food and nutrition security research

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Food and nutrition security definitions, constructs, frameworks, measurements, and applications: global lessons

Rafael pérez-escamilla.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Edited by: Juan E. Andrade Laborde, University of Florida, United States

Reviewed by: Luana Lara Rocha, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil

Nida Shaikh, Georgia State University, United States

*Correspondence: Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, [email protected]

Received 2023 Nov 17; Accepted 2024 Feb 19; Collection date 2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Food security (FS) is a powerful social determinant of health (SDOH) and is crucial for human and planetary health. The objectives of this article are to (i) provide clarity on the definitions of FS and nutrition security; (ii) provide a framework that clearly explains the links between the two constructs; (iii) summarize measurement approaches, and (iv) illustrate applications to monitoring and surveillance, policy and program design and evaluation, and research, mainly based on the ongoing rich experience with food insecurity (FI) scales. A clear and concise definition of FI and corresponding frameworks are available. There are different methods for directly or indirectly assessing FI. The best method(s) of choice need to be selected based on the questions asked, resources, and time frames available. Experience-based FI measures disseminated from the United States to the rest of the world in the early 2000s became a game changer for advancing FI research, policy, program evaluation, and governance. The success with experience FI scales is informing the dissemination, adaptation, and validation of water insecurity scales globally. The many lessons learned across countries on how to advance policy and program design and evaluation through improved FS conceptualization and measurement should be systematically shared through networks of researchers and practitioners.

Keywords: food security, nutrition policy, dietary quality, measurement, nutrition security, food access

Introduction

Food security (FS) is a powerful social determinant of health (SDOH) and is crucial for human and planetary health ( 1 ). FS is indeed crucial for nations to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and, in turn, the SDGs need to be met to achieve food and nutrition security for all ( 1 ). Unfortunately, there are still many misunderstandings and misconceptions about the definition of the construct of FS, how it relates to nutrition security, and which sound frameworks are needed to guide the research and practice work in this field ( 2 ). Hence, the objectives of this article are to (i) provide clarity on the definitions of FS and nutrition security; (ii) provide a framework that clearly explains the links between the two constructs; (iii) summarize measurement approaches, and (iv) illustrate applications to monitoring and surveillance, policy and program design and evaluation, and research, mainly based on the ongoing rich experience with food insecurity (FI) scales.

Based on the 1996 World Summit in Rome hosted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( 3 ), the United Nations World Food Security Committee defines FS as a condition that exists when “…people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” ( 4 ).

Consistent with the United Nations World Food Security definition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has defined FS as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” ( 5 ) and specified that “Food security includes at a minimum: (i) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and (ii) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies),” hence endorsing the dimension of social acceptability as a core component of the FS construct ( 5 ). Furthermore, the US has expressed that an active, healthy life depends on both adequate amounts of food and the proper mix of nutrient-rich food to meet an individual’s nutrition and health needs (ERS-USDA). As a corollary, FI has been defined as a condition that occurs “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways is limited or uncertain” ( 5 ).

The definition of FS that has been in place for over three decades has made it clear that FS is a multidimensional construct that includes the following dimensions: Quantity , enough calories; Dietary Quality , nutritional value of foods; Food Safety , foods free of harmful microorganisms or other environmental contaminants; Suitability , culturally acceptable; Psycho-emotional , anxiety and feelings of deprivation; and Social Acceptability , socially acceptable methods for acquiring foods ( 1 , 6 , 7 ).

These definitions of FS were strongly informed by the development of FS experience-based scales based on mixed-methods research conducted with people in the US experiencing FI and hunger (the most extreme form of FI) ( 8 ), and led to the development, validation, and launch of the US Household Food Security Survey (USHFSSM) module in 1995 ( 5 ) and its subsequent dissemination, adaptation, and validation globally ( 7 , 9 , 10 ).

Nutrition status has been defined as “the assimilation and utilization of nutrients by the body plus interactions of environmental factors such as those that affect food consumption and food security” ( 11 ). Hence, it is a construct that needs to be assessed and understood by researchers, program evaluators, and policymakers at the level of the individual’s organism. Indeed, Smith presented a clear food and nutrition security multilevel framework ( 12 ) adapted from Frankenberger ( 13 ) and UNICEF ( 14 ), ranging from the global to the individual level to understand the strong relationship between FS and nutrition security and their distinct characteristics ( Figure 1 ).

The relationships between global food security, household food security, and nutrition security. Adapted with permission from Smith ( 12 ), Frankenberger et al. ( 13 ), and UNICEF ( 14 ).

Extensive research involving experience-based FS scales has shown that in human societies, FS needs to be understood at the household level, and that it is a SDOH that, in turn, is strongly determined by socio-economic status and social class ( 7 ). FS relies on stable economic, physical, and social access to diverse, healthy, and nutritious foods that are culturally acceptable in the communities where the households are located. This access, in turn, depends on regional, national, and global availability of such foods. Currently, the global availability of these foods is constantly threatened by climate change and armed conflicts across the globe ( 1 ).

Nutrition security among individuals is determined by FS in combination with other SDOH, including healthcare access, housing, and other basic human needs such as water security ( 3 , 4 , 15 ).

Food and nutrition security sits right at the intersection of public health and human rights, as reflected in articles from the UN Charter on the Right to Adequate Food ( 16 ). For instance, Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) along with children’s rights to food, health, care, survival, and development; Articles 6, 24, and 27 of the Convention on the Civil Rights of the Child (CRC) detailing the rights of mothers to adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation; and Article 12.2 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) highlight this intersection. These articles reflect the universal, indivisible, interrelated, and interdependence of the human right to food.

