower workforce productivity and elevated public expenditures on unemployment support, which reached $94 billion in 2012 amid related human capital shortfalls.^[98] Private adaptations, such as community food banks and employer-sponsored nutrition initiatives, partially mitigate these productivity drags by enhancing household stability and enabling sustained labor engagement, though empirical quantification of their net economic offsets remains constrained by data limitations in observational studies. Overall estimates of annual productivity losses from food insecurity, incorporating both immediate absenteeism and intergenerational effects, align with figures in the tens of billions, underscoring causal pathways from nutritional instability to reduced economic output without conflating with unrelated externalities.^[99]

Demographic Patterns

Variations by Income, Employment, and Family Structure

Food insecurity exhibits a strong inverse relationship with household income, with prevalence concentrated among lower-income groups. In 2023, households with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty threshold experienced food insecurity at a rate of 33.5 percent, more than double the national average of 13.5 percent.^[100] Similarly, 38.7 percent of households below the federal poverty line were food insecure, underscoring how limited financial resources constrain access to sufficient food.^[36] Over 80 percent of food-insecure households typically report incomes below 200 percent of poverty, as higher earners face near-zero rates due to greater purchasing power.^[12] Employment status further delineates risk, with unemployment associated with markedly higher rates than full-time work. Households lacking any employed adults exhibit food insecurity rates exceeding 30 percent in recent analyses, compared to under 10 percent among those with full-time workers, reflecting steady income's role in stabilizing food access.^[1] Nonetheless, full-time employed households comprised 56 percent of all food-insecure cases in 2023, indicating that wages for many such workers remain insufficient against living costs.^[101] Family structure profoundly influences vulnerability, particularly through single parenthood. Single-parent households, predominantly headed by mothers, faced food insecurity at 34.7 percent in 2023—over twice the 17.9 percent rate for all households with children and roughly three times the overall household average.^[100]^[1] This elevated risk stems from sole caregivers balancing work, childcare, and household duties, often without a second income, whereas two-parent families mitigate strain via shared responsibilities and combined earnings, yielding lower insecurity rates akin to childless couples.^[12]

Racial, Ethnic, and Immigrant Disparities

In 2023, the prevalence of household food insecurity in the United States varied significantly by race and ethnicity, with Black non-Hispanic households experiencing rates of approximately 22.4 percent, Hispanic households 20.9 percent, and White non-Hispanic households 10.0 percent, according to USDA data from the Current Population Survey.^[102] Asian households reported the lowest rates at around 9 percent, while American Indian and Alaska Native households faced rates near 25 percent, often linked to elevated poverty levels exceeding 25 percent and structural economic challenges on reservations, including high unemployment and limited local employment opportunities.^[102]^[103] These raw disparities reflect broader socioeconomic patterns but do not imply inherent racial barriers to food access, as eligibility for federal assistance programs like SNAP is income-based rather than race-restricted, and commercial food markets remain universally available based on purchasing power.^[104] Multiracial households showed elevated very low food security rates, up to 11.3 percent in some combinations, though comprehensive data for all subgroups remains limited.^[105] Analyses controlling for confounders such as income, education, employment status, and family structure—particularly the higher prevalence of single-parent households among Black and Hispanic groups—substantially attenuate these gaps, often reducing them by half or more, as disparities largely align with economic and household composition variables rather than independent racial effects.^[106]^[107] For instance, among low-income households not participating in SNAP, racial differences persist, but they largely disappear among SNAP participants, underscoring the role of program uptake and economic factors over discriminatory access.^[107] Immigrant households exhibited food insecurity rates of 18 to 25 percent overall, with recent arrivals facing up to 25 percent prevalence and undocumented immigrants experiencing even higher rates, such as 45 percent in certain state samples, attributable to factors like lower eligibility for public benefits, employment barriers, and larger household sizes.^[108]^[109] Non-citizen status independently elevates risk, independent of nativity alone, though trends show declines over time with assimilation and income gains.^[70] Data on sexual minorities indicate elevated rates, but evidence is sparse and often confounded by overlapping socioeconomic vulnerabilities.^[110] Across groups, no empirical support exists for systemic denial of food resources; disparities correlate primarily with income poverty and household dynamics, with aid programs mitigating but not eliminating underlying economic drivers.^[111]

Rural vs. Urban and Regional Differences

In 2023, rural households in the United States faced food insecurity at a rate of 15.4 percent, exceeding the national average of 13.5 percent for all households.^[112] This disparity stems primarily from economic factors such as job sparsity and limited employment opportunities in non-metropolitan areas, compounded by transportation challenges that hinder access to affordable food sources, even where costs may be lower than in densely populated regions.^[112] Urban households, by contrast, experience food insecurity influenced more by elevated living expenses and housing costs that strain budgets, though proximity to grocery outlets and public transit often facilitates better logistical access despite these pressures.^[35] Regional variations further highlight economic density over geographic isolation as a key driver. The Southern United States recorded the highest regional rate at 14.7 percent in recent data, attributed to higher poverty concentrations and agricultural dependency amid volatile labor markets, while Midwestern states show elevated rates in rural pockets exceeding 15 percent due to similar employment constraints.^[35] The Northeast, with denser urban economies and stronger social safety nets, maintains the lowest prevalence, often below 10 percent in metropolitan cores. Concepts like "food deserts"—low-income areas more than 10 miles from a supermarket in rural settings or 1 mile in urban—affect an estimated 6.1 percent of the population (18.8 million people), but empirical evidence indicates their role in insecurity is limited, as economic barriers outweigh access logistics, increasingly alleviated by online delivery and mobile markets.^[113] USDA analyses confirm that such tracts represent a minor fraction of overall hunger, with causal factors rooted more in income volatility than proximity to stores.^[113]

Government Responses and Programs

SNAP and Federal Food Assistance

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides electronic benefits to low-income households to purchase eligible food items at authorized retailers nationwide. Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, SNAP benefits are loaded monthly onto Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which function like debit cards restricted to food purchases. Eligible items include breads, cereals, fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy products, and seeds or plants for food production, but exclude alcohol, tobacco, hot foods intended for immediate consumption, and nonfood items. Eligibility requires households to meet income and resource tests, with gross monthly income generally limited to 130% of the federal poverty level (about $32,000 annually for a family of three in 2024) and net income to 100% (after deductions for expenses like housing and childcare). Asset limits apply, though exemptions exist for households with elderly or disabled members. States handle applications and certifications, often aligning with simplified processes during economic downturns. In fiscal year 2024, SNAP averaged 41.7 million monthly participants, representing 12.3% of the U.S. population, with federal spending totaling $100.3 billion—93% of which funded direct benefits.^[2]^[114] The average SNAP benefit amounted to $187 per person per month in fiscal year 2024, or roughly $6.20 daily, adjusted periodically for inflation via the Thrifty Food Plan. Empirical analyses, including instrumental variable studies, show SNAP enrollment reduces household food insecurity by 20-30%, with stronger effects for very low food security and among children.^[38]^[2]^[115] Pandemic-era expansions under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and subsequent legislation introduced emergency allotments from March 2020, boosting all eligible households to maximum benefit levels regardless of income—often increasing allotments by $100-300 monthly per household—to mitigate job losses and supply disruptions. These supplements, which covered gaps in immediate food access, persisted through 2021-2022 and ended after February 2023 issuances, reverting benefits to pre-pandemic formulas adjusted for cost-of-living. However, the period saw improper payments rise, with the national payment error rate (over- and underpayments) hitting 11.5% in fiscal year 2023 per USDA quality control audits, partly attributed to waived interviews and expedited processing.^[116]^[117]

School and Child Nutrition Programs

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), administered by the USDA, provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to over 30 million children daily in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions.^[118] In fiscal year 2022, the program served more than 4.95 billion lunches to 30.1 million participating children, with 95.4 percent receiving free meals.^[119] Complementing this, the School Breakfast Program (SBP) reimburses schools for serving breakfasts, reaching about 14.3 million children on an average school day in the 2022–2023 school year, with 11.3 million qualifying for free breakfasts.^[120] These programs target children from households with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level for free meals and between 130 and 185 percent for reduced-price meals, covering eligibility for more than 50 percent of public school students nationwide.^[121]^[122] Eligibility for free or reduced-price meals under NSLP and SBP is determined by household income guidelines adjusted annually; for school year 2025–2026, free meals apply to families earning up to $32,121 annually for a household of three, while reduced-price eligibility extends to $45,682.^[123] In the 2023–2024 school year, free and reduced-price lunch participation rose by 1.3 million children, or 6.8 percent, compared to the prior year, reflecting sustained demand post-pandemic.^[124] Approximately 72.5 percent of all public school lunches served are free or reduced-price, underscoring the programs' broad reach in addressing child nutrition during school hours.^[125] During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal waivers enabled universal free meals in participating schools from school year 2020–2021 through 2022–2023, eliminating application requirements and boosting participation; state agencies reported that 90 percent observed increased meal uptake and reduced access barriers.^[126] This expansion led to a 34.4 percent rise in free or reduced-price program participation overall, though meal service dropped sharply during school closures.^[127] Post-waiver, 60 percent of NSLP schools continued universal free options via state or federal provisions, up from 18 percent in school year 2014–2015, maintaining elevated participation levels.^[128] While NSLP and SBP provide substantial coverage during the school week—serving tens of millions of meals daily—gaps persist outside school hours, such as weekends and summers, where programs like the Summer Food Service Program offer limited supplementation.^[129] Despite these limitations and reported food insecurity affecting 17.9 percent of households with children in 2023, child mortality directly attributable to hunger remains exceedingly rare in the United States, with malnutrition-related deaths totaling around 1,400 annually across all ages in 2022 and comprising only 0.27 percent of overall fatalities.^[1]^[130]^[81]

