Shadow of food insecurity looms over richest nation in history this Thanksgiving Day

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 08:00

to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

In the Nordic social democratic welfare states, poverty rates fluctuate around 2-5 percent.  In America, they are 10 points higher.  But "poverty" is abstract.  Hunger is palpable.  Most poor people are not hungry most of the time, but a large percentage of the poor are haunted by the specter of hunger, which means that even though they do have enough to eat most of the time, they know that they can't count on that always being the case.  This condition is known as "food insecurity," and the number of people who are food insecure is greater than the number of people officially in poverty.  In 2008, the US poverty rate was 13.2 percent.  But a new report from USDA, "Household Food Security in the United States, 2008", puts the number of food insecure at 14.6 percent.  And number for female-headed single-parent households with children was a staggering 37.2%. (The relationship between poverty and food insecurity is a complex one.  Poor seniors, for example, have a much lower incidence of food insecurity--just 8.8 when living alone, compared to the 37.2% figure just cited for single-mother households.) Furthermore, the rate of food insecurity at the state level has increased by as much as 1/3 from 1996-1998 to 2006-2008 in the worst state, Iowa, while decreasing by almost half in the best state, Hawaii. However, only four states decreased their rate of food insecurity by 20% or more, while 15 states decreased their rate of food insecurity by a similar amount. The abstract of that study reads in full:

Eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2008, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households  (14.6 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security-meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were up from 11.1 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, in 2007, and were the highest recorded since 1995, when the fi rst national food security survey was conducted. The typical food-secure household spent 31 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Fifty-five percent of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the 2008 survey.

A New York Times article about the report, "Hunger in U.S. at a 14-Year High", was careful to include a conservative critic (for "balance", you know, just like they always have a progressive critic in every story about war):

"Very few of these people are hungry," said Robert Rector, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "When they lose jobs, they constrain the kind of food they buy. That is regrettable, but it's a far cry from a hunger crisis."

OTOH, at Naked Capitalism, Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns wrote:

My interpretation of the data goes to income inequality. I see this as evidence that the last decade of growth in the U.S. has not been beneficial for poorer Americans. However, I would go further in saying that the downturn in the U.S. and rising unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure in the middle class has made plain that the middle class has also been left behind.

Gosh, I wonder why the NYT didn't quote him for "balance"?

Things were getting worse fast in 2008, but even a three-year average at the state level showed seven states with 14 percent or more food insecure, another nine states with 13-14 percent food insecure and another seven states-plus the District of Columbia-after that with 12-13 percent food insecure, with the US average at 12.2 percent:

One can look at the above in terms of national politics, and find that three of the 10 most food insecure states voted for Obama in 2008, while seven voted for McCain.  The figures are exactly reversed for the 10 most food secure.  This is particularly striking given that, as one would expect, foor insecurity is significantly higher for blacks and Latinos, who were much more likely to support Obama than McCain.

More detailed breakdowns and further state comparisons on the flip.

A similar pattern can be seen for very low food security as well:

With the benefit of seeing precise figures in tabular form, other striking facts jump out.  For example, while 14.6% of all households are foor insecure, the percentage is roughly 50% higher for all households with children under 18 (21.0%) or with children under 6 (22.3%).  The "good news", such as it is, is that the differences are much less for those who are very food insecure--5.7% for all families vs. 6.6% for those with children 18 or younger, and 6.2% for those with children 6 or younger:

Looking specifically at low-income households--below 130% of the poverty line--we find that the overall rate of food insecurity is just under 4 in 10--39%, with single-mother headed households again experiencing the highest rates of food insecurity at 50.3%.  In comparison, seniors living alone have a food insecurity rate of 20%.  This single mother rate is just over 2 1/2 times higher--a much smaller spread than for the entire population, among which ratio is more than 4 times higher. This shows that poverty alone is a much bigger factor accounting for food insecurity among seniors than it is for female-headed households:

Other State-Level Comparisons

We can perform other sorts on the table presented above the fold to highlight different kinds of information. First, for ease of reference, here is an alphabetic sort of states by name:

Among the 10 states with the highest percent increse in food insecure households, four voted for Obama in 2008, compared to six who voted for McCain.  These ranged from 3.9% to 2.9% increase. Among the 10 states (actually nine stats plus the District of Columbia) with the least increase (actually, for these states, a decrease) in food insecurity, eight voted for Obama, and just two voted for McCain.  These ranged from 1.0% decrease to 3.8% decrease.

Next, we look at a ranking by the percentage increase (or decrease) in the percentage who are food insecure. (A change from 10% to 11% in the number who food insecure is 10% change in the percentage. This is a way to compare states irrespective of the level of food insecurity to begin with.)

This is the first (and only) measure by which there are more Obama-supporting states among the 10 worst, however the margin among the ten best remains even more pro-Obama.  Six out of the ten worst states voted for Obama, four for McCain. They ranged from 25.3% to 34.1%. Eight out of ten of the best states (actually nine states, plus DC) voted for Obama, and just two for McCain.  They ranged form 9.0% to 45.9%.

Next we look at the ranking of states by levels of very low food insecurity:

Three of the 10 worst states voted for Obama, compared to seven for McCain.  They ranged from 5.4% to 7.4%. Eight of the 10 best states voted for Obama, compared to 2 for McCain. They ranged from 2.6% to 3.7%.

Now, we look at the percentage change over the last decade in the number of households that were very food insecure:

Because of tie scores, the "top 10" actually numbered 13. Six of the 13 worst states voted for Obama, compared to seven for McCain.  They ranged from 3.2% to 1.7%. Eight of the 10 best states (actually, nine states plus DC) voted for Obama, compared to 2 for McCain.  They ranged from 0.1% to -0.7%.

Finally, we look at the ranking by the percentage increase (or decrease) in the percentage who are very food insecure. (Again, this is a way to compare states irrespective of the level of very low food security to begin with.):

This is the only measure in which the 10 worst were split evenly: five voted for Obama and five for McCain. They ranged from 41.9% to 57.9%. Once again, however, eight of the 10 best states (actually, nine states plus DC) voted for Obama, compared to 2 for McCain. They ranged from 3.2% to -22.8%.

Conclusion

There's a danger, of course, that all these numbers can distance us from what we're talking about here--families living in fear of going hungry.  So let me sum up simply by saying what all these state-level numbers mean: by every relevant measure, those states that voted for Obama did a better job of ensuring that families were food secure, that they lived without fear of going hungry.  In braod terms, this is very good indication of what it means to vote Democratic at the presidential level.  It is not that McCain voters are heartless.  Nothing said about such large groups of people can reflect necessarily on any individual.  But the group pattern is unmistakable.

Now what is needed is national-level policies that reflect this underlying reality.  Food insecurity is incompatible with the purpose proclaimed in the Preamble of the Constitution.  It is, quite simply, un-American.  It's time to call for its abolition--and more importantly, time to institute policies that will bring that about.

Now that would be something we could all be thankful for.

Addendum

Questions Used To Assess the Food Security of
Households in the CPS Food Security Survey

1. "We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. "The food that we bought just didn't last and we didn't have money to get more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. "We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. 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? (Yes/No)
5. (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?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn't eat, because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
9. 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? (Yes/No)
10. (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?

(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-18)

11. "We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. "We couldn't feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn't afford that." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
13. "The children were not eating enough because we just couldn't afford enough food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children's meals because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn't afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)
17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen-almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
18 In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)