The definition of food and nutrition security in Brazil is an example of how a country can incorporate the domains of human rights, taking the SDOH and environmental sustainability into account. Specifically, the Brazilian Government defines food and nutrition security based on its Organic Law on Food and Nutritional Security (LOSAN—Law No. 11.346, issued on 15 September 2006) as “the realization of everyone’s right to regular and permanent access to quality food, in sufficient quantity, without compromising access to other essential needs, based on health-promoting food practices that respect cultural diversity and are environmentally, culturally, economically and socially sustainable” ( 17 ).

It is clear from the definitions of FS used internationally and within countries that the construct of FS has four interrelated dimensions: food availability, access, utilization, and stability ( 4 ). Since access to food is key for food and nutrition security, it is important to understand what this construct means and its domains. Food access centers on the stable availability of nourishing, affordable, and suitable food access, shaped by diverse economic, social, commercial, and political structural factors. Physical and economic access to nutritious foods coming from sustainable food production systems are important elements of the food access construct. Hence, the construct of food access has five dimensions: food availability, proximity, affordability, acceptability, and accommodation to cultural preferences ( 18 ).

Food and nutrition security can only be attained with stable access to healthy, nutritious, and sustainable diets. These diets should avoid or strongly minimize the inclusion of ultra-processed foods and beverages and maximize the intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and sustainable protein sources, prepared in healthy ways, as well as water ( 19 – 21 ).

Food security assessment methods

There are different methods to assess different dimensions of FS, including aggregated availability to adequate calories and FAO balance sheets; individual-level dietary intake with 24-h recalls, Food Frequency Questionnaires, and/or food records; anthropometry; and biomarkers such as blood levels of iron and other micronutrients ( 6 ). However, the only method currently available to directly assess household FS is through experience-based scales, almost all of which are derived from the USHFSSM ( 6 , 22 ). All the methods have strengths and weaknesses related to specificity, ease of application, data collection speed, cost, and measurement errors, they complement each other, and the choice of method(s) depends on the question(s) being asked ( 22 ). For example, a comprehensive assessment of the nutritional status of individuals requires evaluation of their food consumption patterns and FI status as well as examining biochemical, clinical, and anthropometric indices of their nutritional status ( 11 ).

Given the rapid dissemination and utilization of experience-based scales globally, the following subsection focuses on them.

Experience-based food security scales

The origin of experience-based scales dates back to the 1980s when ethnographic research conducted in upstate New York with people who had experienced hunger and FI suggested that FI could be understood as a stepwise process that starts with household members worrying about food running out followed by sacrificing dietary quality and eventually calories are first reduced among adults and last among children living in the household ( 6 ). Subsequently, FS experience-based scales were developed by researchers to capture this sequence of events as reported by a household informant. The strong validity of the scale provided a strong impetus for the US Government to bring together a group of experts to develop what became the USHFSSM, which was heavily influenced by the Radimer/Cornell Hunger scale ( 23 ) and the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP) scale ( 5 , 24 , 25 ). As a result, the USHFSSM has been incorporated since 1995 in the US Census Bureau Continuous Population Survey (CPS) ( 5 ) and became incorporated in nationally representative surveys such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) ( 25 ) ( Table 1 ).

The US Household Food Security Survey Module. a , b

Adapted from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/survey-tools/#household .

Questions 1 through 15 (including 1a, 4a, and 13a) comprise the 18-item U.S. Household Food Security Scale (questions 1 through 8a for households with no child present). Specification of food security status depends on the raw score and whether there are children in the household (i.e., whether responses to child-referenced questions are included in the raw score).

If single adult in the household, use “I,” “My,” and “You” in Parentheticals; otherwise, use “we,” “our,” and “your household”.

For households with one or more children: Raw score zero—High food security; 1-2—Marginal food security; 3-7—Low food security; 8-18—Very low food security. For households with no child present: Raw score zero—High food security; 1-2—Marginal food security; 3-5—Low food security 6-10—Very low food security. Households with high or marginal food security are classified as food secure. Those with low or very low food security are classified as food insecure. Questions 1 through 8a (including 4a) comprise the U.S. Adult Food Security Scale. Raw score zero—High food security among adults; 1-2—Marginal food security among adults; 3-5—Low food security among adults; 6-10—Very low food security among adults. Questions 2 through 6 (including 4a) comprise the six-item Short Module from which the six-item Food Security Scale can be calculated. Raw score 0-1—High or marginal food security (raw score 1 may be considered marginal food security, but a large proportion of households that would be measured as having marginal food security using the household or adult scale will have a raw score of zero on the six-item scale); 2-4—Low food security; 5-6—Very low food security. Questions 9 through 15 (including 13a) comprise the U.S. Children’s Food Security Scale. Raw score 0-1—High or marginal food security among children (raw score 1 may be considered marginal food security, but it is not certain that all households with a raw score of zero have high food security among children because the scale does not include an assessment of the anxiety component of food insecurity); 2-4—Low food security among children; 5-8—Very low food security among children.

The specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) properties of the indicators derived from the USHFSSM led to the global dissemination, adaptation, and validation of the USHFSSM across world regions ( 26 ). In Latin America, the experience of the Brazilian Food Insecurity Scale (EBIA) ( 27 , 28 ), a scale from Colombia ( 9 ), and the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) ( 29 ) led to the development of the Latin American Food Security Scale (ELCSA) in strong partnership with FAO’s Latin American regional office in Chile ( 9 ) ( Table 2 ).

Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale (ELCSA). 1

1 Adapted from Comité Científico de la ELCSA ( 9 ). Escala Latinoamericana Y Caribeña De Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA): Manual De Uso y Aplicaciones. FAO, Santiago, Chile. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/i3065s/i3065s.pdf . 2 Response options: Yes, No, Do not Know, Refuse. An additive score is computed based on the number of questions affirmed, Cutoff points for households with children/youth: ‘household food secure’ (score = 0), ‘mild household food insecurity (score = 1–5), ‘moderate household food insecurity’ (score = 6–10), ‘severe household food insecurity’ (score = 11–15). Cutt-off points for households with members above the age of 18: ‘household food secure’ (score = 0), ‘mild household food insecurity’ (score = 1–3), ‘moderate household food insecurity’ (score = 4–6), ‘severe household food insecurity’ (score = 7–8).

ELCSA was subsequently adopted in additional countries, including Mexico and Guatemala, and it eventually provided the impetus for the development of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) that is being used by FAO to track the Sustainable Development Goal 2.1.2 ( 10 ) ( Table 3 ).

Food Insecurity Experience Scale. a , b

Adapted from https://www.fao.org/3/bl404e/bl404e.pdf .

For household level (vs. individual level) FI assessment substitute ‘was there a time when you…you’ with ‘was there a time when you or others in your household…’ Raw additive scores are used to classify households into food secure, mildly FI, moderately FI, or severely FI.

Time frame can also be the previous 4 weeks. In this case, if questions 6, 7, and 8 are affirmed, then each of them needs to be followed by ‘How often did this happen in the past 4 weeks?’ with response options: Rarely (1 or 2 times); Sometimes (3–10 times); Often (more than 10 times); Do not Know; Refused.

FS experience scales yield an additive score that allows households to be classified according to their level of severity of FI (mild, moderate, and severe), which has allowed for a better understanding of how to design and target FS policies and programs ( 6 ). This is because different levels of severity of FI represent different issues ranging from psycho-emotional stress to poor dietary quality all the way to excessive hunger, which requires different solutions ( 30 ) ( Figure 2 ).

Food insecurity experiences across levels of severity. Potential causes and solutions. Prepared by the author.

Application of food security experience scales across world regions

FS experience scales have allowed countries, regions, and the world to have better estimates of the burden of FI in the world. Based on FIES, in 2022, 29.6% of the global population, or 2.4 billion people, were moderately or severely FI ( 31 ). This meant that there were 391 million more people experiencing moderate or severe FI in 2022 than in 2019, before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic ( 31 ). Furthermore, significant inequities existed based on the economic development of countries, the area of residence (rural vs. peri-urban vs. urban), and sex (female vs. male) ( 31 ).

FS experience scales have allowed researchers to better understand the links between FI and (i) the triple burden of malnutrition (undernutrition, obesity, and climate change) ( 32 ); (ii) infectious diseases including COVID-19, and common childhood communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries; (iii) poor mental health across the life course; and (iv) poor early childhood development; (v) and poor medication adherence to treatments ( 1 , 7 , 30 – 39 ).

Furthermore, from a policy and programmatic perspective, FS experience scales have been useful for supporting equitable social policy investments ( 30 , 31 ) across countries and for holding governments accountable when FI rates increase, as recently shown in Brazil, and the number of people affected by severe FI increased from 10 million to 30 million between 2018 and 2022 ( 40 , 41 ). They have also been used to assess the impact of specific programs, including the SNAP programs in the US ( 26 ) and conditional cash transfer programs in Mexico ( 42 ) and Brazil ( 40 ).

Food and water insecurity

The profound link between water and FI in a highly unstable world highlighted the need to consider the use of water insecurity experience scales such as the Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) alongside the FI scales ( 15 ). The 12-item HWISE scale yields an additive score that, combined with a pre-established cutoff point, allows households to be categorized as water-secure or insecure ( 43 ) ( Table 4 ). HWISE assesses the frequency in the previous 4 weeks that anyone in the household experienced any of 12 negative emotions (e.g., worry, anger, and shame), disruptions in daily life (e.g., inability to wash clothes, hands, or take a bath), or even unsatisfied thirst due to water insecurity. Research using HWISE has shown that WI is strongly and consistently associated with FI all over the world ( 15 , 44 ), as well as with physical and mental health outcomes ( 45 – 48 ). Similar to food, access to safe water is a human right recognized by the UN charter since 2010 ( 15 , 43 ), and it is important to track it as part of the SDGs with an experience scale as it is done for FS ( 45 ).

Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE). a , b

Adapted from https://arch.library.northwestern.edu/concern/generic_works/kk91fk74c .

Each item is phrased to capture experiences that anyone in the household has had in the last 4 weeks. Responses to items are never (0 times), rarely (1–2 times), sometimes (3–10 times), often (11–20 times), and always (more than 20 times). Never is scored as 0, rarely is scored as 1, sometimes is scored as 2, and often/always is scored as 3. Households with a score > 12 are classified as water insecure.

Inspired by the experience with EBIA, Brazil recently applied the HWISE in a nationally representative sample to document the prevalence of WI during the COVID-19 pandemic and how strongly it relates to FI ( 41 ). Findings showed that 12% of households experienced WI in Brazil and that among those with WI, 42% experienced severe FI (vs. 12.1% in water-secure households) ( 43 ). Mexico has now also included HWISE and a water intermittency scale in nationally representative surveys. The application of HWISE in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (ENSANUT)-2021 demonstrated that HWISE has strong psychometric and predictive validity in the Mexican context ( 49 ), and its application through another nationally representative public opinion poll showed that 32% of Mexican households experienced water insecurity and that 68% of households experiencing severe FI were also experiencing WI (vs. 17% in FS households) ( 50 ). Furthermore, the application of a water intermittency scale in ENSANUT-2022 found that only 31.5% of Mexican households had water 7 days per week, and of these, only 17.4% did not experience water scarcity in the previous 12 months ( 51 ). As expected, water intermittency was more common in the poorest region of Mexico and among the poorest families, confirming that the distribution of WI follows the same social, economic, and demographic inequity patterns as FI.