Evaluations of Program Effectiveness and Inefficiencies

Federal evaluations of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and related food assistance initiatives indicate short-term reductions in food insecurity among participants. USDA research shows that SNAP participation correlates with a 30% overall decrease in household food insecurity, with greater effects for children and those experiencing very low food security, where benefits can mitigate acute hunger episodes by improving food access and expenditures.^[131]^[132] However, these gains are primarily transient; longitudinal studies reveal mixed long-term impacts, with some analyses finding no significant sustained reduction in insecurity rates across broader populations despite program expansion.^[133]^[134] Health outcomes from SNAP remain modest and contested. While participation is associated with slight improvements in dietary quality and potential buffering against obesity in food-insecure subgroups, claims of substantial obesity reductions (e.g., 5% or more) lack robust causal evidence and are disputed by peer-reviewed reviews, which highlight persistent challenges like reliance on calorie-dense foods permissible under program rules.^[135]^[3] GAO reports emphasize that improper payments, including over-issuances, undermine efficiency, with fiscal year 2023 estimates indicating 11.7% of benefits ($10.5 billion) were erroneous, though fraud itself constitutes a smaller subset.^[136] Administrative inefficiencies further erode program value. SNAP's total administrative costs, shared roughly 50-50 between federal and state levels, absorb about 6% of annual spending, but proposed 2025 fiscal reforms aim to shift up to 75% of these burdens to states with high error rates exceeding 6%, potentially incentivizing better oversight.^[38]^[137] Error rates for fiscal year 2024 stood at 10.93% nationally, reflecting systemic issues in eligibility verification rather than intentional fraud, which USDA data pegs as rare but contributing to waste.^[138] Critics highlight work disincentives as a core inefficiency, with evidence showing that loosening requirements correlates with reduced employment among able-bodied adults without dependents, without commensurate long-term poverty alleviation.^[139] Evaluations indicate SNAP expansions have not lowered baseline food insecurity below 10-13% since the 1990s, despite cumulative federal outlays on food assistance exceeding $2 trillion adjusted for inflation over decades of program growth.^[2] This persistence suggests causal limitations, where benefits alleviate symptoms but fail to address root drivers like labor market barriers, prompting 2025 policy eyed for stricter work mandates to promote self-reliance.^[140]^[141]

Alternative Approaches

Private Charity and Community Initiatives

Private charities and community initiatives form a vital component of hunger relief in the United States, operating through decentralized networks of food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, and faith-based organizations that distribute donated food via volunteers. The Feeding America network, which includes over 200 regional food banks and more than 60,000 partner programs, provided charitable food assistance to over 50 million people in 2023, equivalent to billions of meals sourced from private donations, retailer contributions, and rescued surplus.^[142] These efforts leverage volunteer labor for collection, sorting, and distribution, with organizations like local food banks reporting tens of thousands of volunteer hours annually to sustain operations without reliance on taxpayer funds.^[143] Efficiency in resource allocation distinguishes many private food assistance providers, as evidenced by Feeding America's 99% efficiency rating from Forbes in 2021, reflecting that the vast majority of private contributions directly fund food procurement and distribution rather than overhead.^[144] Faith-based organizations, which manage a significant portion of food pantries, often integrate assistance with community-building activities that promote personal responsibility, such as requiring recipients to perform light service tasks or connecting them to employment resources, thereby mitigating dependency and stigma associated with aid receipt.^[145] Approximately 48% of U.S. congregations either operate their own food programs or support external ones, amplifying reach through trusted local networks.^[146] Community-driven initiatives, including neighborhood mutual aid groups and church-led meal services, address acute needs by providing immediate, no-strings-attached support during crises, as seen in the charitable food system's service to 53 million individuals in 2021 amid economic disruptions.^[147] These entities prioritize perishable and nutritious donations, redistributing surplus from farms, grocers, and manufacturers to prevent waste while meeting demand, with national food bank networks handling billions of pounds of food yearly through volunteer-coordinated logistics.^[148]

Market-Driven Solutions and Innovations

Discount retailers like Walmart and Aldi have expanded access to affordable groceries in low-income and rural communities, thereby reducing food insecurity through competitive pricing and broader availability. Walmart's entry into local markets has been shown to alleviate food insecurity, particularly among low-income households, by providing lower-cost essentials that lower overall household expenditures.^[149] A commissioned study estimated that Walmart saves average households approximately $3,100 annually in 2024-adjusted dollars across goods, including significant food savings due to its scale and efficiency.^[150] Aldi, through its no-frills model emphasizing private-label products and minimal overhead, has aggressively grown in the U.S., often undercutting competitors like Walmart on staple food prices and serving middle- and lower-income shoppers amid inflationary pressures.^[151] These chains have proliferated in areas with limited traditional supermarket options, enhancing caloric availability even if fresh produce selection varies.^[152] Technological innovations in food delivery, such as apps from Instacart, address transportation and mobility barriers that exacerbate food insecurity, enabling direct home delivery from partnered supermarkets to vulnerable populations. Instacart has integrated SNAP benefits across over 30,000 stores in all 50 states, allowing low-income users to order groceries online and receive them without physical store visits, which is particularly beneficial for the elderly, disabled, or those in remote areas.^[153] Partnerships with health organizations, including pilots delivering medically tailored meals to veterans and low-income families, demonstrate how these platforms improve nutrition access and adherence by reducing logistical hurdles.^[154] Such services leverage data-driven routing and real-time inventory to minimize waste and ensure timely supply, fostering market responsiveness to demand in underserved segments.^[155] Advancements in agricultural technology have dramatically increased U.S. food production efficiency, contributing to long-term declines in real food prices and bolstering overall abundance. Farm output rose 170% from 1948 to 2015, at an average annual rate of 1.48%, driven by innovations in seeds, fertilizers, machinery, and precision farming that enhanced yields without proportional land expansion.^[156] Corn yields, for instance, have improved steadily at about 1.9 bushels per acre annually since the 1980s, reflecting genetic modifications and agronomic practices that doubled effective output per unit input over decades.^[157] These productivity gains have kept real per capita food costs falling historically, even as population grew, by flooding markets with supply and incentivizing competitive distribution.^[158]

Policy Reforms Emphasizing Work and Self-Reliance

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act introduced Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with block grants to states conditioned on work requirements and time limits for able-bodied recipients.^[159] These reforms mandated that states ensure a rising share of families participate in work activities, such as employment, job training, or community service, limited benefits to five years lifetime, and allowed earnings disregards to incentivize initial workforce entry.^[160] TANF caseloads declined by approximately 60% from 1996 to 2016, falling from over 12 million recipients to about 4.8 million, coinciding with a strong economic expansion and net increases in employment among low-income single mothers.^[161] Longitudinal analyses of welfare-to-work participants post-reform indicate improved family economic stability for many, with earnings gains offsetting benefit losses and no widespread evidence of sustained hardship spikes attributable solely to the requirements.^[162] Proponents of extending similar mechanisms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) argue that strengthening work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)—currently limited to ages 18-52 and requiring 80 hours per month of work or training, with a three-month benefit limit in three years absent compliance—could replicate TANF's shift toward self-reliance.^[163] Policy proposals, including those in recent farm bill debates, advocate expanding ABAWD criteria to ages 18-59, tightening exemptions, and incorporating earnings incentives like higher initial income disregards to reduce effective marginal tax rates on work, potentially increasing employment participation by encouraging benefit cliffs to be replaced with gradual phase-outs.^[140] Evaluations of pre-2008 SNAP enforcement periods, when fewer waivers were granted, show caseload reductions without proportional employment declines, suggesting administrative compliance drives exits more than job loss, though critics contend this masks short-term food access reductions.^[47] Empirical reviews indicate that while SNAP work rules reduce program uptake by up to 53% among subject adults, they correlate with higher labor force attachment in states with robust job supports, aligning with TANF's observed 10-20% employment uplift estimates for compliant cohorts.^[164] Complementary reforms include deregulating agricultural supports to foster market-driven efficiency, as federal farm subsidies—totaling over $20 billion annually—distort crop choices, inflate land values, and fail to lower retail food prices or directly alleviate hunger, per analyses of commodity programs.^[165] ^[166] Phasing out such interventions could reduce taxpayer burdens and promote competitive pricing through undistorted supply chains, indirectly supporting self-reliant households by stabilizing costs without reliance on aid. For school nutrition, introducing voucher-like flexibility in programs such as the National School Lunch Program—allowing parental choice in meal providers or formats—could enhance efficiency and nutritional outcomes, mirroring broader school choice models that improve resource allocation without expanding federal mandates.^[167] These targeted shifts prioritize causal links between work incentives and reduced dependency, evidenced by TANF's precedent of lowered caseloads amid sustained or declining poverty metrics.^[168]

