Chapter 2

Preventing people in the United States from going hungry is the single most important objective of federal nutrition programs. In times of high unemployment and reduced incomes, government spending on nutrition programs increases to help people cope with these difficult economic conditions.

At this point, it is hard to imagine the United States without a federal nutrition safety net. Still reeling from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the country has millions of people who are out of work or working for far less money than before. Families have lost homes, depleted savings, or put dreams like purchasing a home or enrolling in college on hold. Hunger lurks in our nation’s distressed communities. Nutrition programs like SNAP, National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, and WIC (for pregnant women, babies, and young children) help keep hunger at bay.

It’s clear that the kind of food people eat, as well as whether they have enough, makes a big difference to their health. U.S. households purchase most of the food they consume in grocery stores, supermarkets, or superstores (e.g., Wal-Mart). This is particularly true of the 18.6 million low-income households participating in SNAP; 90 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed in grocery stores, supermarkets, or superstores. Program rules prohibit redeeming SNAP benefits in restaurants and fast food establishments.

Some communities have particularly high, concentrated obesity levels—nutrition experts call these obesogenic environments. Such environments are not confined to low-income areas, but they are more common there. Where there’s a scarcity of full-service food outlets such as supermarkets, there are also fewer healthy food choices. A lack of places to shop is combined with a large number of fast food outlets—also common in low-income communities.

Funding for nutrition programs comprises 74 percent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) budget. These programs serve mainly families living in poverty or near the poverty line, helping them get the food they need to stave off hunger. Income determines eligibility. But it’s more than lack of purchasing power that puts families at risk of hunger. The environments in which low-income families are forced to live pose additional risks.

Each year, USDA updates the official data on hunger in the United States in a report, Household Food Security in the United States. It’s based on the results of a survey conducted at the end of the previous year. The survey asks heads of household if during the past 12 months, due to economic hardship, they or any of their family members were forced to go without eating for any length of time or to reduce their food consumption to unacceptable levels. Those who respond affirmatively are considered “food insecure.”

In Grant County, Oregon, it’s expensive to be poor. The average cost of a meal in the county is $2.83, which is 23 cents higher than the state average in Oregon. … The food insecurity rate in the county is nearly 20 percent.

The nation is rightfully concerned about obesity, especially childhood obesity. Yet, singling out SNAP participants for restrictions on soft drink purchases is illogical; a tax on soft drink purchases would reflect the scope of the obesity epidemic.

Healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are more expensive and less filling than calorie-dense, processed foods. Incentives make a lot more sense than restrictions if the goal is to encourage SNAP participants to choose healthy foods.

Together with SNAP and WIC, the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs and the Child and Adult Care Feeding Program (CACFP) make up more than 90 percent of the federal funding for nutrition program. Schools and daycare centers play a central role in making sure healthy foods are available to low-income children. To do this, they depend on the foods provided through the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs and CACFP. The federal government became a much better partner with the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which includes the first significant improvements to child nutrition standards in 16 years.

At Platte River Elementary School in Benzie County, MI, 65 percent of the children qualify for free or reduced-price meals. And thanks to a farm-to-school program, children are also able to take fresh fruits and vegetables home with them.

Joshua Cave of Cave Family Farm packs peppers at Pilot Mountain Pride Cooperative in Pilot Mountain, North Carolina. To provide an opportunity for predictable and sustainable income, Pilot Mountain Pride Cooperative, a local food movement group, provides a network of suppliers and end users. Hospitals, restaurants, and supermarkets in western North Carolina benefit from consistent delivery, better prices, certified safe handling, and a unified supply from a variety of local farmers.