Cross-border lessons learned

There are indeed key lessons learned that show how cross-border collaborations have advanced and can continue advancing FI solutions across borders and world regions.

The strong global consensus on the definition of FI and the development of sound conceptual frameworks explaining its determinants at multiple levels and how, together with other SDOH links with nutrition security, allowed for the development of FI measurement approaches that have helped understand the causes, consequences, and potential solution to FI across and within countries ( 1 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 26 ).

The capacity of countries, regions, and the world to track FI with SMART monitoring and surveillance systems on a continuous basis has been greatly facilitated by the dissemination, adaptation, and validation of the USHFSSM ( 1 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 26 ). In the US, this scale has been used through the CPS Food Security Supplement, NHANES, the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (ECLS), and other monitoring and surveillance systems across sectors. Latin American countries have included scales derived from the USHFSSM, such as EBIA ( 28 ) and ELCSA ( 9 ), as part of the countries’ national health and nutrition surveys, household income expenditure surveys, public opinion polls, and state and local monitoring systems. At a global level, FIES is used to track SDG 2.1.2, and in fact, FIES was instrumental in the addition of this target to the SDGs. As previously mentioned in this article, all the methods for assessing FI complement each other. Hence, it is encouraging that comprehensive multi-methods monitoring systems have also been developed, such as the food systems dashboard ( 52 ) and a low-burden tool for collecting valid, comparable food group consumption data through the “What the World Eats” initiative ( 53 , 54 ).

FI experience scales have been shown to be helpful for food and nutrition security policies and program designs, including program targeting and evaluation. A robust body of evidence confirms that FI experience scales yield SMART indicators that can help improve FS governance across countries and regions ( 17 , 26 , 40 , 55 ).

A clear and concise global definition of FI and corresponding frameworks are in place. Countries such as Brazil have strengthened the definition of food and nutrition security by incorporating human rights and the sustainability dimension, which they have clearly operationalized through the country’s progressive food and nutrition security policies and dietary guidelines ( 21 ). There are different methods for directly or indirectly assessing FI. The best method(s) of choice need to be selected based on questions asked, resources, and time frames available. Experience-based FI measures disseminated from the United States to the rest of the world in the early 2000s became a game changer for advancing FI research, policy, and program evaluation. The success of experience-based FI scales is informing the dissemination, adaptation, and validation of WI scales globally. The rich lessons learned across countries on how to advance policy and program design and evaluation through improved FS conceptualization and measurement should be systematically shared through networks of researchers and practitioners such as the recently established Water Insecurity Experiences-Latin America and the Caribbean (WISE-LAC) Network ( 56 ).

