Food insecurity remains at 2008 levels

 Resize text        

The good news is 85 percent of Americans have enough food to eat, and that number has changed little since 2008. The bad news is that 15 percent of Americans were food insecure at some time during 2011, and that number also has changed little since 2008.

Also, within the “food insecure” group, the number of those rated as having very low food security ticked up slightly from 2010 to 2011.

USDA’s Economic Research Service released its annual report on household food security in the United States this week. Data in the report result from a survey of 43,770 households, which the researchers consider a representative sample of 119 million total U.S. households.

The agency defines food insecurity as when household access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources.

According to the report, U.S. food insecurity had run at about 10 to 11 percent of households since 2000, but jumped to near 15 percent when the recession hit in 2007 and 2008. The level of food insecurity has remained fairly steady since then.

The number of households having very low food security hovered between 3 and 4 percent from 2000 until 2007 and 2008, when it jumped to near 6 percent. That number slowly declined to 5.4 percent in 2010, but in 2011 moved upward to 5.7 percent. Households in the “very low food security” category number 6.8 million and account for one-third of all food-insecure households.

Other key points in the report include:

  • Children were food insecure at times during 2011 in 3.9 million households, or 10 percent of households with children. This number was statistically unchanged from 9.8 percent in 2010.
  • Adults in households with very low food security typically work to ensure kids get enough food, but in 374,000 U.S. households, or 1 percent, both children and adults experienced very low food insecurity during 2011. That number also was unchanged from 2010.
  • Fifty-seven percent of food-insecure households in the survey reported that in the previous month, they had participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs.
  • Demographics play a key role, as single-parent households, Black or Hispanic households and households below the federal poverty line are substantially more likely to experience food insecurity than the national average.
  • The typical food-secure household spent 24 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition.
  • On average, between 2009 and 2011, the states with the highest levels of food insecurity included Arkansas at 19.2 percent, Texas and Alabama at 18.5 and 18.2 percent respectively. States with the lowest levels of food insecurity during that same time were North Dakota at 7.8 percent, New Hampshire at 9.6 percent and Virginia at 9.1 percent.

Read the full report or a summary from USDA/ERS.


Sponsored Links


Comments (9) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

shaun evertson    
nebraska  |  September, 18, 2012 at 09:20 AM

Unfortunately, this story gives a false impression. Though the USDA report is written in a reasonable tone, and takes pains to "help journalists avoid common misinterpretation", the data set is substantially flawed. Firstly, the questions are subjective and allow for interpretation by respondents. This flaw should be cited as significant. Secondly, 66 or more percent of the respondents are on some form of government food support, and responding to a survey by the agency which provides that support. This fact should also be cited when reporting on the survey. Thirdly, respondents are more likely to equate "food insecurity" with comparative food choice (we can't eat steak every night like some people so our food security must be lower) rather than with real lack of access to food. There is real food insecurity in the world but not in the U.S. Such reports should be written in that context.

Sam    
oh  |  September, 19, 2012 at 09:01 AM

Shaun, Good observations. Always consider the source. This is a USDA study which is intended to show continued need for their programs and thus more funding. If the report were to document how many people are truly hungry or under nourished, then we would have somthing meaningful. Follow the money, this report says send us more!

c andrews    
chicago-kansas  |  September, 18, 2012 at 09:48 AM

I more question the comment than the article. I'm hoping more debate develops.

woodrow    
The vast Midwest "Fly Over" country  |  September, 18, 2012 at 04:03 PM

All I can say is what I see; and what I see are extremely obese people. Morbidly obese. People here where I am (between Chicago and NYC), are quite literally "land whales." Immense. Bloated. Their kids in tow are worse.

Massive government spending on food programs, SNAP (we used to call this "food stamps,"), free school pre-breakfasts, school breakfasts, school snacks, school lunches, and even some school suppers served up (where the blazes are these kid's parents?), local and municipal food pantries, church soup kitchens, city hall "free food" programs, donations...these all are making large numbers of folks fat, plain and simple.

Me--I don't see "food insecurity" anywhere. People stuffing their faces in cars they are driving; eating ribs and chicken on public buses, trams, and rapids, even my local Postal Letter Carrier feasts daily as he delivers mail.

"Food insecurity?" who are they kidding?

c andrews    
chicago-kansas  |  September, 18, 2012 at 05:08 PM

Neither of you see what I see in the large cities. Get off your high horses and walk around.

Sam    
ohio  |  September, 19, 2012 at 09:15 AM

C, that is a rather broad and unresearched statment. What I see are the people who reguraly show up at St. Vincent DuPaul food kitchen, in one of the most depressed cities in the country, which serves free meals daily to the poor indigent and homeless. May are quite regulars. Many have cell phones provided by the government. Most are very well fed regularly, so much so that they will not come to eat if the weather is poor. They know the menu and schedule by heart. Too many are quite content in their situation that they have not made any effort to improve their situation in the last five years. We see all to well.

shaun evertson    
nebraska  |  September, 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM

An excellent point and devastating riposte. I've completely changed my point of view.

Robert    
Kentucky  |  September, 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You've got to be kidding! Most of the comments so far continue the myth of the overfed, underworked, lazy welfare recipient. Nonsense. Of course there are some individuals who take advantage of the system (what do you think caused our banking crisis in the first place?), but the vast majority are "working poor." That is, people who work at minimum-wage jobs to support families, often single parents (usually women). Their salaries do not support better, more healthy food choices and thus many of these people are obese. It's not just a "lifestyle choice"! Of course, it is also a question of education, but access is the biggest obstacle to good, nutritious and plentiful food. And frankly, the argument blaming government programs is simply ideology and not facts, evidence, or reality, despite street observations.

maxine    
SD  |  September, 20, 2012 at 09:12 PM

Is there any effort by any level of government, religious group, or anyone else providing 'food kitchen', govt. food assistance, or anyone else providing food for the hungry to determine cause of 'food insecurity' on an individual basis? Surely we all can see instances where irresponsible, often alcohol or drug addicted parents who will not, or cannot, be sure their children or themselves are fed?

Is there any effort to help people learn how to manage the money they do have, whether from work or the various forms of government assistance, to be sure they are choosing effectively when buying groceries?

It is difficult to understand how census after census shows that even the very poor have TV and often cable service, electronic devices and more, yet 'need' food assistance.

Where did we as a country get so off-balance that this can happen and there apparently is little more done than to 'throw money' at problems, with no means of preventing it's use for alcohol, drugs, and less damaging, but equally costly 'entertainments' than for food and other care for the family involved? Some do say it is due to the fact that our churches have failed to take care of 'our own' and let government do it. What do others think about this?


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight