New numbers came out yesterday on the state of hunger in America, and they are both sobering and hopeful. And in both ways, they underscore the need for public programs that put food on struggling families' tables, especially in this down economy.
A full 17.4 million households, or 14.7 percent of the U.S. population, were what the U.S. Department of Agriculture deemed "food insecure" — bureaucrat-speak for "hungry" — during 2009.
Those numbers add up to more than 50 million Americans — including more than 17 million children — who were forced to skip meals for lack of resources.
In more than a third of hungry households, the USDA report said, "at least one member did not get enough to eat at some time during the year and normal eating patterns were disrupted due to limited resources." People who went hungry more often lived in large cities and rural communities, and the hunger rate was "substantially higher" than the national average among households living in poverty, or headed by single moms, Hispanics or African Americans.
In other words, you didn't have to be what the government classifies as poor, or have the dynamics found in many disadvantaged families, to go without food.
There's bad news and good news in those bottom-line 2009 numbers: They mark the highest rates of poverty in America since the USDA began its "food security" surveys in 1995. And yet, they are about the same as the 2008 report, which counted 17 million households that went hungry, or 14.6 percent of the U.S. population, despite the worsening recession and its measurable impact on poverty and unemployment rates throughout the country.
And here's another bright spot: In the last 30 days surveyed in the 2009 report, there were fewer families who had severe levels of hunger than during the same period in 2008.
So the state of hunger in America is worse than it's been since anyone's been keeping adequate track, but at least it's not getting measurably worse in a worsening economy, and it may even be on the upswing.
That means we are at a critical point in at least one gauge of the country's economic, and physical, health, and never have public programs like food stamps and free and reduced school lunches been more important.
In fact, the USDA report credits those programs for keeping a lid on hunger rates, pointing out that the old food stamp program, now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, saw an 18.7 percent increase in participation — amounting to 5.3 million more people — and a million more low-income kids, a 5.4 percent increase, received free or reduced lunch on an average school day.
Despite the political divide, not just in Washington but across the country, most Americans and a bipartisan collaboration in Congress have consistently backed the fight to end childhood hunger. But a key measure, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which would reauthorize child nutrition, improve school meals and help fight childhood obesity, has stalled in the Senate over controversial provisions that call for reducing increases in SNAP benefits.
"Americans are correct to be concerned about these proposed cuts to SNAP," Share Our Strength a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit working to end childhood hunger, said in a news release, "but health advocates and anti-hunger groups nonetheless now agree that it is crucial that Congress pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act immediately. Once this bill is passed, concerns about SNAP can be addressed through other timely legislative vehicles, as several key legislators and administration officials have pledged they will attempt to do."
Congress convenes this week in its lame-duck session. It's the perfect opportunity to move this important bill through and do what's necessary to keep U.S. hunger levels, especially among children, from escalating any further. After all, no nation can achieve success if its children are going hungry.
Nicole Brochu is an editorial writer and health columnist for the Sun Sentinel. Contact her at email@example.com.