Author contributions

RP-E: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The author received funding support from the NIH Fogarty International Center. This work was also supported by the Cooperative Agreement Number 5 U48DP006380–02-00 funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevention Research Center Program (PI. Rafael Pérez-Escamilla). The funders did not participate in the development of this manuscript. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Health and Human, or the NIH Fogarty International Center.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• 1. Pérez-Escamilla R. Food security and the 2015-2030 sustainable development goals: from human to planetary health: perspectives and opinions. Curr Dev Nutr. (2017) 1:e000513. doi: 10.3945/cdn.117.000513, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Poblacion A, Ettinger de Cuba S, Cook JT. For 25 years, food security has included a nutrition domain: is a new measure of nutrition security needed? J Acad Nutr Diet. (2022) 122:1837–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2022.04.009 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) . Report of the world food summit: 13–17 1996. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; (1996). Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3548e/w3548e00.htm . (Accessed November 5, 2023).
• 4. United Nations Committee on World Food Security . Available at https://www.fao.org/cfs/en/ (Accessed November 5, 2023).
• 5. Bickel G, Nord M, Price C, Hamilton W, Cook J. Guide to measuring household food security, revised. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Alexandria, VA (2000). Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/FSGuide.pdf (Accessed November 5, 2023).
• 6. Pérez-Escamilla R, Segall-Corrêa AM. Food insecurity measurement and indicators. Revista de Nutrição. (2008) 21:15s–26s. doi: 10.1590/S1415-52732008000700003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Pérez-Escamilla R. Food insecurity in children: impact on physical, psychoemotional, and social development In: Tucker K. editor. Modern nutrition in health and disease. USA: Jones & Bartlett; (In Press). [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Radimer KL, Olson CM, Campbell CC. Development of indicators to assess hunger. J Nutr. (1990) 120:1544–8. doi: 10.1093/jn/120.suppl_11.1544 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Comité Científico de la ELCSA (2012). Escala Latinoamericana Y Caribeña De Seguridad Alimentaria (ELCSA): Manual De Uso Y Aplicaciones. FAO, Santiago, Chile Available at: http://wwwfaoorg/3/i3065s/i3065spdf (Accessed November 5, 2023)
• 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) . The food insecurity experience scale: developing a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Technical paper. FAO, Rome, Italy. (2013) Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/as583e/as583e.pdf Accessed November 5, 2023
• 11. Anderson SA. Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample populations. J Nutr. (1990) 120:1559–600. doi: 10.1093/jn/120.suppl_11.1555, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Smith L. Keynote paper: the use of household expenditure surveys for the assessment of food insecurity. In FAO. Measurement and assessment of food deprivation and undernutrition. In: Proceeding of international scientific symposium, Rome (2002). 26 (pp. 26–28). Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/Y4249e/y4249e08.htm (Accessed November 5, 2023)
• 13. Frankenberger T. R., Frankel L., Ross S., Burke M., Cardenas C., Clark D., et al. (1997). Household livelihood security: a unifying conceptual framework for CARE programs. In Proceedings of the USAID workshop on performance measurement for food security, 11–12, (1995), Arlington, VA. Washington, DC, United States Agency for International Development
• 14. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) . The state of the world’s children 1998. New York: Oxford University Press; (1998). [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Young SL, Frongillo EA, Jamaluddine Z, Melgar-Quiñonez H, Pérez-Escamilla R, Ringler C, et al. Perspective: the importance of water security for ensuring food security, good nutrition, and well-being. Adv Nutr. (2021) 12:1058–73. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmab003, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) . Glossary on right to food. Rome: FAO. (2009). Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/as994t/as994t.pdf (Accessed November 5, 2023)
• 17. Government of Brasil. Lei no 11.346, de 15 de setembro de 2006. (2006) Cria o Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional—SISAN com vistas em assegurar o direito humano à alimentação e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União.
• 18. Swinburn B, Sacks G, Vandevijvere S, Kumanyika S, Lobstein T, Neal B, et al. INFORMAS (international network for food and obesity/non-communicable diseases research, monitoring, and action support): overview and fundamental principles. Obes Rev. (2013) 14:1–12. doi: 10.1111/obr.12087 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Scrinis G. Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. 1st ed. Londres: Routledge; (2013). [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy R, Moubarac JC, Jaime P, Martins AP, et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. World Nutr. (2016) 7:28–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Brazil. Ministry of Health of Brazil . Secretariat of health care. Primary health care department. Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian population / Ministry of Health of Brazil, secretariat of health care, primary health care department. Brasília: Ministry of Health of Brazil; (2015) Available at: https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/brazil/en/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Pérez-Escamilla R, Gubert MB, Rogers B, Hromi-Fiedler A. Food security measurement and governance: assessment of the usefulness of diverse food insecurity indicators for policy makers. Global Food Security. (2017) 14:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.06.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Kendall A, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Validation of the Radimer/Cornell measures of hunger and food insecurity. J Nutr. (1995) 125:2793–801. doi: 10.1093/jn/125.11.2793, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Murphy JM, Wehler CA, Pagano ME, Little M, Kleinman RE, Jellinek MS. Relationship between hunger and psychosocial functioning in low-income American children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (1998) 37:163–70. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199802000-00008, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Wunderlich GS, Norwood JK. (Eds). History of the development of food insecurity and hunger measures. In: Food insecurity and hunger in the United States: An assessment of the measure. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; (2006). 23–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Pérez-Escamilla R. Can experience-based household food security scales help improve food security governance? Glob Food Sec. (2012) 1:120–5. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2012.10.006, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Pérez-Escamilla R, Segall-Corrêa AM, Kurdian Maranha L, Sampaio Md Mde F, Marín-León L, Panigassi G. An adapted version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture food insecurity module is a valid tool for assessing household food insecurity in Campinas. Brazil J Nutr. (2004) 134:1923–8. doi: 10.1093/jn/134.8.1923, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Segall AM, Marin-Leon L, Perez-Escamilla R. Escala Brasileira de Medida da inseguranca Alimentar (EBIA): Validacão, Usos e Importancia para as Politicas Publicas. In: Fome Zero: Uma historia Brasileiria. 3. Brasilia: Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate a Fome. (2010) pp. 26–43. Available at: https://www.mds.gov.br/webarquivos/publicacao/Fome%20Zero%20Vol3.pdf (Accessed November 7, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) for measurement of household food access: Indicator guide (v. 3). Washington, D.C.: FHI 360/FANTA. (2007). Available at: https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/default/files/resources/HFIAS_ENG_v3_Aug07.pdf (Accessed November 7, 2023)
