Previous articles in this series looked at the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — what it is, how it works, and the economic benefits it provides, including how quickly SNAP dollars circulate through the economy. The articles detailed how SNAP not only supports recipients but also drives demand and revenue for farmers and retailers alike. This latest entry in the series will turn to food insecurity itself.
Put simply, food insecurity is when people cannot reliably access the food they need to live. The term was coined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the federal agency responsible for laws related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. It is worth repeating and to look at more closely some often reported numbers around food insecurity.
In 2023, the USDA reported that 115 million households were food secure — that is 86.5% of all US households. At first glance, 86.5% seems to be a good number; 86.5% is a B-plus on most scales. However, taking a closer look at the numbers this means that 13.5% of households, or 18 million US households, were food insecure in 2023. That is a large number of households where families are unable to get enough food to meet basic nutritional needs. Poverty tends to be clustered in poorer areas and geographical locations. This is especially for families living below the poverty line where households are more prevalent in certain urban towns or in very rural areas. This creates concentrated poverty where families face economic and social obstacles This is an additive burden for households when you also have food insecurity. The Southern US consistently shows the highest poverty rate with states like Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico among the most affected. Within the south, rural counties like Missisipi Delta and Appalachia often have higher poverty. Outside cities, rural areas in general across the country face higher poverty limits because in the countryside there is limited access to jobs, transportation and other services (e.g. health, education). Native American reservations are among the poorest.
Even the numbers presented above should be further analyzed and examined because not every individual household is alike nor do individuals within households suffer equally. There are also levels of food insecurity. For example, 6.8 million households (or 38% of the food insecure) are so affected that their food intake was actually reduced acutely at times during the year. In these households, food intake is so limited for these family members they don’t have the resources and means to eat 3 meals a day. The classification of “very low food security” does not really do justice when describing a family that is skipping meals. Also, 7.2 million children live in households where both adults and children are food insecure. Moreover, individual states look different when it comes to food insecurity. For example, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina have higher percentages of affected households compared to the rest of the country. As we discussed earlier, southern states fare worse in the poverty numbers and so these areas are also over represented in food insecurity numbers. Fortunately closer to home, Massachusetts is below the average but even that statistic varies by town – more on Massachusetts in another article. Still while the trends in both poverty and food insecurity statistics have improved somewhat with federal funding and more efforts in grassroots campaigns to get food into the hands of the people that need them (e,g, food pantries, new distribution channels, mobile markets, urban food garden beds, etc. ), there is still a lot of work that remains.
Even so, the numbers above should be scary and show that food insecurity is real and exists even for a wealthy country like the US. The historical data shows that food insecurity has been around for a long time. Although there was progress made between 2010 and 2021 with more focus on government funding, unfortunately, the food insecurity numbers have been climbing upward since then. This trend is one of the reasons the SNAP system is important, and a reason for alarm when SNAP funding is uncertain. For example, during the government shut-down in November 2025 and SNAP funding halted, we saw the very direct impact no SNAP funding had on families that relied on those dollars to supplement to buy groceries and meals. Many households depend on SNAP.
Concord Academy reflects both the problem of food inequality and attempts to provide local solutions to food insecurity. It is estimated that, while many Americans go hungry, 30-40% of the food supply is wasted in the US. That is roughly 133 billion pounds of wasted food worth approximately $161 billion. Recall in an earlier article that the overall funding for SNAP was $99 billion, a fact suggesting that addressing waste could help in the fight to eliminate food insecurity. Think about that the next time you overload your Stufac lunch plate and end up throwing out uneaten lunch. It’s a good reminder to pay attention and take note of the dining hall’s campaign “Waste Less Dining. CA dining hall is promoting a campaign to encourage less food waste. They are in partnership with Lean Path who works to reduce avoidable food waste. Our dining hall reminds the students to take what they can eat. In addition to reminders, CA has started to weigh the waste and keep track of the food that is discarded and uneaten. They also leave a sample plate with suggested portion sizes to help encourage students to just want to eat in a manageable portion. CA dining hall moreover donates leftover food to be served to families experiencing food security. Food insecurity and making sure families have enough to eat meals each day is a real problem that affects many households in the US and even closer to home in MA. Our community is doing a small part to not waste and to help get any leftover food we have to households facing a food crisis.