Struggling To Feed the Family: What Does It Mean
To Be Food Insecure?
Food insecurity statistics
shed light on hardships households face in meeting
their food needs
Mark Nord
and Mark Prell
|
|
Food
security—consistent access to
enough food for active healthy living—is
strongly associated with income, but
other household circumstances and State-level
policies and economic conditions also
matter.
|
|
Health
problems are more prevalent among members
of food-insecure households than among
otherwise similar individuals living
in food-secure households. |
|
Food
security statistics provide reliable
information on the hardships households
face in meeting basic food needs. |
|
This
article is drawn from . . . |
Household
Food Security in the United States, 2005,
by Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven
Carlson, ERR-29, USDA, Economic Research Service,
November 2006.
What
Factors Account for State-to-State Differences
in Food Security? by Judi Bartfeld,
Rachel Dunifon, Mark Nord, and Steven Carlson,
EIB-20, USDA, Economic Research Service, November
2006.
Food
Insecurity and Hunger in the United States:
An Assessment of the Measure, Committee
on National Statistics, Panel to Review the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Measurement
of Food Insecurity and Hunger, Gooloo S. Wunderlich
and Janet L. Norwood (eds.), Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press, 2006.
|
You
may also be interested in . . . |
The ERS
Briefing Room on Food Security in the United States.
|
Most Americans can afford to put
enough healthful food on the table each day. USDA
estimates that nearly 9 out of 10 U.S. households
were food secure throughout 2005, meaning that they
had consistent access to enough food for active,
healthy living. Yet, for some households, it is
a struggle to put enough nutritious food on the
table. About 12.6 million households, or 11 percent
of all U.S. households, were food insecure at some
time during the year, meaning that they had difficulty
meeting basic food needs because they lacked money
or other resources for food.
At a time when the news is full
of stories about the growing prevalence of overweight
and obesity, particularly among low-income individuals,
what significance should be attached to the food
insecurity statistics? What do they really mean
and how important are they for informing food assistance
policy? In the decade since the data were first
collected, USDA has sponsored a research program
on the measurement, causes, and consequences of
food insecurity. The program includes an annual
national survey to estimate the number of households
facing such difficulties. The research shows that
statistics on food security are a reliable measure
of households’ economic access to enough food
and a meaningful indicator of household well-being.
This information is important both for what it reveals
about food hardship and for the picture it provides
of the character and extent of material hardship,
more generally.
Food Insecurity Is a Measurable
Phenomenon . . .
Food security is a foundation
for a healthy and well-nourished population—and
food insecurity statistics are a measure of the
strength of this foundation (see box, “Food
Security At a Glance”). Information on
unmet food need is of particular interest to USDA
because the Department manages the Federal food
and nutrition assistance programs, which are intended
to provide children and low-income people access
to food and a healthful diet.
Each year, USDA assesses the food
security of households by their responses to a survey
comprising a series of questions about behaviors,
conditions, and experiences that are related to
households’ food access (see box, “Measuring
Households’ Food Security”). The
questions cover a wide range of severity of food
access problems, from worrying that food will run
out to not eating for a whole day. Each question
specifies a lack of money as the reason for the
behavior or condition in question so that reduced
food intake due to voluntary fasting or dieting
does not affect the measure. The measure, then,
reflects the difficult decisions households make
under resource constraints.
Each surveyed household is classified
in one of four categories based on the number of
food-insecure conditions it reports: high food security,
marginal food security, low food security, and very
low food security. Although food security status
is determined by the total number of food-insecure
conditions a household reports, the specific
conditions that households in each range typically
report provide insight into the meaning of low food
security and very low food security. Households
with low food security report primarily conditions
indicating anxiety about their food situation and
reduced quality, variety, or desirability of their
diets. Most report little or no reduction in food
intake. Households with very low food security also
report those conditions and, in addition, report
multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns
and reduced food intake.
These food security measurement
methods recently passed a rigorous review by the
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the
National Academies. The panel of independent experts
convened by CNSTAT at USDA’s request recommended
that “USDA should continue to measure and
monitor food insecurity regularly in a household
survey.” The panel affirmed the appropriateness
of the general, multiple-indicator measurement method
USDA uses but recommended that USDA evaluate several
technical refinements that might improve the precision
and reliability of the measure. (For the panel’s
conclusions on the meaning of “hunger”
and its relationship to food insecurity, see box,
“USDA Measures Food Insecurity
but Not Hunger”.)