• 30. Pérez-Escamilla R, Vilar-Compte M, Gaitán-Rossi P. Why identifying households by degree of food insecurity matters for policymaking. Glob Food Sec. (2020) 26:100459. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100459 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO . The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2023 urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. Rome: FAO. (2023) [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Swinburn BA, Kraak VI, Allender S, Atkins VJ, Baker PI, Bogard JR, et al. The global Syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the lancet commission report. Lancet. (2019) 393:791–846. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Perez-Escamilla R., Pinheiro de Toledo Vianna R., 2012. Food insecurity and the behavioral and intellectual development of children: a review of the evidence. J Appl Res Child Inform Pol Child Risk. (2012) 3:9. Available at https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol3/iss1/9/ (Accessed November 7, 2023) [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Gundersen C, Ziliak JP. Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Aff (Millwood). (2015) 34:1830–9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Fang D, Thomsen MR, Nayga RM, Jr. The association between food insecurity and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health. (2021) 21:607. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10631-0, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Jones AD. Food insecurity and mental health status: a global analysis of 149 countries. Am J Prev Med. (2017) 53:264–73. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.04.008, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Young S, Wheeler AC, McCoy SI, Weiser SD. A review of the role of food insecurity in adherence to care and treatment among adult and pediatric populations living with HIV and AIDS. AIDS Behav. (2014) 18 Suppl 5:S505–15. doi: 10.1007/s10461-013-0547-4, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Thomas MMC, Miller DP, Morrissey TW. Food insecurity and child health. Pediatrics. (2019) 144:e20190397. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0397 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Rosen F, Settel L, Irvine F, Koselka EPD, Miller JD, Young SL. Associations between food insecurity and child and parental physical, nutritional, psychosocial and economic well-being globally during the first 1000 days: a scoping review. Matern Child Nutr. (2023) 20:e13574. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13574, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Salles-Costa R, Ferreira AA, Mattos RA, Reichenheim ME, Pérez-Escamilla R, Bem-Lignani J, et al. National trends and disparities in severe food insecurity in Brazil between 2004 and 2018. Curr Dev Nutr. (2022) 6:nzac034. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzac034 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Rede PENSSAN . II Inquérito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no Contexto da Pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil (2022). Brazil. Available at: https://olheparaafome.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Relatorio-II-VIGISAN-2022.pdf (Accessed November 12, 2023).
• 42. Saldivar-Frausto M, Unar-Munguía M, Méndez-Gómez-Humarán I, Rodríguez-Ramírez S, Shamah-Levy T. Effect of a conditional cash transference program on food insecurity in Mexican households: 2012-2016. Public Health Nutr. (2022) 25:1084–93. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021003918, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Young SL, Bethancourt HJ, Cafiero C, Gaitán-Rossi P, Koo-Oshima S, McDonnell R, et al. Acknowledging, measuring and acting on the importance of water for food and nutrition. Nature Water. (2023) 1:825–8. doi: 10.1038/s44221-023-00146-w [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Young SL, Boateng GO, Jamaluddine Z, Miller JD, Frongillo EA, Neilands TB, et al. The household water InSecurity experiences (HWISE) scale: development and validation of a household water insecurity measure for low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. (2019) 4:e001750. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001750, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. Young SL. The measurement of water access and use is key for more effective food and nutrition policy. Food Policy. (2021) 104:102138. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102138 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Jepson WE, Stoler J, Baek J, Morán Martínez J, Uribe Salas FJ, Carrillo G. Cross-sectional study to measure household water insecurity and its health outcomes in urban Mexico. BMJ Open. (2021) 11:e040825. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040825, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Boateng GO, Workman CL, Miller JD, Onono M, Neilands TB, Young SL. The syndemic effects of food insecurity, water insecurity, and HIV on depressive symptomatology among Kenyan women. Soc Sci Med. (2022) 295:113043. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113043, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. Mundo-Rosas V, Muñoz-Espinosa A, Hernández-Palafox C, Vizuet-Vega NI, Humarán IM, Shamah-Levy T, et al. Asociación entre inseguridad del agua y presencia de sintomatología depresiva en población mexicana de 20 años o más. Salud Publica Mex. (2023) 65:620–8. doi: 10.21149/15068, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Shamah-Levy T, Mundo-Rosas V, Muñoz-Espinosa A, Gómez-Humarán IM, Pérez-Escamilla R, Melgar-Quiñones H, et al. Viabilidad de una escala de experiencias de inseguridad del agua en hogares mexicanos. Salud Pública de México. (2023) 65:219–26. doi: 10.21149/14424, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. Gaitán-Rossi P, Teruel Belismelis G, Parás García P, Vilar-Compte M, Young SL, Pérez- Escamiíla R. Agua y alimentos. NEXOS. (2023). Available at: https://www.nexos.com.mx/?p=72225 . (Accessed November 12, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Figueroa JL, Rodríguez-Atristain A, Cole F, Mundo-Rosas V, Muñoz-Espinosa A, Figueroa-Morales JC, et al. ¿Agua para todos? La intermitencia en el suministro de agua en los hogares en México. Salud Publica Mex. (2023) 65:s181–8. doi: 10.21149/14783 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. Fanzo J, Haddad L, McLaren R, Marshall Q, Davis C, Herforth A, et al. The food systems dashboard is a new tool to inform better food policy. Nature Food. (2020) 1:243–6. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0077-y [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 53. Global Diet Quality Project . Measuring what the world eats: insights from a new approach. Geneva: global Alliance for improved nutrition (GAIN), Boston, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Global Health and Population. (2022).
• 54. Global Diet Quality Project . Enabling diet quality monitoring globally with tools and data. Geneva: Gallup, global Alliance for improved nutrition (GAIN), Boston, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Global Health and Population Available at: https://www.dietquality.org/ (Accessed November 12, 2023).
• 55. Perez-Escamilla A, Sales-Costa R, Segall-Correa AM. Food insecurity experience-based scales and food security governance: A case study from Brazil Glob Food Sec. (In Press). [ Google Scholar ]
• 56. Melgar-Quiñonez H, Gaitán-Rossi P, Pérez-Escamilla R, Shamah-Levy T, Teruel-Belismelis G, Young SL. The water insecurity experiences-Latin America, the Caribbean (WISE-LAC) network. A declaration on the value of experiential measures of food and water insecurity to improve science and policies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Equity Health. (2023) 22:184. doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-01956-w, PMID: [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (1.1 MB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

