Economic

Research

Report

Number 67

December 2008

United States 

Department 

of Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Mark Nord and Heather Hopwood

A Comparison of Household

Food Security in Canada and 

the United States
www.ers.usda.gov

You can find additional information about ERS publications, 

databases, and other products at our website.

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

www.ers.usda.gov www.ers.usda.gov

Nord, Mark

 A comparison of household food security in Canada and the 

United States.

 (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service); no. 67)

 1. Food supply—Economic aspects—United States.

 2. Food supply—Social aspects—United States.

 3. Food supply—Economic aspects—Canada.

 4. Food supply—Social aspects—Canada.

 I. Hopwood, Heather. 

 II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research 

 Service.

 III. Title.

HD9005
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Food security—consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life—is essential for 

health and good nutrition. The extent to which a nation’s population achieves food security is 

an indication of its material and social well-being. Differences in the prevalence of householdlevel food insecurity between Canada and the United States are described at the national level 

and for selected economic and demographic subpopulations. Associations of food security 

with economic and demographic characteristics are examined in multivariate analyses that 

hold other characteristics constant. Comparable measures of household food security were 

calculated from the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 

(2004) and the U.S. Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (2003-05). Based 

on the standard U.S. methodology, the percentage of the population living in households 

classifi ed as food insecure was lower in Canada (7.0 percent) than in the United States (12.6 

percent). The difference was greater for the percentage of children living in food-insecure 

households (8.3 percent vs. 17.9 percent) than for adults (6.6 percent vs. 10.8 percent). These 

differences primarily refl ected different prevalence rates of food insecurity for Canadian and 

U.S. households with similar demographic and economic characteristics. Differences in population composition on measured economic and demographic characteristics account for only 

about 15 to 30 percent of the overall Canada-U.S. difference. 

About the Authors

Mark Nord is a sociologist in the Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Heather Hopwood is a nutritionist in the Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Acknowledgments

For their helpful comments on the report, the authors thank Michelle Hooper and 

Isabelle Sirois, Offi ce of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Health Canada; David Holben, 

Department of Human and Consumer Sciences, Ohio University; Valerie Tarasuk, 

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; and 

Dean Jolliffe, Senior Economist, Food Economics Division, ERS.

Mark Nord and Heather Hopwood

A Comparison of Household 

Food Security in Canada 

and the United States

Economic

Research

Report

Number 67

December 2008
ii

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Measures of Food Security and Food Insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Comparison of Food Security in Canada and the United States. . . . . . . 7

 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 National Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Household Living Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Employment and Labor Force Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Multivariate Analysis: To What Extent Might Differences in 

Income, Employment, Education, Age, and Household Structure 

Account for the Lower Prevalence of Food Insecurity in Canada? . . . 19

 Analytic Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Findings of the Multivariate Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

 Similarities in Patterns of Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

 Differences in Patterns of Food Insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix A: Food Security Classifi cation Used 

 by Health Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix B: Measurement of Food Security and 

 Demographic and Economic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Disclaimer

The analyses in this report are based in part on Statistics Canada’s Canadian 

Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2 (2004) – Nutrition – General Health 

Component, Public Use Microdata File, which contains anonymized data. All 

computations on these microdata were prepared by the Economic Research 

Service. The Economic Research Service and the authors are entirely responsible for the use of the data and interpretation of the analyses. 

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Nord, Mark, and Heather Hopwood. A Comparison of Household 

Food Security in Canada and the United States. ERR-67. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. December 2008.
iii

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

Both the United States (U.S.) and Canada have stated objectives to improve 

domestic food security, defi ned as access at all times to adequate food for an 

active, healthy life. This study examines the extent to which the basic food 

needs of households in the two countries are met. Using nationally representative surveys from the U.S. and Canada, the study compared rates of food 

insecurity in economic and demographic subgroups of the two populations. 

The analysis found that food insecurity was less prevalent in Canada than 

in the U.S., and that the difference was not well explained by differences in 

income, employment, education, household composition, or age. 

What Is the Issue?

The extent to which the population of a country is food secure is an indication of its material well-being. Both the U.S. and Canadian Governments 

have policies and programs intended to promote the well-being of families and individuals by ensuring that the basic needs of the population are 

adequately met. The effects of such efforts are diffi cult to assess from 

surveys within a single country. However, comparisons of the food security 

of various economic and demographic subpopulations in the two countries 

may refl ect the effectiveness of each country’s policies. The analyses may 

also identify areas for future research by detailing the differences in food 

security between the two countries.

