Cancellation of food insecurity survey a blow to understanding hunger in U.S.
In September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled the Household Food Security Report, which provides yearly data on the state of food insecurity and helps provide policymakers and others with evidence to help shape policy recommendations to combat hunger. Here, Sara Bleich, professor of health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, discusses the report’s importance and what impact its cancellation could have.
Q: What was the purpose of the Household Food Security Report?
A: The USDA Household Food Security Report classifies households as either food secure or food insecure, meaning that, at some point in the previous year, a household was unable to provide adequate, nutritious food for some or all members due to limited financial resources. This annual nationwide survey has been published for nearly 30 years. 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 across the country live in households that are experiencing food insecurity.
Q: How do policymakers, researchers, and organizations use the data?
A: Over the years, household food insecurity data has served as a consistent national benchmark, guiding solutions and bringing attention to areas of greatest need. Policymakers who span the ideological spectrum use this data to assess how federal nutrition assistance programs—such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which serves over 40 million Americans each month—are performing, and to track how food security responds to major national events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers rely on the data to analyze the causes and consequences of food insecurity, as well as to study trends over time and across different groups, providing valuable insights that inform evidence-based policy recommendations. Nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups also depend on these data, using them to identify regions and populations with the highest rates of food insecurity, target interventions, and allocate resources efficiently. Additionally, the data supports outreach and public awareness campaigns, helping to mobilize support for efforts to reduce food insecurity.
Q: In the announcement, the USDA said that “trends in the prevalence of food insecurity have remained virtually unchanged” and that the report had become “politicized” and was “rife with inaccuracies.” What’s your take?
A: That is inaccurate. The prevalence of food insecurity has, in fact, changed significantly over the past two decades. For example, during the Great Recession in 2008, there was a major surge in food insecurity, which peaked at 14.6% of households. That represented a jump of more than 30% from the previous year and meant about 4 million additional households were experiencing food insecurity. In 2021, food insecurity dropped to its lowest level in decades (10.2% of households), largely thanks to the economic stimulus measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, just two years later, rates spiked again to 13.5% of households following the end of temporary economic assistance and rising inflation, disrupting a decade-long trend of steady improvement.
As for the data itself, the Household Food Security Report is widely regarded as rigorous and is considered the gold standard for tracking food insecurity in the United States. Published under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the report provides results from standardized survey questions, without policy recommendations or attributions about the causes of trends.
Q: How important do you think the survey was in capturing the state of food insecurity? Are there “more timely and accurate data sets” available as government officials claimed?
A: No other survey offers such a comprehensive measure of food insecurity. While there are national government data sources that track food purchases and nutrition status, and some surveys include the USDA food security modules, none match the depth and detail provided by the annual Household Food Security Report.
The consequences extend beyond hunger. Food insecurity is linked to numerous adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, increased risk of birth defects, cognitive impairments, and mental illness. Related health care expenditures are estimated to exceed $50 billion annually.
Ending the annual Household Food Security Report will make it easier for the Trump administration to obscure the harmful effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making it much harder for policymakers, researchers, and advocates to understand the full impact of these SNAP cuts. Without this critical data, there is also a risk that policymakers will rely more heavily on metrics like SNAP program costs or payment error rates (e.g., how accurately state agencies determine a household’s eligibility for SNAP and the correct benefit amount), which could make additional cuts even more likely in the future.
Q: How have you used these data throughout your career?
A: As a researcher, I have frequently relied on the annual USDA food insecurity data in grant applications, academic papers, and presentations. During my time as Director of Nutrition Security and Health Equity at the USDA under the Biden administration, I delivered over 100 public presentations, regularly using this data to illustrate where policies were effective and to identify areas needing improvement. I have found these reports to be invaluable for providing a clear, objective picture of food insecurity across the country. The annual data not only offers hard evidence about the scale and scope of the problem, but it also reminds us that each data point represents real people struggling to access affordable, healthy food.
Losing this powerful source of objective information would be a significant setback. Especially amid historic cuts to SNAP, the absence of this data will make it much harder to track the impact of policy changes and to ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence. Ultimately, without these annual reports, the ability to craft responsive, effective policies will be severely compromised.
###
Listen to Bleich’s recent interview on the Harvard Kennedy School podcast, “What Mayors Need to Know About SNAP.”