Historical Overview

Pre-20th Century Self-Reliance and Abundance

![John Smith and Pocahontas in colonial America][float-right] In colonial America, agriculture formed the backbone of the economy, with approximately 90 percent of the population engaged in farming by 1790, producing sufficient food for subsistence and surplus for trade.^[169] Early settlers adopted Native American techniques and crops such as corn, which ensured reliable yields on fertile lands, transitioning from initial scarcities to general prosperity by the mid-18th century.^[170] Abundant natural resources and low population density contributed to nutritional adequacy, with mortality rates lower than in Europe due to ample food availability.^[171] Food production typically exceeded domestic needs, though uneven distribution occasionally affected urban poor, mitigated through local markets and private networks rather than centralized aid.^[172] Reliance on family labor, community mutual aid, and ecclesiastical charity characterized responses to hardship, as federal mechanisms for food distribution were absent prior to the 20th century.^[173] Colonial farmers achieved high self-sufficiency, cultivating diverse crops and livestock to meet household requirements without dependence on distant imports for staples.^[174] Instances of want were localized and transient, often tied to crop failures or conflict, but widespread famine remained unknown, underscoring the efficacy of decentralized, market-oriented systems in fostering food security.^[170] The 19th century amplified this abundance through westward expansion and infrastructural advances, with farmland under cultivation increasing by 225 million acres between 1870 and 1900, driven by railroad networks that facilitated efficient transport and market integration.^[175] Immigration swelled the agricultural workforce, boosting output of grains and livestock to levels supporting domestic consumption and substantial exports, as production outpaced population growth.^[176] No major domestic famines occurred, reflecting the resilience of private enterprise and voluntary associations in addressing vulnerabilities without federal intervention.^[173] This era's self-reliant framework, unencumbered by policy-induced distortions, sustained caloric surpluses and minimized chronic hunger across regions.^[175]

20th Century Expansion of Welfare and Policy Shifts

The Food Stamp Program originated as a pilot initiative in 1939 under the New Deal to alleviate agricultural surpluses and hunger during the Great Depression, allowing participants to purchase orange stamps for surplus foods and receive blue stamps as a bonus for ineligible items.^[177] ^[178] This temporary measure ended in 1943 but laid groundwork for later expansions. The program was revived and made permanent by the Food Stamp Act of 1964, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of the Great Society's War on Poverty, aiming to boost farm demand while addressing urban malnutrition amid rising poverty rates that reached 19% nationally by 1964.^[179] ^[180] Participation surged in the late 1960s and 1970s, exceeding 500,000 by April 1965 and reaching 15 million recipients by 1974 under President Richard Nixon, who centralized administration via the USDA despite initial proposals to devolve it to states.^[181] ^[182] Caseloads continued expanding through the 1980s and early 1990s, hitting 27 million by 1995, coinciding with urban decay, deindustrialization, and family breakdown that concentrated poverty in inner cities.^[183] This growth occurred against a backdrop of postwar agricultural abundance, with U.S. per capita food availability rising 20% from 1960 to 1990 due to productivity gains, yet reported undernutrition persisted in targeted demographics.^[184] The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 introduced work requirements, time limits, and eligibility restrictions—such as barring many legal immigrants—reducing food stamp rolls from 27 million in 1995 to 17 million by 2000, primarily via economic recovery and sanction enforcement rather than program elimination.^[185] ^[183] However, the simultaneous debut of USDA's Household Food Security Survey in 1995, via Census Bureau supplements, revealed persistent insecurity rates around 12-15% through the late 1990s, suggesting that expanded access had not eradicated access issues amid behavioral and cultural shifts in welfare dependency.^[186] ^[187] Parallel agricultural policies, enshrined in periodic Farm Bills from the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act onward, heavily subsidized commodity crops like corn and soybeans, which comprised over 70% of subsidy outlays by the 1990s and enabled cheap high-fructose corn syrup production for processed foods.^[52] ^[188] These incentives, intended to stabilize farm incomes, inadvertently lowered prices for calorie-dense, nutrient-poor items—contributing to dietary shifts toward junk food consumption—while welfare expansions funneled benefits toward such subsidized products, complicating efforts to link program growth directly to improved nutritional outcomes despite overall caloric plenty.^[189] ^[190]

21st Century Trends and Recent Policy Changes

In the early 2000s, U.S. household food insecurity rates hovered around 11-12 percent, but surged during the 2008 financial crisis, reaching 14.6 percent in 2008 amid rising unemployment and economic contraction.^[30] SNAP participation expanded rapidly in response, climbing from approximately 28 million recipients in 2008 to a peak of about 47 million by 2013, fueled by recessionary stimulus measures and the 2010 Affordable Care Act's indirect expansions through streamlined eligibility and Medicaid overlaps.^[191] Federal SNAP spending correspondingly escalated, averaging over $60 billion annually post-recession, contributing to cumulative food assistance outlays exceeding $1 trillion across USDA programs since 2000.^[114] ^[192] The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified program scale, with SNAP enrollment hitting 43 million in 2020 and federal spending surpassing $110 billion in fiscal year 2021 due to emergency allotments, waived work requirements, and broadened access.^[193] These interventions temporarily mitigated acute disruptions, yet food insecurity rates rebounded to 13.5 percent by 2023—statistically unchanged from pre-pandemic levels when adjusted for inflation and economic recovery—despite total USDA nutrition assistance reaching $142 billion in fiscal 2024.^[194] ^[195] In 2025, the Trump administration enacted reforms via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, reinstating stricter SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, ending remaining pandemic-era time limit waivers, and tightening eligibility for non-citizens, projected to reduce participation by curbing expansions.^[196] ^[197] Concurrently, the USDA terminated the annual Household Food Security Survey after three decades, citing redundancy with other data sources, a move interpreted by officials as streamlining amid skepticism toward self-reported metrics that have shown limited progress despite sustained high spending.^[23] These shifts align with broader fiscal restraint efforts to address post-pandemic inflation, prioritizing self-reliance over indefinite expansions.^[198]

Key Controversies

Exaggeration of Hunger vs. Actual Caloric Scarcity

Media narratives frequently depict food insecurity in the United States as akin to famine or widespread starvation, yet data reveal that physiological caloric scarcity remains minimal, with deprivation more often manifesting as episodic psychological distress rather than sustained undernutrition. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 30-40 percent of the food supply is lost or wasted annually, equivalent to billions of pounds of edible food discarded at retail, consumer, and production stages, underscoring an overall abundance rather than scarcity.^[199] This waste occurs amid average per capita caloric availability exceeding 3,600 calories daily, far above subsistence levels, indicating that claims of systemic hunger overlook structural plenty.^[200] USDA metrics differentiate food insecurity—primarily a household condition involving worry or reduced food quality—from outright hunger, defined as the individual physiological experience of discomfort from insufficient intake; even in "very low food security" households (5.1 percent in 2023), disruptions are typically reduced eating patterns rather than prolonged starvation.^[13] Actual deaths from malnutrition, which include but are not limited to hunger-induced causes such as neglect in vulnerable populations, totaled approximately 1,400 in 2022, a fraction of total mortality and dwarfed by obesity-related fatalities exceeding 300,000 annually.^[130] These figures contrast sharply with historical famines, where death rates reached millions; in the U.S., such outcomes are negligible, with no evidence of mass caloric deficits driving mortality. Further highlighting the divergence between perception and reality, adult obesity prevalence stands at 40.3 percent as of 2021-2023, reflecting caloric overconsumption in the population and complicating narratives of pervasive deprivation.^[201] Globally, U.S. undernourishment rates hover below 2.5 percent, far lower than the 20 percent or higher in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where true famine conditions persist amid conflict and crop failure.^[202] This disparity suggests that domestic "hunger" discourse amplifies subjective anxieties—such as fears of running out of food—over objective physiological harm, potentially inflating policy responses disproportionate to verifiable scarcity.^[1]