What Did the Study Find?

Canadians were less likely to live in food-insecure households (7.0 percent 

of the population) than were U.S. residents (12.6 percent). The percentage of 

the population living in households with very low food security (characterized by self-assessed inadequacy of food intake and disrupted eating patterns) 

was also lower in Canada (2.4 percent) than in the U.S. (3.6 percent). 

To a great extent, the same demographic and economic characteristics were 

associated with food insecurity in both countries. Younger adults, single 

parents with children, adults unemployed and looking for work, adults out 

of the labor force because of disability, and people in households where no 

adult had completed a 2- or 4-year college degree were more likely to live 

in food-insecure households. Income level was also strongly associated with 

food security in both countries.

Canada had smaller proportions of most subpopulations vulnerable to food 

insecurity than the U.S. However, these differences in population composition and income could account for only about 15 to 20 percent of the overall 

Canada-U.S. difference in food insecurity among adults and 20 to 30 percent 

of the difference among children. Education and living arrangements were 

the only aspects of population composition that contributed substantially to 

the national-level difference in food insecurity—Canada had a higher proportion of college graduates and a lower proportion of children living with a 

single parent. 
iv

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Most of the Canada-U.S. difference in food insecurity was due to lower rates 

of food insecurity in certain subgroups, including:

• Households with incomes just above the U.S. poverty line.

• Households lacking a high school graduate.

• All age groups 25 years and older.

• Children in virtually all the surveyed subpopulations that could be identifi ed in the surveys.

These differences were partially offset by lower rates of food insecurity in 

the U.S. for adults in households with incomes near or below the U.S poverty 

line and for men living alone and women living alone (net of associations 

with income, employment, age, and education).

The patterns suggest that differences in tax/tax-credit arrangements and the 

provision of in-kind benefi ts (such as food and nutrition assistance, health 

care, housing assistance, and energy assistance) may play important roles. 

Evidence from this study is only suggestive, however, and further research is 

needed to explore the reasons behind the differences.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Canadian food security data were provided by the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2. The 2004 survey 

included about 35,000 individuals and was conducted as a joint initiative of 

Statistics Canada and Health Canada. U.S. food security data were provided 

by the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplements. The surveys were conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau with 

support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and included, altogether, 

about 141,000 households. The Canadian and U.S. surveys used essentially 

the same set of questions to assess households’ food security, asking about 

conditions and behaviors known to characterize households having diffi culty 

meeting their food needs. Multivariate logistic regression methods were 

used to assess the associations of food security with country of residence 

and selected economic and demographic characteristics, while holding other 

characteristics constant.
1

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

Food security, defi ned as access by all people at all times to enough food for 

an active, healthy life, is one of several conditions necessary for a nation’s 

population to be healthy and well nourished. The extent to which food security is achieved is an indication of a population’s material well-being at the 

level of basic needs. Both the United States and Canadian Governments have 

stated objectives to improve domestic food security, as well as international 

food security, as part of their responses to the 1996 World Food Summit 

(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1998; U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2000).

Both countries have assessed their domestic food security using household or 

population surveys. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has monitored the food security of U.S. households in annual nationally representative surveys since 1995 (Hamilton et al., 1997b; Nord et al., 2007). Health 

Canada, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, assessed the income-related 

food security of Canada’s population in a nationally representative health and 

nutrition survey in 2004, with essentially the same set of questions used in 

the annual U.S. surveys (Health Canada, 2007).1 Data from the 2004 survey 

in Canada and from the annual surveys in the U.S. can be used to compare 

food security between the two countries at national levels and for selected 

subpopulations (see box, “About the Data,” p. 2).2

In this report, prevalence rates of food insecurity in Canada and the U.S. 

are compared at the national level and for subpopulations disaggregated 

by age, household living arrangements, income, employment, and education. Demographic and economic characteristics selected for these analyses 

are known from previous research to be associated with food insecurity in 

one or both countries (Bartfeld et al., 2006; Health Canada, 2007; Nord and 

Bickel, 2002; Nord et al., 2007). Then multivariate analyses are described to 

explore the extent to which U.S. and Canadian differences in food security at 

the national level may result from differences in age, income, employment, 

education, and household living arrangements, holding other factors constant.