About Farming and Ranching

We maintain a safety net for America's farmers, ranchers and growers that includes disaster assistance, crop insurance, access to credit and more .

Discover How

USDA Supports America’s Heroes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking to military veterans across the country to fill the roles that keep America’s food supply safe and secure, preserve and strengthen rural communities, and restore and conserve the environment.

About Forestry

Forestry is the science and practice of establishing, managing, using, and conserving forests and related resources to meet goals, needs, and values .

About Sustainability

Sustainable agricultural productivity growth is a foundational element in building more sustainable agricultural and food systems.

About Trade and Markets

In a global marketplace, supply and demand in one area of the world can greatly impact the agricultural production in another.

We keep America's farmers and ranchers in business and ensure the nation's meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.

• Search Search USDA.gov Search All USDA Agencies Search USDA.gov Search Search All USDA Agencies Search

Food Security

As we help countries become more food secure and raise incomes, we also expand markets for American producers. U.S. agricultural exports to developing countries in Southeast Asia, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa have grown at more than twice the annual rate as compared to developed countries. U.S. poultry meat exports to Sub-Saharan Africa expanded 180 percent from 2009 to 2011.

Given population growth and rising incomes, it is estimated that the demand for food will rise by 70 to 100 percent by 2050. To meet this need, the United Nations estimates that production in developing countries will need to almost double.

Building Local Capacity, Increasing Productivity, and Improving Markets and Trade

USDA is strategically placed in over 80 countries constantly monitoring agricultural matters globally. Since 2010, USDA has aligned appropriate programs to Feed the Future plans to support agriculture development in target countries and regions: Ghana, Kenya, East Africa, Bangladesh, Haiti, Guatemala and Central America. plans to support agriculture development in target countries and regions: Ghana, Kenya, East Africa, Bangladesh, Haiti, Guatemala and Central America. Our international food aid programs benefited about 34 million individuals globally with assistance valued at nearly $1.6 billion.

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program supported the education, child development, and food security of more than 16 million of the world's poorest children. The program provides U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects.

The Borlaug Fellowship Program brought 272 scientists to the U.S. and focuses on research topics such as food safety, soil fertility, post harvest technology, biotechnology, animal health, and rural development.

The Cochran Fellowship Program trained 1,732 individuals worldwide in topics such as regulatory and certification systems, agricultural production, biotechnology, and plant and animal disease control.

In 2011, the annual Food Security Assessment was expanded to include 77 countries; completed assessments of agricultural statistics and market information in 10 Feed the Future countries and identified key areas where improvement is needed; and conducted in-depth assessments of the capacity of the statistical systems of Ghana, Haiti, Tanzania, and Bangladesh.

We have undertaken significant efforts to build local in-country capacity to confront food security, including:

• Training small farmers and foreign officials on plant and animal health systems, risk analysis, and avoiding post harvest loss;
• Completing assessments on climate change;
• Increasing agricultural productivity.

In the targeted Feed the Future countries and regions, nearly 60,000 individuals have received USDA agricultural productivity or food security training, 7 critical policy reforms have been adopted with USDA assistance, and $20 million in microloans have been disbursed.

Feed the Future - A Government-Wide Effort to Combat Global Hunger

In 2009, G8 nations committed to "act with the scale and urgency needed to achieve sustainable global food security" and to be accountable and coordinate with country development plans. In the subsequent three years, the United States invested over $3.7 billion to address global food security, exceeding the President's commitment, and launched his Feed the Future Initiative.

In 2010, the U.S. helped launch the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, an international, multilateral trust fund that has already awarded $658 million to finance country development plans in 18 low-income countries, with 8.2 million beneficiaries.

Driving Innovative Research and Technologies

Under Feed the Future, research investments specifically designed for global food security have more than doubled, from $50 million in 2008 to $120 million in 2011. The Feed the Future Research Strategy, developed by USAID and USDA, focuses on the four agro-climatic zones where global poverty and hunger are concentrated, and targets two-to-four major problems in each zone to maximize impact on poor families.

In 2010, the USDA and USAID Norman Borlaug Commemorative Research Initiative launched a new era of partnership on research. Under this initiative, USDA is conducting research on wheat rust, a major threat to wheat production worldwide, and on aflatoxin, a toxic fungus that infects groundnuts and other crops, and causes illness in humans. Other research includes developing a vaccine for East Coast fever, a major killer of cattle in East Africa, and supporting research to enhance animal, grain and legumes production. In Guatemala, Haiti, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Ghana, USDA has a number of new technologies under research, 12 of which are being field tested and 4 have been introduced locally.

USDA researchers sequenced the genome of the wheat, as well as the wheat stem rust pathogen which threatens to destroy wheat crops worldwide and distributed new wheat germplasm globally to ensure productive harvests. USDA researchers have also released 1,575 genetic variations in beans.

Learn more about agriculture and food security efforts underway at the U.S. Agency for International Development .

Tools and Resources for Food Security

• Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit
• Emergencies and Food Safety
• Measuring Household Food Security

Trending News and Updates

One central entry point for you to access information and help from USDA.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Trending Topics

Nutrition Security Research Resources

Nutrition security is an emerging topic in Federal food assistance and nutrition policy discussions. It encompasses several aspects of nutrition—including acquisition, consumption, and education. Nutrition security and food security are closely linked. USDA defines food security as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. An active, healthy life depends on both adequate amounts of food and the proper mix of nutrient-rich food to meet an individual’s nutrition and health needs.

Many factors contribute to nutrition security, including access to affordable, healthy foods provided through a productive, resilient food supply. Consumers also need reliable information from food labeling and nutrition education to be able to make the choices that best fit their nutritional needs—while also being compatible with their household budgets, cultural preferences, and lifestyles. 

ERS conducts economic research on numerous topics central to food and nutrition security in order to inform public and private decision making. The following information provides links to selected ERS resources on these topics. 

ERS Nutrition Security Research and Resources

Food security in the united states, usda food and nutrition assistance programs—snap, wic, child nutrition, affordability, food access, food supply and availability, diet quality and nutrition, nutrition information and education, ers data and interactive tools.