Validity of Insecurity Metrics and Data Reporting

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), which underpins national food insecurity estimates, relies on self-reported responses to 10 or 18 questions assessing experiences such as worrying food would run out before affording more or eating less than felt necessary due to insufficient money.^[15] This approach captures perceptions of access constraints but has faced scrutiny for conflating psychological anxiety with physiological deprivation, as USDA acknowledges the module does not directly measure hunger or caloric deficits.^[13] Empirical validations, including Rasch analyses, reveal violations of key psychometric assumptions like equal item discrimination, undermining the scale's unidimensionality and reliability in diverse populations such as college students.^[203] Self-reports in the HFSSM are prone to inflation from social desirability bias—where respondents exaggerate hardships to align with perceived norms of need—and strategic overreporting to qualify for assistance programs, as evidenced by discrepancies in list experiments comparing direct questioning to anonymous indirect methods.^[204] Such biases contribute to measurement error, with studies indicating that reported food insecurity often fails to correlate strongly with objective undernutrition indicators like stunting or wasting in U.S. contexts, where clinical malnutrition remains rare despite insecurity rates hovering around 13 percent.^[205] Test-retest assessments and longitudinal analyses further highlight inconsistencies, as self-reported status fluctuates more due to recall variability than verifiable changes in access.^[206] Alternative metrics, such as household consumption expenditure surveys from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, provide corroborative data showing that over 90 percent of "food insecure" households maintain energy intakes meeting or exceeding recommended levels, suggesting the HFSSM overemphasizes episodic worry rather than sustained scarcity.^[207] These objective approaches reveal no widespread caloric shortfalls aligning with insecurity prevalence, contrasting with self-reports that show weak ties to health outcomes like malnutrition surges. In September 2025, USDA terminated annual HFSSM-based Household Food Security Reports, citing redundant data amid stable trends and lack of linkage to tangible deprivations, a decision grounded in these validity concerns despite criticism from advocacy groups prioritizing subjective metrics.^[23]^[32]

Debates on Root Causes and Solutions

Debates on root causes of food insecurity in the United States center on whether it stems primarily from systemic inequalities and structural barriers or from policy-induced disincentives and individual behavioral factors. Proponents of systemic explanations argue that entrenched disparities in access to education, employment opportunities, and resources perpetuate cycles of poverty and hunger, with food insecurity disproportionately affecting marginalized groups due to historical and institutional inequities.^[111] ^[208] In contrast, evidence from economic analyses highlights welfare traps—where high effective marginal tax rates from benefit phase-outs discourage work and self-sufficiency—over poverty traps as more significant barriers, as low-income households often face combined benefits exceeding entry-level wages, reducing labor participation.^[209] ^[210] Data from the 1996 welfare reforms, which imposed work requirements and time limits, demonstrate reduced caseloads, increased employment, and intergenerational declines in food insecurity by 6-10 percentage points for extended exposure, suggesting policy incentives promoting personal agency yield measurable improvements in outcomes.^[211] ^[212] ^[213] Immigration's role further illustrates these tensions, with studies showing immigrant-headed households, particularly illegal immigrant ones, utilizing welfare programs at rates exceeding U.S.-born households (59% vs. lower native rates), straining resources amid higher food insecurity risks for non-citizens despite eligibility restrictions.^[214] ^[70] Critics of systemic views counter that U.S. agricultural abundance—producing surplus calories far exceeding needs—undermines scarcity narratives, as evidenced by obesity rates coexisting with reported insecurity (e.g., 42% of adults obese in 2023 alongside 13.5% food insecurity prevalence), pointing to distributional inefficiencies, poor choices, or metric overstatements rather than absolute shortages.^[1] ^[215] On solutions, advocates for equity-focused aid emphasize expanding universal entitlements to address rights gaps, but data favor targeted, work-conditioned programs that avoid disincentives; for instance, SNAP work requirements reduce participation by up to 53% among able-bodied adults without children, yet correlate with sustained employment gains and lower long-term insecurity when paired with job supports.^[164] ^[216] Universal basic income variants, like food-specific allotments, promise simplicity but risk inflating costs and work discouragement by providing unearned benefits to all, diverting funds from the needy and potentially increasing dependency, whereas targeted aid more efficiently lifts poverty when tied to self-reliance metrics.^[217] ^[218] Empirical reviews of cash transfers find no broad work deterrence in low-income contexts but underscore that incentive-aligned reforms outperform unconditional models in fostering economic mobility and reducing hunger persistence.^[219]

