Amid staggering demand for food assistance, new federal law is poised to worsen hunger in western Mass – The Shoestring

 

Report on Food Insecurity in Western Massachusetts and its Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of the food security landscape in Western Massachusetts reveals a significant and growing crisis, exacerbated by legislative changes to federal and state social safety nets. This situation presents a direct challenge to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Despite robust community-level responses, the scaling back of institutional support systems like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) threatens to overwhelm local capacity, pushing thousands of residents further into food poverty and undermining progress toward a sustainable and equitable future.

I. The State of Food Security and Progress Toward SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The region is experiencing a marked increase in food insecurity, moving in opposition to the core targets of SDG 2, which aims to end hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for all people.

A. Escalating Demand for Food Assistance

• The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts reports that 124,000 people across four counties rely on food assistance monthly.
• Local food providers have witnessed a surge in patronage, with the Food Bank reporting a record high in the number of people assisted in October.
• Manna Community Kitchen, a local provider, has seen its daily meal service increase by over 300% since the COVID-19 pandemic, from approximately 80 meals to over 400 meals and deliveries per day.

B. Community-Based Interventions and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

Local organizations are central to the immediate response, embodying the principles of inclusive and resilient communities (SDG 11). However, their resources are finite.

1. The Last Breakfast: A collaborative program providing free, hot breakfast every Friday, serving a growing number of both housed and unhoused individuals.
2. Manna Community Kitchen: A nonprofit offering free meals, showers, and internet access, which has experienced days where it nearly exhausted its food supply due to overwhelming demand.
3. Not Bread Alone: A program providing community-style dinners twice a week, fostering social cohesion but highlighting the gap in meal availability, particularly for dinner service throughout the county.

These efforts, while critical, cannot provide three nutritious meals a day, seven days a week, for every person facing hunger, indicating a systemic failure that charity alone cannot resolve.

II. Legislative Setbacks and their Impact on SDGs 1, 3, and 10

Recent policy decisions at both federal and state levels have dismantled key support structures, directly impeding progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

A. Federal Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

A congressional budget reconciliation bill has enacted significant cuts to SNAP, a primary tool in combating hunger and poverty.

• Financial Impact: The law is set to cut $200 billion from SNAP, with an anticipated reduction of over $1 per person per day for recipients, who currently average $6.40 a day.
• Increased Conditionality: New work requirements have been expanded to adults up to age 65 and to parents with children over 14, creating additional barriers to assistance. This disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, contrary to the goals of SDG 10.
• Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups: Legally present asylees and refugees were immediately rendered ineligible for SNAP benefits upon the law’s passage, a direct contradiction of the principle of reducing inequality.

B. Erosion of State-Level Support Systems

Reductions in state-funded programs further compound the crisis.

• MassHealth: Following the expiration of federal pandemic protections, 363,000 Massachusetts residents were disenrolled from the state’s Medicaid program, impacting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
• Healthy Incentives Program (HIP): The state budget for this program, which incentivizes the purchase of local produce for SNAP users, was cut from $19 million to $15 million. This reduces access to nutritious food (SDG 2) and limits the financial support available to low-income households (SDG 1).

III. Institutional Response, Advocacy, and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The crisis has prompted a multi-sectoral response focused on advocacy and policy change, reflecting a demand for the effective and accountable institutions envisioned in SDG 16.

A. The Limits of Charitable Food Systems

The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts, a key partner in the regional food system (SDG 17), has stated unequivocally that it cannot replace the support provided by SNAP. The program provides nine times more meals to residents than the food bank system can. A federal funding cut in February, canceling 185,000 pounds of food deliveries, underscores the vulnerability of the charitable food network.

B. Legislative and Community Advocacy

Efforts are underway to counteract the policy-driven increase in hunger.

1. Hunger Free Future Act: A bill introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Jim McGovern and co-sponsors aims to prevent cuts to SNAP by ensuring that any updates to the Thrifty Food Plan do not result in increased hunger.
2. Community Engagement: The Food Bank’s community engagement team, comprised of individuals with lived experience of hunger, advocates for holistic solutions addressing the interconnectedness of food security with housing, transportation, and mental health, aligning with the integrated nature of the SDGs.
3. Public Appeal: Following the announcement of potential SNAP cuts, over 900 residents contacted legislators via the food bank’s advocacy tool, with testimonies highlighting the dire consequences of benefit reductions on their ability to survive.

Conclusion: A Call for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development

The escalating food insecurity in Western Massachusetts is a direct result of policy decisions that contradict the commitments of the Sustainable Development Goals. While community partnerships (SDG 17) provide a critical lifeline, the rollback of institutional support systems like SNAP is creating a humanitarian challenge that charitable efforts cannot meet. Achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) requires strong, just, and effective institutions (SDG 16) that prioritize social safety nets and create policies that advance, rather than reverse, progress toward a sustainable and equitable society.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

---

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues of hunger, poverty, and social welfare, which are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals. The primary focus is on food insecurity and the social safety nets designed to combat it. The following SDGs are addressed:

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – This is the most central SDG, as the entire article revolves around food insecurity, the role of food banks and community kitchens, and the impact of cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP.
• SDG 1: No Poverty – The article explicitly links hunger to poverty, the high cost of living, and the difficult choices low-income individuals must make. It highlights how social protection programs like SNAP are crucial for poverty alleviation.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article points out how policy changes disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, including asylees, refugees, and older adults, thereby exacerbating inequality.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The text touches upon the connection between food insecurity, nutrition, and health, including mental health.

