Trump scraps the nation’s most comprehensive food insecurity report − making it harder to know how many Americans struggle to get enough food – The Conversation

Introduction: Cessation of Food Insecurity Data Collection and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A recent U.S. administration decision to terminate the annual release of food insecurity data, effective after the 2024 report, presents a significant challenge to national efforts to monitor and achieve key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For three decades, the U.S. Household Food Security Survey has provided the primary data for assessing food access. Its discontinuation directly impacts the ability to measure progress towards SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), while also undermining the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) through the removal of a critical accountability mechanism.

Defining and Measuring Food Insecurity: A Critical Tool for SDG 2

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has provided a framework for understanding food security that aligns directly with the objectives of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). This framework is essential for identifying populations in need and formulating effective policy responses.

Core Definitions

• Food Security: Defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. This concept is fundamental to achieving good health and well-being as outlined in SDG 3.
• Food Insecurity: A state where households have uncertain or limited ability to acquire adequate food due to insufficient financial resources. This is a direct indicator of challenges related to SDG 1 (No Poverty).
• Very Low Food Security: A more severe range of food insecurity where the eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced.

Methodology of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey

The data has been collected annually since 1995 through a supplement to the Current Population Survey administered by the Census Bureau. The survey module consists of a series of questions to assess a household’s ability to meet its basic food needs. The 2023 data indicated a food insecurity rate of 13.5%.

Historical Context and Policy Impact: Aligning with SDG 1 and SDG 3

The establishment of the food security survey was the culmination of decades of policy debate regarding hunger and malnutrition in the United States, reflecting a long-standing effort to address issues now encapsulated in SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Origins of Data Collection

1. Initial Debates (1960s-1970s): Public awareness grew following reports like “Hunger USA” (1968) and a CBS documentary, which highlighted severe malnutrition. This led to an expansion of food assistance programs but not yet to standardized data collection.
2. Shift in Focus (1980s): Following cuts to food assistance programs and rising unemployment, the policy debate shifted from measuring malnutrition to measuring access to food. A presidential task force in 1983 recommended improved measures to distinguish hunger from its medical consequences.
3. Legislative Mandate (1990s): The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 mandated the development of a standardized measurement for food insecurity, leading to the first survey in 1995.

The Role of Data in Evidence-Based Policymaking

The survey data has been a cornerstone of evidence-based policymaking, a core tenet of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). It has enabled government, researchers, and civil society to:

• Assess the performance of nutritional assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
• Track the impact of economic events, such as the 2008 Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, on household food security.
• Identify which households and communities are most in need, allowing for targeted interventions to reduce inequalities, in line with SDG 10.

Ramifications of Data Discontinuation on SDG Monitoring and Accountability

The administration’s rationale for terminating the survey includes claims that it is “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.” However, this decision creates a significant data vacuum that directly compromises the monitoring of, and accountability for, multiple SDGs.

Undermining Progress Towards SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

Without this annual report, it will be impossible to accurately measure the national prevalence of hunger and food insecurity. This will obscure the full impact of policy changes, such as the planned $186 million reduction in SNAP spending through 2034, making it difficult to hold institutions accountable for progress toward SDG 2.

Weakening Institutional Capacity and Partnerships (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

The decision weakens the institutional framework for data-driven governance (SDG 16). It also disrupts the collaborative ecosystem outlined in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), as non-governmental organizations, food banks like Feeding America, and academic researchers rely heavily on this government data for their own analyses, planning, and advocacy efforts.

Conclusion: The Absence of Alternative Data and Future Outlook

Despite the administration’s assertion that “more timely and accurate data sets” are available, no specific alternatives have been identified. Other government surveys measure food purchases or nutritional status, but none provide a comprehensive, nationally representative measure of food insecurity. The termination of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey removes the primary tool for understanding hunger in the United States, creating a critical blind spot that hinders the nation’s ability to effectively address poverty, health, and inequality in alignment with its commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article primarily addresses issues related to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The entire article is centered on the concept of “food insecurity,” which is defined as the lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. This directly aligns with SDG 2’s aim to end hunger and ensure access to food. The discussion revolves around measuring the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition through the U.S. Household Food Security Survey.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article explicitly links food insecurity to economic hardship. It states that people are food insecure because they “can’t afford it” and connects the need for food assistance to high unemployment rates and increases in the poverty rate. This establishes a clear connection to SDG 1, which aims to end poverty in all its forms.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article’s core conflict—the discontinuation of the food insecurity data—relates to SDG 17, specifically its emphasis on data, monitoring, and accountability. The article highlights how the data is crucial for policymakers, researchers, and anti-hunger groups to track progress, evaluate programs like SNAP, and understand needs. The loss of this data undermines the capacity to monitor progress towards other goals.

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

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

• 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.” The article directly addresses this target by discussing the measurement of “access by all people at all times to enough food.” The U.S. Household Food Security Survey is designed to determine how many Americans lack this sufficient access.
• Target 2.2: “By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition…” The article traces the history of measuring hunger from a focus on malnutrition (e.g., “anemia and protein deficiency in children”) to the current focus on food access. It also notes that food-insecure individuals are “likely to eat less balanced meals or lower-quality food,” which is a form of malnutrition.
• Target 17.18: “…increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by… characteristics relevant in national contexts.” The article emphasizes the importance of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey as a reliable, consistent data source that has been collected for three decades. The plan to stop its release is a direct threat to the availability of this high-quality data, which is used to understand the needs of different household types.

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

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 2.1 (Prevalence of food insecurity): The article explicitly mentions the primary indicator used to measure food access: the “U.S. food insecurity rate,” which stood at “13.5% in 2023.” This rate is derived from the U.S. Household Food Security Survey, which the article describes in detail. The survey itself, with its specific questions about worrying that food would run out or skipping meals, serves as the measurement tool for this indicator. The article also mentions a sub-indicator: the share of the population with “very low food security,” who report eating less altogether.
• Indicator for Target 2.2 (Nutritional status): While the main focus shifted away from it, the article implies indicators of malnutrition by referencing historical concerns. It mentions the “widespread incidence of anemia and protein deficiency in children” from the “Hunger USA” report as an early indicator. The current survey’s ability to identify those who “could not afford balanced meals” is an implied indicator of poor nutritional quality.
• Indicator for Target 17.18 (Data availability): The existence and annual publication of the “U.S. Household Food Security Survey” report is itself an indicator of the nation’s statistical capacity to monitor hunger. The article’s central theme is the termination of this report, which means this indicator of data availability is at risk. The article states there is “no other survey that comprehensively measures the number of Americans who struggle to get enough to eat,” highlighting its unique role as an indicator of monitoring capacity.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theconversation.com