. . .With Its Roots in
Poverty
Food insecurity is by definition
a condition that results from a lack of money and
other resources for food. As would be expected,
then, measured food insecurity is strongly associated
with measured income. While about 11 percent of
all U.S. households were food insecure at some time
in 2005, the prevalence was about 30 percent for
households with poverty-level incomes. That proportion
falls by half for households with incomes twice
the poverty line and by half again for households
with incomes three times the poverty line. The prevalence
of very low food security declines by similar proportions
as income increases.
Food insecurity is related to
income not only at the household level but also
at the national level. Over the last decade, the
prevalence of food insecurity among all U.S. households
has moved approximately in parallel with the national
poverty rate, declining in the late 1990s and increasing
since the recession of 2001. The poverty line is
designed to represent the income required for a
household to meet its basic needs. The food-insecure
category is intended to identify households that
are struggling to meet basic food needs. The similar
levels of poverty and food insecurity at the national
level are consistent with these understandings of
the two measures.
Although income strongly predicts
food security for large groups of households, individual
households are affected by many factors that make
them substantially more or less likely to be food
secure than would be inferred from their income
alone. For example, nearly two-thirds of households
with incomes below the poverty line were food secure
throughout 2005, and a small proportion of households
with incomes above the poverty line were food insecure.
Differences at the household level between measured
poverty status and food insecurity can, to some
extent, be accounted for by specific characteristics
of the two measures. First, poverty is based on
pre-tax cash income. Many types of resources that
may improve a household’s food security, such
as the Earned Income Tax Credit and in-kind assistance
such as food stamps, school meals, or other USDA
food assistance programs, are not counted as income
in the official poverty measure. Second, the official
poverty line is based on national average prices.
Some households’ food security may be worsened
due to living in an area with a high cost of living
while others may benefit by living in areas with
low costs of living. For a discussion of how cost-of-living
differences can affect poverty rates, see “Adjusting
for Living Costs Can Change Who Is Considered Poor”
in the November 2006 issue of Amber Waves.
Third, income is usually measured
on an annual basis for poverty statistics. Yet,
a household’s food security may be affected
by variations in income and employment that occur
within the year. The annual measure of food insecurity—the
measure most commonly reported—registers even
occasional or episodic occurrences of food insecurity
because the questions ask whether a condition, experience,
or behavior occurred at any time in the past 12
months. A household may have total annual income
above the poverty line and yet experience a period
of several weeks or months with little or no income,
resulting in a period of food insecurity. Research
consistently finds that households with an unemployed
member who is looking for work are more likely to
be food insecure than similar households with the
same income but with no unemployed member. On the
other hand, elderly persons’ incomes tend
to be more stable, which may help explain why the
elderly are more likely to be food secure than nonelderly
persons with the same income.
Differences between households’
measured poverty and measured food insecurity may
also reflect differences in basic needs due to unique
household circumstances. Some households have special
needs to which they allocate resources, leaving
less to meet food needs. Households with a disabled
member, for example, are much more likely to be
food insecure than households with the same income
but with no disabled member.
Evidence From States Strengthens
Confidence in Food Insecurity Statistics
Deviations between measured poverty
and food insecurity rates also arise at the State
level. States with high poverty rates tend, in general,
to have high rates of food insecurity. For example,
both poverty and food insecurity rates were relatively
high during 2003-05 in New Mexico, Mississippi,
and Texas, and both rates were low in New Hampshire,
Minnesota, and Delaware. On the other hand, Utah
and Idaho had food insecurity rates above the national
average and poverty rates below the national average,
while the opposite was true in West Virginia (see
“On
the Map”). These disparities between the
levels of poverty and food insecurity have, at times,
raised concerns about whether USDA measurement of
food insecurity does, in fact, fairly represent
differences in food hardship across States. However,
most of these apparent anomalies have now been accounted
for by factors other than official poverty status
that affect households’ food security.
Economists at the University of
Wisconsin and Cornell University, with collaboration
and funding from ERS, examined a number of household-level
and State-level factors that were expected to affect
households’ food security. They confirmed
the expected relationships between food insecurity
and income, education, demographics, employment,
and disability of households resident in the State.
Then, controlling for those household-level factors,
they assessed the associations of food insecurity
with selected State characteristics.
Food insecurity was more prevalent
(other factors equal) in States with low average
wages, high housing rents, low summertime participation
in the National School Lunch Program and Summer
Food Service Programs, high unemployment rates,
residential instability, low participation in the
Food Stamp Program, and high tax burdens on low-income
households. Taken together, identified household
and State factors accounted for a large proportion
of State-to-State variation in food insecurity—as
much as 86 percent in some analyses. Household-level
and State-level factors contributed about equally
to the inter-State differences.
These findings strengthen confidence
in the food security measurement methods and also
point to specific State policies and programs that
can help promote food security. The extent to which
these factors account for inter-State differences
in food insecurity implies that, to a great extent,
the measured differences in food insecurity across
States reliably represent differences in the proportions
of their households that face food hardship.