---

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues discussed, several targets within the identified SDGs are relevant:

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
     
     Explanation: The article is fundamentally about the struggle to achieve this target in Western Massachusetts. It describes the rising number of people who “depend on some form of meal- or grocery-replacing food assistance in order to keep hunger at bay.” The efforts of “The Last Breakfast,” Manna Community Kitchen, and the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts are direct actions toward this target, while the cuts to SNAP are a significant setback.

2. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and vulnerable.
     
     Explanation: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a key example of a “nationally appropriate social protection system.” The article details its importance, stating “one in six residents relies on SNAP to put food on the table,” and describes the severe impact of the “$200 billion” cuts to this system.
   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
     
     Explanation: The article references a past success related to this target, noting that a program paying out child tax credits “reduced child poverty by 30%.” The current cuts to SNAP and other programs are presented as actions that will likely increase poverty and hardship.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
     
     Explanation: The article highlights how the new law creates inequalities of outcome. It states that “legally present asylees and refugees who were admitted through legal processes are no longer able to use or receive their SNAP benefits.” Furthermore, new work requirements are applied to specific age groups (up to 65) and parents of older children, creating different standards for different people.

4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
     
     Explanation: The article implies a strong link between food security and health. Mark Olivares from the food bank notes the connection between overwhelming stress, mental health, and the ability to prepare meals, which can lead to “health problems.” The testimony from a SNAP recipient living on pasta because it’s cheap highlights the lack of nutrition, a key factor in preventing non-communicable diseases. The Healthy Incentives Program (HIP), which reimburses users for “purchasing locally-grown produce,” is a direct initiative to promote better nutrition and health.

---

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress (or regression) on these targets.

1. Indicators for Target 2.1 (End Hunger)

   • Prevalence of food insecurity: Measured by the number of people needing assistance. The article states “there are currently 124,000 people across Hampshire, Hampden, Berkshire, and Franklin counties who depend on some form of meal- or grocery-replacing food assistance.”
   • Demand on food charities: The article reports a “noticeable surge in patronage” at kitchens and pantries. Manna Community Kitchen’s meal service saw an “increase of over 300%,” and the Food Bank “saw the highest number of people assisted by us and our agencies that we’ve ever seen in our history.”

2. Indicators for Target 1.3 (Social Protection)

   • Proportion of population covered by social protection systems: The article indicates coverage and changes, noting “one in six residents relies on SNAP” and “363,000 Massachusetts residents were dropped from MassHealth.”
   • Government spending on social protection: The article provides specific figures on funding cuts, such as the “$200 billion” cut from SNAP nationally, a “$95 million” drop in SNAP funding for the state, and the HIP budget being cut back to “$15 million.”

3. Indicators for Target 10.3 (Reduce Inequalities)

   • Policies affecting vulnerable groups: The article identifies specific policy changes that create inequality, such as the immediate loss of SNAP benefits for “legally present asylees and refugees” and the expansion of work requirements to those aged 55-65. These serve as negative indicators for this target.

4. Indicators for Target 3.4 (Health and Well-being)

   • Access to nutritious food: The existence and subsequent cutting of the Healthy Incentives Program (HIP), which promotes the purchase of “locally-grown produce,” serves as an indicator of the priority given to nutrition.
   • Reported impact on mental health and diet: Qualitative testimonies serve as indicators. One person states, “If you’re dealing with something that is so overwhelming that you can’t get out of bed, you probably won’t be able to make a meal.” Another’s diet is reduced to pasta, indicating poor nutrition: “I am living on pasta because it is the cheapest and lasts the longest, but I’m sick of it. I miss real food.”

---

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
SDG 2: Zero Hunger	2.1: End hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food for all.	Number of people dependent on food assistance (124,000 in four counties). Surge in patronage at food pantries and kitchens. Number of meals served by charities (Manna’s daily meals increased over 300%).
SDG 1: No Poverty	1.2: Reduce poverty by at least half. 1.3: Implement social protection systems.	Percentage of child poverty reduction via past programs (30% reduction from child tax credit). Proportion of residents relying on SNAP (1 in 6). Amount of funding for social protection programs (e.g., $200 billion cut from SNAP). Number of people dropped from social programs (363,000 from MassHealth).
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.	Identification of specific groups losing benefits (“legally present asylees and refugees”). Implementation of new work requirements for specific age groups (55-65) to qualify for benefits.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.4: Promote mental health and well-being and reduce mortality from non-communicable diseases.	Reported links between food insecurity, stress, and mental health issues. Testimonies on reliance on cheap, non-nutritious food (“living on pasta”). Funding status of programs promoting healthy eating (HIP budget cut from $19M to $15M).

Source: theshoestring.org