• Key Statistics & Graphics
• Interactive Charts and Highlights

ERS Reports and Articles

• Household Food Security in the United States in 2021
• Food Insecurity Decreased for U.S. Households With Children in 2021, but Increased for Households Without Children
• Food Insecurity for Households With Children Rose in 2020, Disrupting Decade-long Decline
• Food Pantry Use Increased in 2020 for Most Types of U.S. Households
• Children’s Food Security and USDA Child Nutrition Programs
• Food Insecurity Among Working-Age Veterans
• Food Security and Food Purchase Quality Among Low-Income Households: Findings From the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS)
• Food-Insecure Households Score Lower on Diet Quality Compared to Food-Secure Households
• Food Insecurity, Chronic Disease, and Health Among Working-Age Adults
• Adults in Households With More Severe Food Insecurity Are More Likely To Have a Chronic Disease
• Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Reports Database
• SNAP Policy Data Sets
• The Food and Nutrition Assistance Landscape: Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report
• State SNAP Policies Unlikely to Close Participation Gap Between Seniors and Non-Seniors, Study Shows
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Online Purchasing Expanded in First Two Years of Pandemic
• Pandemic-Related Program Changes Continued to Shape the U.S. Food and Nutrition Assistance Landscape in Fiscal Year 2021
• COVID-19 Working Paper: Filling the Pandemic Meal Gap: Disruptions to Child Nutrition Programs and Expansion of Free Meal Sites in the Early Months of the Pandemic
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Transformed the U.S. Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Landscape
• Free Meal Sites Expanded Rapidly To Provide Meals to Children During the Early Months of the Pandemic
• COVID-19 Working Paper: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer Redemptions during the Coronavirus Pandemic
• Cost Containment and Participant Access in USDA's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Evidence from the Greater Los Angeles, CA, Area
• SNAP Households Adjust Their Expenditures and How They Spend Their Time in Response to Changes in Program Benefits
• Specialized Stores Serving Participants in USDA’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Can Reduce Program Food Costs and Increase Food Store Access
• The Economic Impacts of Breastfeeding: A Focus on USDA’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
• Daily Access to Local Foods for School Meals: Key Drivers
• USDA School Meals Support Food Security and Good Nutrition
• USDA’s National School Lunch Program Reduces Food Insecurity
• Food Price Outlook
• Food Expenditure Series
• ERS Data Products Show Food-At-Home Price Inflation From Producers to Consumers
• New Analysis Approach Illuminates Differences in Food Spending Across U.S. Populations
• Understanding the Components of U.S. Food Expenditures During Recessionary and Non-Recessionary Periods
• Food Spending by U.S. Consumers Fell Almost 8 Percent in 2020
• Food Taxes Linked With Spending Habits of Lower Income Households
• Food Taxes and Their Impacts on Food Spending
• For Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households, Fruit and Vegetable Affordability Is Partly a Question of Budgeting
• USDA’s Purchase to Plate Price Tool Estimates Food Costs for National Food Intake Data
• The Food-Spending Patterns of Households Participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Findings From USDA's FoodAPS
• Consumers Balance Time and Money in Purchasing Convenience Foods
• COVID-19 Working Paper: The Effects of COVID-19 on Food Sales
• Food-Insecure Households Spend Less and Acquire Less Food Per Week Than Food-Secure Households
• Inflation and Higher Food Prices Kept Food Insecurity Rates Relatively High After the 2007-09 Recession
• Higher Food Prices Mean Higher Rates of Food Insecurity for SNAP Participant
• Food Access Research Atlas
• Food Environment Atlas
• Limited-Service Restaurants Closing Gap With Full-Service Establishments in Rural United States
• The Rural Food-Away-from-Home Landscape, 1990–2019
• Low-Income and Low-Foodstore-Access Census Tracts, 2015–19
• Rural Counties Losing Share of Grocery Stores, Gaining Other Types of Food Retailers
• New Super Stores Slightly Expanded Purchasing Power for Participants in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Super Stores’ Impact on the Availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Approved Stores
• The Food Retail Landscape Across Rural America
• Where Do Americans Usually Shop for Food and How Do They Travel To Get There? Initial Findings from the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey
• Shopping at Farmers’ Markets and Roadside Stands Increases Fruit and Vegetable Demand
• Food Pantries Provide Emergency Food to More Than One-Quarter of Food-Insecure Households
• Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System
• Interactive chart: Fruit and Vegetable Availability
• Interactive chart: Dietary Recommendations and Calorie Consumption
• Food Consumption and Nutrient Intakes

ERS Reports and Articles 

• COVID-19 Working Paper: Obesity Prevalence Among U.S. Adult Subpopulations During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic
• Dietary Quality by Food Source and Demographics in the United States, 1977–2018
• Trends in U.S. Whole-Grain Intakes 1994–2018: The Roles of Age, Food Source, and School Food
• Data Linkages Shed Light on Older USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participants’ Health
• America’s Eating Habits: Food Away From Home
• Supermarkets, Schools, and Social Gatherings: Where Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Other U.S. Households Acquire Their Foods Correlates With Nutritional Quality
• Working From Home Leads to More Time Spent Preparing Food, Eating at Home
• Nutritional Quality of Foods Acquired by Americans: Findings From USDA’s National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey
• Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey
• The Association Between Nutrition Information Use and the Healthfulness of Food Acquisitions
• The Association Between Restaurant Menu Label Use and Caloric Intake

Related Resources

• USDA, Food and Nutrition
• USDA, Food and Nutrition Service
• USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture Nutrition Security Webinar Series
• USDA, Nutrition Security
• ERS, Racial and Social Equity Research Resources