USDA’s final hunger report indicates rising food insecurity rates

The US recently published its annual Household Food Security report, finding that national food insecurity is slowly rising. This marks the final edition, as in September, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it would scrap future hunger-tracking reports.

Nutrition Insight speaks with the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) to discuss the impact of ending future security reports and red tape for small business owners.

In the new report, officials find that 1 in 7 households (13.7%) were food insecure or lacked access to an affordable, nutritious diet in 2024. This includes 14.1 million children, which is slightly more than the 13.8 million reported in 2023.

Marking a statistically significant increase from 12.8% in 2022, with 13.5% of households experiencing food insecurity at least once during 2023.

In 2024, 5.4% of households had very low food security, compared to 5.1% in 2023 and 2022 — indicating an increase.

Approximately 86.3% of families were food secure in 2024 compared to 86.5% in 2023.

Explaining the importance of tracking hunger data and the long-term risk for families, FRAC’s president, Crystal FitzSimons, shares her insights.

What does the USDA’s decision to end future food security reports signal for decision-making across the food system?
FitzSimons: Ending the report does not end the struggle to put food on the table that nearly 48 million people in America face. It only hides it.

Reliable data is critical for understanding who has access to an affordable, nutritious diet and who is struggling in this country, and for measuring how policies are working. Without it, we are effectively flying blind in our efforts to address the crisis our nation faces, where one in seven households is struggling to put food on the table. Just over 14 million children live in households experiencing food insecurity.

This decision signals a retreat from data-driven decision-making, trading transparency for silence at a time when Congress and the Trump Administration have cut US$186 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), our nation’s most effective anti-hunger program. These cuts will lead millions to lose all or some of their benefits, and the decision to terminate the food security reporting simply hides the impact. 

The new report shows food insecurity is increasing in the US, as advocates warn that ending federal hunger tracking could obscure the scale of the crisis.Let me be crystal clear: hiding the reality of food insecurity only makes it harder to solve.

How do restrictive SNAP purchasing rules, like Iowa’s waiver, affect retailers’ operations, especially in rural areas?
FitzSimons: SNAP restrictions will harm rural retailers by creating red tape for small-business owners who must navigate unclear food lists and complex implementation. These waivers also create additional costs that can negatively impact the financial viability of rural grocery stores.

These waivers may force retailers to drop SNAP altogether if the administrative rules and costs become too burdensome. In rural communities where there may be only one grocery store, this would be devastating.

SNAP is a proven economic engine. Every dollar spent on SNAP benefits during an economic downturn generates up to US$1.80. SNAP dollars support the entire supply chain from the farmer to the storefront. When we restrict choice or access, we hurt the families trying to get by, the businesses that serve their communities, and the tax base that supports important services like schools and healthcare.

SNAP food restriction waivers will increase food costs and hurt us all, but they are particularly devastating for those who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. Rural hunger is often driven by lower wages, higher underemployment, and a lack of access to affordable grocery stores — all key factors that make SNAP a lifeline for millions of working families, veterans, and seniors in these communities.

What are the longer-term risks of tightening SNAP access as food insecurity grows?
FitzSimons: SNAP is our nation’s most effective anti-hunger program. It helps 42 million people put food on the table. Reducing access to SNAP will increase hunger and is a prescription for worse health outcomes.

These restrictions increase costs for US retailers and raise prices for consumers rather than improving diets. The longer-term risk is a system failure where millions of households could lose their first line of defense against hunger at the same time food prices are climbing.

The real solution to improving health is to strengthen SNAP by providing adequate benefits, expanding access, and providing incentives. Congress needs to reverse the cuts to SNAP that were made through House Resolution 1, most urgently repealing administrative and benefit cost shifts to states that they cannot afford.