These analyses are intended primarily to identify areas for future research on 

the effects of economic, policy, and program factors on food security. Effects 

of such nationally homogeneous programs and policies are very diffi cult 

to observe in surveys within a single country. Similarities and differences 

between the two countries in the food security of various subpopulations, and 

in the economic and demographic correlates of food security, may suggest 

general areas of economic and social policies and programs that could 

account for the national-level differences in food security. 

For example, if differences in food insecurity between the two countries were 

accounted for by differences in income and income distribution (which turns 

out not to be the case), then national-level differences in economic policies 

that affect employment and income might be responsible. If Canada-U.S. 

differences in food security are greater for elderly than for nonelderly, then 

policies and programs that uniquely affect their economic situation may 

be responsible. Canada-U.S. differences in food security of unemployed 

people might suggest differences in the effectiveness of programs that 

 1Subsequent health surveys have 

also collected data on the food security 

of Canadian households using this set 

of questions, but the most nationally 

representative Canadian food security 

data available at this time are from the 

2004 survey.

 2U.S. data used in these analyses 

were collected in December of each 

year, while the Canadian data were collected throughout the year from January 2004 to January 2005. Seasonal 

differences may be refl ected in the food 

security measure in spite of its stated 

12-month reference period (Cohen 

et al., 2002; Nord et al., 2007). The 

Canadian survey schedule would obviate any seasonal differences. Seasonal 

differences that may exist in the U.S. 

are believed to bias December prevalence rates of food insecurity slightly 

downward relative to an annual average 

(Nord et al., 2002, p. 4).
2

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

support workers in job transitions. These analyses will not provide defi nitive 

answers about national-level factors that infl uence food security, but they 

may help focus future research by ruling out some potential explanations and 

suggesting others.

Preliminary comparison of the 2004 Canadian food security data with U.S. 

data for 2003-05 found that the prevalence of food insecurity was about 

Canadian food security data are from the 2004 Canadian Community Health 

Survey Cycle 2.2 (CCHS 2.2). The CCHS 2.2 was a joint initiative of Statistics 

Canada and Health Canada, which sought to provide reliable information about 

Canadians’ dietary intake and nutritional well-being, and related determinants, 

and to inform and guide programs, policies, and activities of Federal and provincial governments. The CCHS 2.2 target population included individuals of all 

ages in private dwellings in the 10 Canadian provinces. The sample size was about 

35,000 individuals. The target population did not include individuals who were 

full-time members of the Canadian Forces or who lived in the territories, on First 

Nations reserves or Crown Lands, in prison or care facilities, or in some remote 

areas. Overall the target population represents about 98 percent of the population. 

The survey was conducted between January 2004 and January 2005. The CCHS 

2.2 provides information about the food and nutrient intakes of Canadians and a 

wide range of related factors, including income-related household food security.

U.S. food security data are from the 2003, 2004, and 2005 U.S. Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). The Current Population Survey is 

the primary source of labor force, employment, and earnings data for the U.S. It is a 

nationally representative survey of about 60,000 households, conducted monthly by 

the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In December, after completing 

the labor force interview, households are asked to respond to the Food Security 

Supplement, which includes questions about households’ ability to access enough 

food for their needs. About 15 percent of households that complete the labor force 

interview are unable or unwilling to complete the supplement. The 3-year sample 

size was 140,909 households.* USDA uses the CPS-FSS data as the basis of its 

annual reports on the food security of the Nation’s households, and for research on 

food security measurement and factors affecting household food security. 

The CPS-FSS data include one record for each person in each sampled household, with demographic information for that person and, if he or she is age 15 or 

older, information about education, employment, and labor force participation. 

The individual records, rather than household records, were the units of analysis 

for this study, in order to be consistent with the sampling methodology and data 

structure of the Canadian data. Sample weights of individuals in households that 

completed the supplement were adjusted by the Census Bureau to match Stateand national-level population controls so that statistics based on the supplement 

weights represent the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia. American Indians and Native Alaskans living outside 

metropolitan statistical areas (about 0.45 percent of the U.S. population) were 

omitted from the analysis sample to approximate the omission from the Canadian 

data of persons living on First Nations reserves.

*Three years of data were used for the U.S. statistics to minimize the sampling error, 

even for relatively small subpopulations.