References

[1]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics
[2]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research
[3]
Safeguarding SNAP as an Effective Antihunger Program
Dec 4, 2024 · SNAP reduces the risk of very low food security by roughly 20% and is one of the only safeguards against poverty in the United States; only ...
[4]
SNAP funding cuts threaten food security, health
Aug 21, 2025 · Studies from various groups, including the USDA, have shown that it can reduce food insecurity by 30%. And it's particularly effective for ...
[5]
Understanding food insecurity risk in the United States - NIH
Dec 9, 2023 · Most food insecure households, 74.8%, had members with 'role-related' risk factors: age, disability, and/or job loss. •. Better income supports ...
[6]
Food insecurity has economic root causes - PMC - NIH
Aug 8, 2022 · Food insecurity has been linked to low wages, adverse social and economic conditions, limited access to healthy foods, residential segregation, ...
[7]
Food insecurity: a neglected public health issue requiring ...
Apr 4, 2023 · Inequality in high-income countries is the main contributing factor for FI rather than a complete scarcity of resources. Indeed, wealthier ...
[8]
Food Insecurity, Neighborhood Food Environment, and Health ...
Dec 29, 2023 · Food insecurity and the lack of access to affordable, nutritious food are associated with poor dietary quality and an increased risk of diet-related diseases.
[9]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/survey-tools/
[10]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/DataFiles/50764/26621_hh2012.pdf
[11]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement/
[12]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=109895
[13]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/measurement
[14]
Why the USDA Is Justified in Ending the Food Security Survey
Sep 24, 2025 · Below I highlight several concerns with the current food security survey, which justify at least pausing it in 2025. This pause would allow ...<|separator|>
[15]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/survey-tools
[16]
Assessing the 10-Item Food Security Survey Model (FSSM) - MDPI
Thus, we can conclude the 10-item USDA-FSSM does not accurately and effectively measure food security among college students in the United States.
[17]
Why the USDA Is Justified in Ending the Food Security Survey
Sep 23, 2025 · We found that 25 percent of households reporting food insecurity had incomes in the top three income quintiles, with some food insecure ...Missing: self- | Show results with:self-
[18]
Food Supply - Our World in Data
In this chart below we can see FAO estimates of per capita fat supply by region dating back to 1961. Overall, the global per capita protein supply has more than ...Regional variations in daily... · Improving food supply in early...
[19]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system
[20]
The Food-Insecurity Obesity Paradox: A Resource Scarcity Hypothesis
Food insecurity is paradoxically associated with obesity in the United States. Current hypotheses to explain this phenomenon are descriptive.
[21]
The Food Insecurity–Obesity Paradox: A Review of the Literature ...
During the past decade, rates of food insecurity and obesity have risen, and an association has been made between these two seemingly paradoxical states.
[22]
The association between food insecurity and obesity, a body shape ...
Oct 9, 2024 · This study confirms previous evidence of the positive association between food insecurity and obesity among US adults.
[23]
USDA Terminates Redundant Food Insecurity Survey
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the termination of future Household Food Security Reports.Missing: self- flaws
[24]
USDA cancels survey tracking how many Americans struggle to get ...
Sep 22, 2025 · The Department of Agriculture said it will end a longstanding annual food insecurity survey. Experts say the move will obscure the effects ...
[25]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/81780/ERR-220.pdf
[26]
U.S. Agriculture in the Twentieth Century – EH.net
The number of farms decreased from a peak of close to 7 million in the mid-1930s to just over 2 million in 2000.
[27]
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/
[28]
Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead - PNAS
Although populations had more than doubled, the production of cereal crops tripled during this period, with only a 30% increase in land area cultivated (1).
[29]
Measuring Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States
The technical basis and initial results of the new measure were reported in September 1997. For the 12 months ending April 1995, an estimated 11.9% of U.S. ...
[30]
Food Security in the U.S. - Key Statistics & Graphics - USDA ERS
Jan 8, 2025 · 13.5 percent (18.0 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2023. · The 2023 prevalence of food insecurity was ...Interactive Charts and HighlightsDefinitions
[31]
USDA Food Security Report 2023 | Feeding America
Sep 4, 2024 · The number of people living in food insecure households in the United States in 2023 increased to 47 million, including nearly 14 million children.
[32]
Cancellation of food insecurity survey a blow to understanding ...
Oct 16, 2025 · The final report in the series, featuring 2024 data, is scheduled for release on Oct. 22. According to the most recent data, 47 million people ...
[33]
Map the Meal Gap: Hunger & Poverty in the United States
The food insecurity rate in the United States was 14.3% in 2023. Explore a map of hunger statistics in the United States at the state and local level.
[34]
Map the Meal Gap 2025 | Feeding America
May 14, 2025 · Nearly 20% of children across the country are experiencing food insecurity and in some rural counties, child food insecurity rates are ...
[35]
Hunger & Poverty in America - Food Research & Action Center
Research shows that food insecurity is linked with costly chronic diseases and unfavorable outcomes. According to the Root Cause Coalition, the annual costs of ...
[36]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance
[37]
SNAP Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information
Aug 14, 2025 · Income eligibility standards are set by law. Gross monthly income limits are set at 130 percent of the poverty level for the household size.
[38]
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Nov 25, 2024 · Its gross monthly income generally must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line, or $2,798 a month (about $33,576 a year) for a three- ...
[39]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings
[40]
CE home : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Average expenditures for all consumer units in 2023 were $77,280, a 5.9-percent increase from 2022, and average income before taxes increased 8.3 percent.
[41]
From Grocery Carts to Doorsteps: 2024 Food Spending | Market Intel
Aug 22, 2025 · On average, Americans spent 10.6% of their disposable personal income on food in 2024, one of the lowest shares in the world.Missing: percentage | Show results with:percentage
[42]
[PDF] Prevalence of U.S. Food Insecurity Is Related to Changes in ...
This report examines the extent to which year-to-year changes in the prevalence of U.S. house- hold food insecurity can be explained by changes in the national ...
[43]
Food Insecurity - Healthy People 2030 | odphp.health.gov
In 2020, 28.6 percent of low-income households were food insecure, compared to the national average of 10.5 percent. Unemployment can also negatively affect a ...
[44]
Effective Marginal Tax Rates/Benefit Cliffs - https: // aspe . hhs . gov.
This series examines the range of effective marginal tax rates for low-income households and common benefit program “bundles.”
[45]
[PDF] How Marginal Tax Rates Affect Families at Various Levels of Poverty
High marginal tax rates can make moving above poverty very difficult for low-income families. These high tax rates result from increasing direct taxes (both ...
[46]
[PDF] Understanding benefit cliffs and marginal tax rates
A benefit cliff is when a small income increase makes a family ineligible for benefits. Marginal tax rate is the percentage of each additional dollar lost ...
[47]
The Effects of SNAP Work Requirements in Reducing Participation ...
Our analyses indicate that imposing work requirements leads to substantial reductions in SNAP caseloads and benefits issued, even after controlling for ...
[48]
The impact of SNAP work requirements on labor supply
Examines the effect of SNAP work requirements on the labor supply of older prime-age able-bodied adults without dependents.
[49]
Welfare dependence from one generation to the next - CEPR
May 29, 2018 · A snowball effect across generations could arise if welfare dependency is transmitted from parents to their children, with potentially serious ...
[50]
SNAP Data Tables - USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Aug 22, 2025 · National and/or State Level Monthly and/or Annual Data Persons, Households, Benefits, and Average Monthly Benefit per Person & Household
[51]
A Brief Overview of the Right to Food in the United States
May 1, 2024 · There is no set-in-stone guarantee of a right to food in the United States, and many people in the U.S. do not disagree with not codifying this ...
[52]
Agricultural Subsidies and the American Obesity Epidemic
Government-issued payments have skewed agricultural markets toward the overproduction of commodities that are the basic ingredients of processed, energy-dense ...
[53]
Agricultural subsidies are killing Americans and fueling the climate ...
Oct 28, 2024 · U.S. agriculture subsidies encourage the production of commodity crops like corn and soybeans, which are mostly made into processed foods or ...Missing: overproduction | Show results with:overproduction
[54]
How Government Policy Distorts American Diets
Oct 6, 2025 · Second, commodity subsidies, particularly in the Farm Bill, overwhelmingly favor corn, soy, wheat, cotton, and rice—the core inputs for ultra- ...
[55]
What Was Up with Grocery Prices? - Liberty Street Economics
Jul 16, 2024 · The consumer price index for groceries has risen more than the overall price index since the start of the pandemic, with a particularly large jump in 2022.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[56]
Factors affecting recent food price inflation in the United States
Jun 23, 2023 · Beginning in mid-2021, US food prices surged at the fastest pace in decades, due to pandemic-related supply chain and labor shortages, rising transportation ...<|separator|>
[57]
Food Prices - Center for Commercial Agriculture
Jan 31, 2025 · Food price inflation continued to cool in 2024, with food prices rising by 1.8% over the course of the year (see Figure 1), down from 11.8% in 2022 and 2.3% in ...Missing: 2020s monetary
[58]
The Single Mother's Struggle with Food Insecurity | Feed the Children
According to the USDA, nearly one-quarter of all single mother households in the U.S. experience food insecurity.
[59]
Sidelined and Struggling: The Harsh Reality of Food Insecurity for ...
1 in 4 households with children headed by single mothers experienced food insecurity in 2021, compared to 1 in 10 married-couple households with children.
[60]
Family Structure and Child Food Insecurity - PMC
Traditionally, households headed by single mothers have had the highest rates of child food insecurity (CFI) whereas married-couple households have had the ...
[61]
Does Financial Literacy Contribute to Food Security? - PMC - NIH