Food Insecurity Is a Direct
Measure of Well-Being
It is reassuring that food insecurity
varies with the factors expected to affect it. Confirmation
that the expected causal chain is valid strengthens
our confidence in the validity of the outcome measure
itself. This does not mean, however, that a more
accurate accounting of income and expenditure shocks
could replace the food insecurity statistics. First,
such an accurate accounting is not feasible. The
range and variety of income sources and flows would
be wide, including gifts from extended family members
and in-kind neighborhood swaps. The list of budget-breaking
expenditures, such as medical expenses or car repairs,
would be even wider. It would be difficult to collect
data on this type of information with any degree
of accuracy.
Second, even the most accurate
accounting of factors affecting food insecurity
is not an accurate measure of the condition itself.
Such an accounting does not provide information
on how households cope with budget stress nor does
it measure the result of budget stress on household
well-being. The food insecurity measure does. It
is a direct measure of household well-being that
helps link defined levels of low income—such
as the poverty line—to specific levels of
material hardship, described in terms of familiar
and widely understood conditions and experiences.
The validity of food insecurity
as a direct measure of well-being is reinforced
by the types of outcomes with which it is associated.
USDA has sponsored the addition of food insecurity
questions to several national surveys to learn more
about other outcomes potentially associated with
food insecurity. Analyses of these data indicate
that a number of problematic health and development
conditions are more prevalent among members of food-insecure
households than among otherwise similar individuals
living in food-secure households. The statistical
methods used in these analyses took into account
households’ income and other characteristics.
Therefore, the relationships found with other outcomes
are attributable to food insecurity rather than
low income per se.
It is not always possible to distinguish
causes from effects in these studies, but it is
clear that food insecurity is part of a complex
of potentially serious health and developmental
conditions. Potential outcomes identified in these
studies include inadequate intake of key nutrients,
poor physical and mental health in low-income Black
and White women, depression in women, several adverse
health outcomes for infants and toddlers, behavioral
problems in preschool-aged children, lower educational
achievement in kindergarteners, and depressive disorder
and suicidal symptoms in adolescents.
A seemingly paradoxical outcome
is the finding that overweight is more likely for
people in food-insecure households than in food-secure
households. That paradox has been largely resolved,
however, by more detailed research. Research conducted
at Tufts University and elsewhere strongly suggests
that overweight and weight gain are most problematic
in households with marginal food security and low
food security, and less so in those with very low
food security. This pattern is consistent with the
behavioral responses typically reported by households
in each food-security category.
In the marginally secure range
and at less severe levels of food insecurity, households
typically report reducing the quality and variety
of their diets to avoid having to reduce the amount
they eat—to avoid hunger. Poorer quality and
less varied diets may contribute to weight gain.
Psychological factors associated with the stresses
associated with food insecurity may also contribute.
At more severe levels of food insecurity, these
effects appear to be partially or completely offset
by reduced food intake that characterizes households
with very low food security. Altogether, the weight-gain
patterns across the spectrum of food security-insecurity
corroborate the reported conditions and behaviors
by which food security status is measured.
Food Insecurity and Policy
Performance
In fiscal year 2006, USDA spent
almost $53 billion on nutrition assistance programs
intended to provide children and low-income people
access to food and a healthful diet, with the ultimate
goal of improving the health and well-being of low-income
households. But dollars spent are not a measure
of whether the programs are working. Food insecurity
statistics provide part of the answer. A direct
measure of well-being, such as food security, is
critical for assessing the success of food assistance
programs and identifying subpopulations with food
needs that are not fully met by the programs.
Food Security
At a Glance
Statistics from recent nationally
representative food security surveys sponsored
by USDA indicate that:
- Food security in U.S. households improved
from 2004 to 2005.
- In 2005, 89 percent of households were
food secure throughout the year, up from
88.1 percent in 2004.
- 11 percent of households were food
insecure in 2005. These households had
difficulty at times during the year providing
enough food for all their members.
- 3.9 percent of households were food
insecure to the extent that normal eating
patterns of one or more household members
were disrupted at times during the year
and food intake was reduced—a condition
described as very low food security.
The prevalence of very low food security
was unchanged from 2004 to 2005.
- The prevalence of food insecurity was
higher than the national average in households
with children (15.6 percent), and particularly
in households with children headed by
a single woman (30.8 percent), and was
lower than the national average in households
with elderly members (age 65 and over;
6.4 percent).
- States differed considerably in the
extent to which their households were
food secure. The prevalence rate of food
insecurity ranged from 6.4 percent in
North Dakota to 16.8 percent in New Mexico.
