New Labels Describe Ranges of Food Security
In 2006, USDA introduced new language to describe ranges
of severity of food insecurity. USDA made these changes
in response to recommendations by an expert panel convened
at USDA’s request by the Committee on National Statistics
(CNSTAT) of the National Academies. Even though new labels
have been introduced, the methods used to assess households’
food security have remained unchanged, so statistics for
2005 and later years are directly comparable with those for earlier years
for the corresponding categories.
USDA's revised labels describe ranges of food security
General categories
(old and new labels are the same)
|
|
|
|
Description of conditions in the household
|
Food security |
Food security |
High
food security |
No reported indications of food-access problems
or limitations |
Marginal
food security |
One or two reported indications—typically
of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of
food in the house. Little or no indication of changes
in diets or food intake |
Food insecurity |
Food insecurity without hunger |
Low
food security |
Reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability
of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food
intake |
Food insecurity
with hunger
|
Very
low food security |
Reports of multiple indications of disrupted
eating patterns and reduced food intake |
CNSTAT Review and Recommendations
USDA requested the review by CNSTAT to ensure that the
measurement methods USDA uses to assess households’
access—or lack of access—to adequate food
and the language used to describe those conditions are
conceptually and operationally sound and that they convey
useful and relevant information to policy officials and
the public. The panel convened by CNSTAT to conduct this
study included economists, sociologists, nutritionists,
statisticians, and other researchers. One of the central
issues the CNSTAT panel addressed was whether the concepts
and definitions underlying the measurement methods—especially
the concept and definition of hunger and the relationship
between hunger and food insecurity—were appropriate
for the policy context in which food security statistics
are used.
The CNSTAT panel:
- Recommended that USDA continue to measure and monitor
food insecurity regularly in a household survey
- Affirmed the appropriateness of the general methodology
currently used to measure food insecurity
- Suggested several ways in which the methodology might
be refined (contingent on confirmatory research). Research
on these issues is currently underway at ERS.
The CNSTAT panel also recommended that USDA make a clear
and explicit distinction between food insecurity and hunger.
Food insecurity—the condition assessed in the food
security survey and represented in USDA food security
reports—is a household-level economic and social
condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
Hunger is an individual-level physiological condition
that may result from food insecurity. The word "hunger,"
the panel stated in its final report, "...should
refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that,
because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results
in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond
the usual uneasy sensation." To measure hunger in
this sense would require collection of more detailed and
extensive information on physiological experiences of
individual household members than could be accomplished
effectively in the context of the CPS. The panel recommended,
therefore, that new methods be developed to measure hunger
and that a national assessment of hunger be conducted
using an appropriate survey of individuals rather than
a survey of households.
The CNSTAT panel also recommended that USDA consider
alternative labels to convey the severity of food insecurity
without using the word "hunger," since hunger
is not adequately assessed in the food security survey.
USDA concurs with this recommendation and, accordingly,
has introduced the new labels "low food security"
and "very low food security."
For more information on CNSTAT Recommendations...
Characteristics of Households With Very Low Food Security
Conditions reported by households with very low food
security are compared with those reported by food-secure
households and by households with low (but not very low)
food security in the following graph:
The defining characteristic of very low food security
is that, at times during the year, the food intake of
household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns
are disrupted because the household lacks money and other
resources for food. Very low food security can be characterized
in terms of the conditions that households in this category
typically report in the annual food security survey. In
the 2006 survey, households classified as having very
low food security reported the following specific conditions:
- 98 percent reported having worried that their food
would run out before they got money to buy more.
- 96 percent reported that the food they bought just
did not last and they did not have money to get more.
- 94 percent reported that they could not afford to
eat balanced meals.
- 95 percent reported that an adult had cut the size
of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough
money for food.
- 85 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or
more months.
- 95 percent of respondents reported that they had
eaten less than they felt they should because there
was not enough money for food.
- 69 percent of respondents reported that they had
been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford
enough food.
- 46 percent of respondents reported having lost weight
because they did not have enough money for food.
- 33 percent reported that an adult did not eat for
a whole day because there was not enough money for food.
- 24 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or
more months.
All households without children that were classified
as having very low food security reported at least six
of these conditions, and 71 percent reported seven or
more. Conditions in households with children were similar,
but the reported food-insecure conditions of both adults
and children were taken into account.
|