We find that low income households who exhibit financial literacy are less likely to experience food insecurity.
[62]
Financial Management Skills Are Associated with Food Insecurity in ...
These results suggest that improving households' financial management skills has the potential to reduce food insecurity in the United States.
[63]
The drug abuse scourge and food insecurity: outlining effective ...
Jul 23, 2022 · A strong association between substance abuse and food insecurity has been reported by research data, with as many as 70% of those with addiction ...
[64]
Family Food Insecurity, Food Acquisition, and Eating Behavior Over ...
May 13, 2022 · Food insecurity was associated with employment changes, parent food acquisition, and children's consumption of homecooked and restaurant meals during COVID-19.
[65]
Trends in Adiposity and Food Insecurity Among US Adults
Aug 7, 2020 · The prevalence of food insecurity was highest in adults with obesity (22.6%; 95% CI, 19.5%-25.8%; P for trend <. 001).Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
[66]
Food insecurity as a risk factor for obesity: A review - PMC - NIH
Sep 26, 2022 · Most of the literature has consistently shown that there is a significant association between food insecurity and obesity, specifically in women of high-income ...
[67]
The slow death of the home-cooked meal - The Washington Post
Mar 5, 2015 · In 2008, women spent 66 minutes per day cooking, almost 50 minutes less than in the 1960s, when they spent upward of 112 minutes on average. Men ...
[68]
[PDF] Strengthening Food Security in Immigrant Communities
In one large study, 23.7 percent of foreign-born mothers reported food insecurity compared to just 12.7 percent of U.S.-born mothers.Missing: remittances | Show results with:remittances
[69]
[PDF] young children in immigrant families face higher risk of food insecurity
Nearly two in ten infants with immigrant parents (18.8 percent), but just over one in ten infants with native born parents (11.3 percent) lived in food ...Missing: size remittances
[70]
Food Insecurity Disparities Among Immigrants in the U.S - PMC - NIH
An estimated 8.1% of respondents reported living in a food-insecure household in the past 30 days, 11.4% reported utilizing SNAP in the last 12 months, and 10.6 ...
[71]
[PDF] SNAP Access and Participation in U.S.-Born and Immigrant ...
... food insecurity was reported by 21.7 percent of Black households and 17.2 percent of Latino households, compared to 7.1 percent of White households. See ...
[72]
Unemployment and Food Insecurity Amongst Immigrants in the ...
We find that for a 1% increase in unemployment immigrants experience twice the increase in food insecurity compared to natives, (1.6% versus 0.8%.)
[73]
Immigrants and the Use of Public Benefits in the United States
For instance, SNAP allows eligible individuals to apply for food stamps even if the household includes someone with an ineligible immigration status. However, ...
[74]
Association of food insecurity with diet quality and anthropometric ...
Jun 9, 2025 · This study investigates the association between FIS with diet quality and anthropometric indices in the US older adults. A cross-sectional ...
[75]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108913
[76]
Hunger & Obesity - Food Research & Action Center
42.4% of U.S. adults and 19.3% of U.S. children are obese. Disparities exist based on race-ethnicity, gender, age, geographic region, and socioeconomic status.
[77]
Diabetes and Food Insecurity - CDC
May 15, 2024 · Research shows that adults who experience food insecurity are 2 to 3 times more likely to have type 2 diabetes.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[78]
Food Insecurity Increases Risk of Incident CVD
Mar 19, 2025 · Food insecurity is associated with a 41% increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease, even after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors.
[79]
Food insecurity and cardiovascular disease risk factors among U.S. ...
Feb 28, 2025 · Food insecurity is associated with various health conditions and behaviors that raise the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
[80]
Infant Sex-Specific Associations between Prenatal Food Insecurity ...
Food-insecure mothers generally had a higher prevalence of low-birthweight infants (8.2% compared with 6.1%), and this difference in prevalence was more ...
[81]
Disparities in Place of Death Among Malnourished Individuals ... - NIH
Mar 4, 2024 · The number of malnutrition fatalities in the United States hit 6,762 in 2020, or 0.27% of all deaths, according to the most recent WHO data. The ...
[82]
Associations Between Household Food Insecurity in Early ...
Mar 21, 2017 · This study investigates associations between the timing and intensity of early childhood food insecurity and children's kindergarten reading, math, and social- ...
[83]
Longitudinal Trajectories of Food Insecurity in Childhood and Their ...
Dec 20, 2021 · The findings suggest that food insecurity can be identified early in life and that its recurrence is associated with poorer functioning during adolescence.
[84]
How food insecurity affects children's behavior problems in early ...
Jan 3, 2024 · Studies in North America show that household food insecurity is positively associated with children's behavior problems [9–17]. For example ...
[85]
Hunger in Children in the United States: Potential Behavioral and ...
Specifically, the findings from this study suggest that hungry children demonstrate higher levels of anxious and irritable, aggressive and oppositional ...
[86]
Food Insecurity and Child Development: A State-of-the-Art Review
Of the five longitudinal studies, four reported a significant negative effect of food insecurity persistence on academic/cognitive outcomes. Two studies [29,31] ...
[87]
a nationwide cross-sectional study in the USA | BMJ Open
Children with HFIS had a 1.53-fold increased odds of depression and 1.48-fold increased odds of anxiety, and were independently associated with both.
[88]
Food Insecurity Is Associated with Depression, Anxiety, and Stress
Feb 25, 2021 · Compared to food-secure adults, adults with very low food security were more likely to screen positive for depression (odds ratio [OR] 7.72; 95% ...
[89]
Food insecurity and emotional health in the USA: a systematic ...
Sep 14, 2017 · The present systematic narrative review identified a bidirectional relationship between poor mental health and food insecurity. Public health ...
[90]
[PDF] Exploring the bidirectional relationship between household food ...
Apr 21, 2022 · Studies in the past indicate a bidirectional relationship between household food insecurity and poor mental health (Bruening et al., 2017; ...
[91]
The impact of food insecurity on mental health among older adults ...
Mar 26, 2024 · The significant finding in all the included studies was that food insecurity is associated with the worsening mental health of older adults.
[92]
Interventions to reduce social isolation and food insecurity in older ...
Jun 6, 2025 · Food insecurity (FI) and social isolation (SI) are interconnected social determinants of health that disproportionately affect older adults.
[93]
United States of America - Global Nutrition Report
The United States is 'on course' to meet the target for stunting, but 3.4% of children under 5 years of age are still affected, which is higher than the average ...
[94]
The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024
Jul 24, 2024 · Low birthweight: The prevalence has stagnated around 15 per cent, and stunting among children under five, while declining to 22.3 per cent, ...
[95]
Food Insecurity, Missed Workdays, And Hospitalizations Among ...
Food insecurity was associated with increased odds of reporting any health-related missed workdays, more than twice the rate of health-related missed workdays.
[96]
More than half of all food-insecure households work full time
Dec 7, 2023 · In 2022, over half of all food-insecure households in the United States had one or more adult members employed full time.Missing: absenteeism | Show results with:absenteeism
[97]
[PDF] Child Food Insecurity: The Economic Impact on our Nation
The. U.S. food industry has achieved levels of productivity and organization that reflect state-of-the-art communication, transportation and management.
[98]
[PDF] Feeding Our Human Capital: Food Insecurity and Tomorrow's ...
... hunger exhibited higher levels of hyperactivity, absenteeism, and tardiness,. Feeding Our Human Capital: Food Insecurity and Tomorrow's Workforce. Part II of ...
[99]
Economic and Social Costs of Hunger in America Uncovered
May 2, 2025 · The research in this paper shows that hunger costs our nation at least $167.5 billion due to the combination of lost economic productivity per year, more ...Missing: losses United
[100]
USDA Food Security Report Highlights Startling Hunger Crisis in ...
Sep 4, 2024 · 33.5 percent of households with reported incomes below 185 percent of the poverty threshold experienced food insecurity in 2023.<|separator|>
[101]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110307
[102]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=109895
[103]
https://firstnations.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Native-Food-Security-04April2023.pdf
[104]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/
[105]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108925
[106]
[PDF] Disparities in food insecurity among Black and White households
Abstract. We use the Current Population Survey's Food Security. Supplement data to investigate food insecurity dispar- ities among Black and White ...
[107]
SNAP Access and Racial Disparities in Food Insecurity
Jun 26, 2023 · In this cross-sectional study, racial disparities in food insecurity were found among low-income households that do not participate in SNAP but not among those ...
[108]
Food insecurity trends and disparities according to immigration ...
Among the recent immigrants, the prevalence of household food insecurity decreased from 25.2 % (95 % CI, 23.1–27.4) in 2011 to 15.0 % (95 % CI, 12.9 %–17.3 %) ...
[109]
High Hunger Rates in Undocumented Communities
May 9, 2024 · A recent report based on data from UCLA found that 45 percent of California's undocumented immigrants are food insecure and that 64 percent of ...
[110]
Food Insecurity Increased in 2022, With Severe Impact on ...
Oct 26, 2023 · Food insecurity continues to be substantially higher for households that are American Indian or Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic, or multiracial ...
[111]
Examining the Impact of Structural Racism on Food Insecurity - NIH
The relationship between race/ethnicity and food insecurity is complex and is clearly intertwined with other established determinants of food insecurity.
[112]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110940
[113]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/documentation
[114]
How much does the federal government spend on SNAP every year?
The $100.3 billion in SNAP spending in FY 2024 was 24.1% lower than the inflation-adjusted $132.2 billion spent in FY 2021, a program high. About $93.8 billion ...
[115]
How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ...
Our results suggest that receipt of SNAP benefits reduces the likelihood of being food insecure by roughly 30% and reduces the likelihood of being very food ...
[116]
SNAP COVID-19 Emergency Allotments Guidance
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 terminates emergency allotments (supplements) after the issuance of February 2023 benefits.