The prevalence rate of very low food security
ranged from 1.9 percent in Delaware to
6.3 percent in South Carolina.
|
Measuring Households’ Food
Security
Households that participate
in USDA’s food security survey are asked
the following questions about conditions that
are known to characterize households having
difficulty getting enough food:
(For Questions 1-3, households
were asked “Was that often, sometimes,
or never true for you in the last 12 months?”)
- “We worried whether our food would
run out before we got money to
buy more.”
- “The food that we bought just didn’t
last and we didn’t have money to
get more.”
- “We couldn’t afford to eat
balanced meals.”
- In the last 12 months, did you or other
adults in the household ever cut the size
of your meals or skip meals because there
wasn’t enough money for food?
- (If yes to Question 4) How often did
this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1
or 2 months?
- In the last 12 months, did you ever eat
less than you felt you should because there
wasn’t enough money for food?
- In the last 12 months, were you ever
hungry, but didn’t eat, because you
couldn’t afford enough food?
- In the last 12 months, did you lose weight
because you didn’t have enough money
for food?
- In the last 12 months did you or other
adults in your household ever not eat for
a whole day because there wasn’t enough
money for food?
- (If yes to Question 9) How often did
this happen—almost every month, some
months but not every month, or in only 1
or 2 months?
Food-insecure conditions
are indicated by responses of “often”
or “sometimes” to questions 1-3,
“yes” to questions 4 and 6-9,
and “almost every month” or “some
months but not every month” to questions
5 and 10.
Households (without children)
are classified according to the number of
reported food-insecure conditions:
Food-secure households (0-2
conditions):
High food security (0 conditions)
Marginal food security (1-2 conditions)
Food-insecure households
(3-10 conditions):
Low food security (3-5
conditions)
Very low food security (6-10 conditions)
Households with children
are classified based on equivalent conditions,
but the exact specifications differ because
conditions among children are also considered.
|
USDA Measures Food Insecurity but
Not Hunger
Hunger is a potential, although
not inevitable, outcome of food insecurity.
By measuring and monitoring food insecurity,
USDA provides important information about
the social and economic context in which hunger
may occur, but does not directly assess the
extent of hunger. In 2006, USDA introduced
new labels for ranges of severity of food
insecurity to avoid implying that hunger is
directly assessed in the food security survey.
Before 2006, USDA described
households with low food security as “food
insecure without hunger” and those with
very low food security as “food insecure
with hunger.” Households in the latter
category were described as those in which
one or more people were hungry at times during
the year because they could not afford enough
food. “Hunger,” in this case,
referred to “the uneasy or painful sensation
caused by lack of food.”
Information about the incidence
of hunger is of considerable interest and
potential value for policy and program design.
USDA’s nutrition assistance programs
are intended, in part, to prevent or alleviate
hunger. But providing precise and useful information
about hunger is hampered by lack of a consistent
meaning of the word. “Hunger”
is understood variously by different people
to refer to conditions across a broad range
of severity, from “the uneasy or painful
sensation caused by lack of food” (a
dictionary definition underlying the labels
USDA used before 2006) to prolonged clinical
undernutrition.
At the end of the first
decade of monitoring food security, USDA asked
the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)
of the National Academies to convene an independent
panel of experts to review how food security
is measured and the language used to describe
food-insecure conditions. The panel gave particular
attention to the concept and definition of
hunger.
The CNSTAT panel concluded
that in the context of official statistics
and public policy discourse, the word “hunger”
should be used only to refer to a more severe
condition than that implied by the previous
USDA labels. The word “hunger,”
the panel stated, “. . . should refer
to a potential consequence of food insecurity
that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack
of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness,
or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy
sensation.” [Emphasis added.] The
panel recommended that methods be developed
to measure hunger since no validated methods
for such measurement exist at present.
The panel recommended that
USDA continue to measure and monitor household
food insecurity but to recognize more explicitly
that hunger, although related, is a different
phenomenon. Food security is a household-level
economic and social condition of limited access
to food, while hunger is an individual-level
physiological condition that may result from
food insecurity. The food security measure,
then, provides important information about
the economic and social contexts that may
lead to hunger, but it does not assess the
extent to which hunger actually ensues. Based
on the more severe concept of hunger and on
the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between
food insecurity and hunger, the CNSTAT panel
recommended that USDA avoid using the word
“hunger” to characterize a severe
range of food insecurity.
USDA concurred with the
panel’s understanding of hunger and
its relationship to food insecurity. The new
labels “low food security” and
“very low food security” reflect
differences in the severity of households’
food access difficulties without implying
a one-to-one correspondence with hunger at
any specific level of severity.
|
|