[117]
[PDF] GAO-24-107461, Improper Payments: USDA's Oversight of the ...
Sep 26, 2024 · In its fiscal year 2023 agency financial report, USDA reported a SNAP improper payment estimate of 11.5 percent. Since this rate exceeded ...
[118]
National School Lunch Program - USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Aug 26, 2025 · The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care ...School Lunch Materials · Program Operator · FNS-101 · Families/Caregivers
[119]
[PDF] School Meals Case Study: United States of America
30.1 million children participated in the NSLP in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2022 and over 4.95 billion school lunches were served. Nearly all, 95.4 percent, of.
[120]
The Reach of School Breakfast and Lunch During the 2022–2023 ...
Just over 14.3 million children participated in school breakfast in the 2022–2023 school year on an average school day, with 11.3 million receiving a free or ...
[121]
School Meal Statistics - School Nutrition Association
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Average Daily Participation · 20.5 million free lunches; 0.9 million reduced price (student pays $0.40); 8.3 million full ...
[122]
Public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Mid-low poverty schools are those where 25.1 to 50.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. Mid-high poverty schools are those where 50.1 to 75.0 ...
[123]
Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines (2025-2026)
Mar 13, 2025 · The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year), ...
[124]
National School Lunch Program - Food Research & Action Center
Free and reduced-price lunch participation increased by just over 1.3 million children (6.8 percent) in the 2023–2024 school year when compared to the 2022–2023 ...
[125]
How many US children receive free or reduced-price school lunch?
72.5% of all public-school lunches were served ...<|separator|>
[126]
COVID-19 meal waivers reduced school meal barriers and ...
The study found that 90% of state agencies reported that the waivers increased school meal participation and reduced barriers to accessing school meals.
[127]
The Impact of COVID-19 on the Nutritional Patterns of School-Aged ...
More children participated in school nutrition programs, including a 34.4% increase in participation in free or reduced programs (Table 1); however, this may ...
[128]
School Lunch and Breakfast Participation: A Snapshot of Recent ...
Apr 21, 2025 · 60% of NSLP-participating schools operated universal free meals programs under state or federal options, up from 18% in SY2014-2015.
[129]
School Breakfast Program - USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Mar 10, 2025 · The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides reimbursement to states to operate nonprofit breakfast programs in schools and residential childcare institutions.
[130]
U.S. Malnutrition Deaths Have More Than Doubled
Apr 13, 2023 · Malnutrition deaths are common across America, killing at least one in 10,000 seniors annually from 2020 through 2022 in all but two states.
[131]
SNAP Is Linked With Improved Health Outcomes and Lower Health ...
Dec 14, 2022 · Adults in food-insecure households are about 50 percent more likely to visit an emergency room and to be admitted to a hospital, and they stay ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[132]
Measuring the Effect of SNAP Participation on Reducing Hunger
Sep 23, 2025 · SNAP is designed to reduce hunger – reduced food intake or disrupted eating patterns in a household due to lack of money or other resources ...
[133]
[PDF] SNAP Participation, Food Security, and Geographic Access to Food
Although the evidence that SNAP reduces food insecurity has been mixed,1 studies with the strongest research designs2—including the most recent and largest ...
[134]
How much does SNAP Matter? SNAP's Effects on Food Security
Aug 27, 2025 · The results in fact show that SNAP does not have a significant effect in the full sample, consistent with weighted estimates. Surprisingly, SNAP ...<|separator|>
[135]
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a health intervention
Research suggests that SNAP has positive impacts on health by reducing food insecurity and lifting individuals out of poverty. Research has shown that SNAP ...
[136]
Improper Payments: USDA's Oversight of the Supplemental Nutrition ...
Sep 26, 2024 · In this Q&A, we reported that for FY 2023, USDA estimated 11.7% (or about $10.5 billion) of SNAP benefits that it paid were improper.
[137]
https://thehill.com/homenews/5559356-snap-benefits-will-soon-be-tied-to-error-rates-these-states-are-in-the-biggest-trouble/
[138]
USDA Releases Annual SNAP Payment Error Rates for FY 2024
Jun 30, 2025 · The national payment error rate for fiscal year (FY) 2024 is 10.93%. While not a measure of program fraud, this rate indicates an unacceptable amount of waste ...
[139]
A primer on SNAP work requirements - Brookings Institution
From a review of the literature, the authors conclude that the best evidence shows work requirements do not increase employment. Work requirements do, however, ...
[140]
Work requirements for safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid
Jan 24, 2025 · Proponents claim that adding more work requirements for programs like food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid will lead to higher levels of employment among low-income ...
[141]
[PDF] INCENTIVIZING A MORE EFFICIENT & EFFECTIVE SNAP PROGRAM
May 12, 2025 · Federal government currently reimburses 50 percent of State administrative costs to run the SNAP program with no cap. From 2021-2023, in ...
[142]
Charitable Food Assistance Participation - Feeding America
Nov 12, 2024 · The most recent data available for 2023 shows that food insecurity rates rose slightly compared to 2022 (+6%) and significantly since 2021 (+38 ...<|separator|>
[143]
Food Bank of Iowa serves record number in FY2023
Jul 28, 2023 · A record 9,739 volunteer shifts were filled at Food Bank of Iowa in FY2023, representing 33,334 hours of service or the work of 16 full-time ...
[144]
Forbes Ranks Feeding America Second Largest Charity in the U.S.
Dec 17, 2021 · Feeding America is the second-largest charity in the U.S. with $3.5B in private donations and a 99% efficiency rating, according to Forbes.
[145]
A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states - NIH
Mar 17, 2022 · Charitable food organizations rely heavily on food and monetary donations, and volunteers for their operation. In this way, faith-based or ...<|separator|>
[146]
Nearly half of all churches and other faith institutions help people get ...
Oct 28, 2021 · 48% of US congregations either had their own food-distribution program or supported efforts run by another organization, such as a food bank or food pantry.
[147]
The charitable food system as a change agent - PMC - NIH
In 2021 an estimated 53 million people turned to a network of food banks and food pantries known as the “charitable food system” to obtain food at no cost.
[148]
Food Donation Basics | US EPA
Sep 8, 2025 · This page describes the basics of donating food, including legal, safety and tax information.
[149]
[PDF] Understanding Walmart's Impact on the US Economy and ...
Academic research on the impact of Walmart's entry into a local area finds that. Walmart's presence helps alleviate food insecurity, especially among low-income.
[150]
The Walmart Effect - The Atlantic
Dec 24, 2024 · According to a 2005 study commissioned by Walmart itself, for example, the store saves households an average of $3,100 a year in 2024 dollars.
[151]
How Aldi, a brutally efficient grocery chain, is beating Walmart ... - CNN
May 17, 2019 · Aldi, a discount grocery chain, is on an aggressive growth spurt in the United States, pressuring even Walmart on low food prices.
[152]
Dollar Stores and Food Access for Rural Households in the United ...
Feb 15, 2023 · In this study, we analyzed the role of dollar stores as food retailers in rural areas of the United States and the impact on food purchases for at-home ...
[153]
Instacart Becomes the First Online Grocery Platform to Launch a ...
Nov 21, 2024 · New tool designed to help reduce barriers to access, expands the SNAP resources available on Instacart. SAN FRANCISCO , Nov.
[154]
Instacart Partners with The Rockefeller Foundation and the VA to ...
Mar 11, 2025 · The program is designed to reduce barriers to food access, improve nutrition adherence, and positively impact clinical health outcomes for ...
[155]
Food Delivery Apps and Their Potential to Address Food Insecurity ...
Oct 12, 2025 · Technological innovations, such as increased access to internet- and mobile-based food delivery apps (FDAs), may help mitigate food insecurity.
[156]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/march/agricultural-productivity-growth-in-the-united-states-1948-2015
[157]
Historical Corn Grain Yields in the US - Purdue Agronomy
The annual rate of corn yield improvement more than doubled to about 1.9 bushels per acre per year and has continued at that steady annual rate ever since, ...Missing: 1980 | Show results with:1980
[158]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/global-changes-in-agricultural-production-productivity-and-resource-use-over-six-decades
[159]
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ...
Oct 30, 2017 · The decline of the caseload indicates that American families were made to rely less on government welfare services overall. However, there were ...
[160]
Welfare Reform and the Work Support System - Brookings Institution
Mar 2, 2002 · Under the caseload reduction credit, states are allowed to fulfill their TANF mandatory work requirement by reducing their TANF caseload ...Missing: insecurity | Show results with:insecurity
[161]
TANF at 20: The 1996 "Welfare Reform" and its Impact, Part 2
Sep 15, 2016 · The TANF caseload has declined by 60% since its inception in 1996. This includes a 30% decrease since 2000, a period during which the ...
[162]
Family Economic Well-Being Following the 1996 Welfare Reform - NIH
This analysis summarizes trends in family economic well-being from five non-experimental, longitudinal welfare-to-work studies launched following the passage ...
[163]
SNAP Work Requirements - USDA Food and Nutrition Service
Aug 29, 2025 · SNAP has two sets of work requirements, the general work requirements and the able bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) work requirements.
[164]
Employed in a SNAP? The Impact of Work Requirements on ...
Overall program participation among adults who are subject to work requirements is reduced by 53 percent. Homeless adults are disproportionately screened out.Missing: insecurity | Show results with:insecurity<|separator|>
[165]
Cutting Federal Farm Subsidies | Cato Institute
Aug 31, 2023 · Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers and can distort planting decisions, induce overproduction, and inflate land values. The programs ...
[166]
Billions Spent on Farm Subsidies Don't Lower Food Prices or ...
Jan 11, 2017 · Farm subsidies and crop insurance don't lower food prices. · Subsidies do boost farm families' incomes, but most farming households are not poor.
[167]
Do subsidies matter in productivity and profitability changes?
Subsidies from the government might encourage farmers to work more intensively and use their resources efficiently, especially the marginal farmers for their ...
[168]
[PDF] Explaining the Welfare Caseload Decline, 1996–2000 - Cato Institute
May 7, 2002 · Previous academic studies have suggested that the variation in policies has a significant impact on the level of reduction in welfare receipt.Missing: insecurity | Show results with:insecurity
[169]
"The Dust of Many a Hard-Fought Field" - Place Attachment and ...
Apr 6, 2022 · A 1790 census showed that about 4 million people were employed in agriculture which made up roughly 90 percent of the American population.
[170]
Colonial Farming and Food: Famine to Prosperity - NCpedia
Probably one of the most important contributions to colonial food was the adoption of Native American agricultural practice and crops, chiefly corn and tobacco.
[171]
[PDF] The Colonial American Economy
Feb 27, 2018 · At the same time, mortality was low because abundant food and forest-products contributed to a better nourished, better housed, and healthier.
[172]
[PDF] Agriculture and Society in Early America
Overall, production exceeded need, though the poor in cities and even some rural areas bore the brunt of unfair distribution. This general statement obscures ...
[173]
[PDF] Hunger in America: A History of Public and Private Responses
Apr 27, 2004 · Before 1900 most public programs that provided hunger relief were primarily concerned with the broader problem of poverty. Hunger was a concern ...
[174]
[PDF] Food Self Sufficiency in the New England States - MassBenchmarks
In short, the Colonial farmers reached an optimal level of self-sufficiency by having the means to meet their food needs on a modest scale. They also engaged ...<|separator|>
[175]
The Rise of Industrial America, 1877-1900
Everything in the late nineteenth century seemed to move faster than ever before. Americans brought more land under cultivation between 1870 and 1900 (225 ...Missing: food surpluses
[176]
Immigration and the American Industrial Revolution From 1880 to ...
In this study, we measure the contribution of immigrants and their descendents to the growth and industrial transformation of the American workforce
[177]
The Food Stamp Program: History, Nutrition Education, and Impact
The Food Stamp Program began as a temporary measure to distribute excess farm commodities during the Great Depression. It has grown into a permanent entitlement ...
[178]
Food Assistance in the United States - Social Welfare History Project
Aug 19, 2020 · Below are listed a variety of food assistance programs that either are currently, or have in the past, been available in the United States.
[179]
Celebrating 60 Years: The Food Stamp Act of 1964
Aug 30, 2024 · This landmark legislation was a cornerstone of Johnson's Great Society initiative, aimed at addressing poverty and inequality in the United ...
[180]
The History of Nutrition Assistance Programs in the United States
Apr 1, 2022 · The program was permanently authorized in August of 1964, under the Food Stamp Act of 1964, one of the first major legislative accomplishments ...
[181]
A Short History of SNAP - USDA Food and Nutrition Service
1960s through the early 1970s – Program Expansion. In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation ...
[182]
How Did Food Stamps Begin? - History.com
Aug 27, 2019 · During the course of Nixon's presidency, the food stamp program grew fivefold from 3 million recipients in 1969 to 15 million by 1974. “Nixon ...
[183]
SNAP: High Costs, Low Nutrition | Cato Institute
Sep 1, 2023 · Congress did not substantially change the food stamp program, but the number of recipients fell from 27 million in 1995 to 17 million by 2000 as ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
[184]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/history-background
[185]
1996 Welfare Law Cut Food Assistance, Too
Aug 18, 2016 · Eliminated SNAP eligibility for many low-income legal immigrants (Congress later reversed many of these restrictions); · Restricted SNAP ...
[186]
Household Food Security in the United States in 1995
Jan 24, 2025 · This survey is the cornerstone of the food security measurement project begun in 1992 to carry out a key task assigned by the Ten-Year Comprehensive Plan.Missing: introduction | Show results with:introduction
[187]
[PDF] Household Food Security in the United States in 1995
The analyses presented here build on the work of a great many people, carried out over several years. In particular, the members of the Federal Interagency ...
[188]
Consumption of Foods Derived from Subsidized Crops Remains ...
Oct 23, 2020 · Agricultural subsidies from the US Farm Bill, which primarily support the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy, and ...Missing: overproduction | Show results with:overproduction
[189]
[PDF] Do Farm Subsidies Cause Obesity? - Food & Water Watch
It is commonly argued that farm subsidies have led to the overproduction of commodity crops, such as corn, driving down the price of “junk food” made with.
[190]
PRIMER: Agriculture Subsidies and Their Influence on the ...
Nov 3, 2021 · Executive Summary. The federal government has long subsidized America's farmers, significantly affecting our food supply and what we eat.
[191]
How Has the Pandemic Affected Federal Spending on SNAP?
Mar 23, 2021 · Such was the case during the Great Recession, when participation grew about 20 percent, reflecting large numbers of Americans without adequate ...
[192]
Total spending on USDA's food and nutrition assistance programs ...
Jul 24, 2025 · Federal spending on USDA's food and nutrition assistance programs totaled $142.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2024, excluding spending on the ...
[193]
How SNAP became the most expensive federal food assistance ...
Jul 26, 2022 · Total spending on SNAP nationwide increased 44% to $113.8 billion in fiscal year 2021, and national enrollment rose 4% to 41.5 million people on ...
[194]
SNAP Spending Rose and Fell With Pandemic-Era Changes to ...
Jun 12, 2024 · Federal spending on SNAP totaled $112.8 billion in FY 2023, or 67.8 percent of total USDA domestic nutrition assistance spending that year.Missing: ACA | Show results with:ACA
[195]
Food Insecurity Rises for the Second Year in a Row
Sep 6, 2024 · Nearly 1 in 5 (17.9 percent) households with children were food insecure in 2023, statistically unchanged from the rate (17.3 percent) in 2022.
[196]
SNAP Provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025
Sep 4, 2025 · These include changes to SNAP eligibility, benefits, and program administration. Attached is an information memorandum describing the SNAP ...
[197]
Q&A: How Does the New SNAP Time Limits Policy Affect You? What ...
Oct 10, 2025 · The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced the end of remaining Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) time limit waivers ...
[198]
SNAP Work Requirements - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In July 2025, Republicans in Congress passed a bill that makes changes to the SNAP program. President Trump signed that bill into law. Some SNAP recipients ...
[199]
Food Loss and Waste - FDA
Jan 13, 2025 · In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30–40 percent of the food supply. This figure, based on estimates from USDA's Economic ...
[200]
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/food-loss
[201]
Obesity and Severe Obesity Prevalence in Adults - CDC
Sep 24, 2024 · The prevalence of obesity among adults was 40.3% during August 2021–August 2023 (Figure 1, Table 1). The prevalence was 39.2% in men and 41.3% in women.
[202]
Hunger and Undernourishment - Our World in Data
Rates in North America and Europe are below 2.5%. However, the FAO shows this as “2.5%” rather than the specific point estimate. What you should know about this ...
[203]
Psychometric Validation of the 10-Item USDA Food Security Scale ...
The study found that the USDA food security module did not meet Rasch model requirements for college students, violating equal item discrimination and ...
[204]
Biases in self-reported food insecurity measurement: A list ...
This paper reports the biases when food shortage is asked through direct questions and indirect interviews using a list experiment approach.
[205]
Household Food Security Is Inversely Associated with Undernutrition ...
This study finds that food security indicators reflect general patterns of poverty. In addition, it corroborates previous research reporting poor correlations ...
[206]
Food security dynamics and measurement error - Wiley Online Library
Apr 26, 2024 · Although understanding food security dynamics is important, it is complicated by measurement error in self-reported food security status.
[207]
Daily food insecurity is associated with diet quality, but not energy ...
Mar 24, 2022 · This study aimed to fill the following research gaps 1) to investigate how daily FI is associated with daily dietary quality and daily calorie ...
[208]
Poverty Results from Structural Barriers, Not Personal Choices ...
Feb 16, 2021 · The structure of programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ignore systemic barriers.<|control11|><|separator|>
[209]
New Study Finds More Evidence of Poverty Traps in the Welfare ...
Dec 30, 2014 · A new study from the Illinois Policy Institute analyzes the welfare benefits package available at different levels of earnings in that state.
[210]
Fixing the Broken Incentives in the U.S. Welfare System - FREOPP
Work is perhaps the most crucial anti-poverty tool, but evidence also suggests that encouraging work has a larger impact on poor communities. Substantial peer ...
[211]
Generational Effects of Welfare Reform on Food Insecurity | NBER
The findings suggest that eight years of exposure to welfare reform in childhood lowered food insecurity in adulthood by 6.2 to 8.4 percentage points, relative ...
[212]
[PDF] Effects of Welfare Reform on Household Food Insecurity ... - ukcpr.org
The study found that longer exposure to welfare reform led to decreases in food insecurity of the next generation of households, by about 10% for a 5-year ...
[213]
Welfare Reform: An Overview of Effects to Date - Brookings Institution
Increased employment has led to higher earnings and declining welfare payments to poor and low-income families. Similarly, starting in 1994, there have been ...
[214]
Welfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-Born
Dec 19, 2023 · We estimate that 59.4 percent of illegal immigrant households use one or more welfare programs. Compared to the U.S.-born, illegal-headed ...
[215]
Did the food environment cause the obesity epidemic? - PMC - NIH
Obesity probably resulted from changes in caloric quantity and quality of the food supply in concert with an industrialized food system.
[216]
Effects of welfare reform on household food insecurity across ... - NIH
We found that exposure to welfare reform led to decreases in food insecurity of the next generation of households, by about 10% for a 5-year increase in ...
[217]
Universal Basic Income (UBI) | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments ...
Universal Basic Income (UBI) · Con 1: UBI increases poverty by giving to everyone instead of targeting the poor. UBI takes money from the poor and gives it to ...
[218]
[PDF] Universal or Targeted? A Comparative Analysis of Anti-Poverty ...
These programs have substantially improved social welfare compared to universal basic income programs. Indonesia also implemented community-based targeting.
[219]
Welfare Reform and the Intergenerational Transmission of ...
This endogenous selection can affect both the magnitude of the correlation and the interpretation of whether it reflects a poverty trap or welfare trap.