About the Data
3

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

one-third lower in Canada than in the U.S. (Nord et al., 2008). The difference was larger in households with children, for which the prevalence rate 

of food insecurity in Canada was about half that in the United States. In both 

countries, food insecurity was more prevalent in households with low annual 

household income, low educational attainment of adults, and younger adult 

members, and in those comprised of single parents with children or men or 

women living alone. In spite of relatively strong associations with food insecurity, however, none of these characteristics could individually account for 

much of the overall Canada-U.S. difference in food insecurity. 

The analyses in Nord et al. (2008) were limited to comparisons of bivariate 

tabulations of food insecurity prevalence by selected household demographic and economic characteristics. Multivariate analyses could not be 

conducted because the individual-level public-use fi le for the Canadian 

food security data was not yet available. Canadian statistics for that study 

were taken, with one exception, from the tables in the report published by 

Health Canada (2007).3 Although bivariate analyses provided an overview 

comparison of food insecurity in the two countries, they could not assess 

the extent to which associations with various risk factors are additive, and 

could provide only limited information about the reasons for the differences. For example, it was not possible to determine whether the association of higher educational attainment with better food security refl ected 

a direct effect of education or an indirect effect mediated through higher 

income and more favorable employment. 

This report is based on public-use individual-level data from both countries 

and complements the earlier analysis by Nord et al. The study replicates 

and extends the bivariate comparisons of food security across various 

demographic and economic characteristics and adds multivariate analyses 

of these associations. 

 3The only exception was a comparison 

of food insecurity prevalence among 

adults by age, which was based on a 

special tabulation conducted by Health 

Canada.
4

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Measures of Food Security 

and Food Insecurity

The measures of food security described in this report are calculated from 

responses to a series of questions about conditions and behaviors known to 

characterize households that have diffi culty meeting basic food needs.4 Each 

question asks whether the condition or behavior occurred at any time during 

the previous 12 months and specifi es a lack of money or other resources to 

obtain food as the reason, thereby excluding voluntary fasting or dieting. 

The series includes 10 questions about food conditions of the household as a 

whole and of adults in the household, and, if there are children, an additional 

8 questions about their food conditions. (See box, “Survey Questions Used 

To Assess Households’ Food Security,” p. 5.) 

The food security status of each interviewed household is determined by the 

number of food-insecure conditions and behaviors the household reports. 

Although Health Canada and USDA base their measures of food security on 

the same set of questions, they combine responses to the questions somewhat differently to determine each household’s food security status and use 

different language to describe the ranges of severity of food insecurity. (The 

differences are described in appendix A.) In this report, the U.S. methods 

were applied to data from both countries, so the statistics are directly comparable.5 As a result, the Canadian statistics in the report will not match those 

published by Health Canada (or those in Nord et al., 2008, which were based 

on the Canadian methodology).6

Three measures of food security are used by USDA:

• The Adult Food Security Scale is calculated from the 10 adult and general 

household questions. It is the standard measure in offi cial USDA reports 

for households without children and can also be used to represent food 

security among adults in households with children. Households are classifi ed as food secure if they report no food-insecure conditions or only 

one or two food-insecure conditions.7 They are classifi ed as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure 

households are further classifi ed as having either low food security (3 

to 5 food-insecure conditions) or very low food security (6 to 10 foodinsecure conditions).8

• The Children’s Food Security Scale is calculated from the eight childreferenced questions (questions 11-18). Households are classifi ed as having 

food insecurity among children if they report two or more food-insecure 

conditions of children. Households with food insecurity among children are 

further classifi ed as having either low food security among children (two to 

four food-insecure conditions of children) or very low food security among 

children (fi ve to eight food-insecure conditions of children).

• The Household Food Security Scale is calculated from all 18 questions 

(household-, adult-, and child-referenced) and is the standard measure used 

in offi cial USDA reports for households with children. Households without 

children are classifi ed by the Adult Food Security Scale, as described 

above. Households with children are classifi ed as food secure if they report 

no food-insecure conditions or if they report only one or two food-insecure 

 4The methods used to measure the 

extent and severity of food insecurity 

in the U.S. have been described earlier 

(Hamilton et al., 1997a, 1997b; Andrews et al., 1998; Bickel et al.,1998; 

Carlson et al., 1999; Bickel et al., 2000; 

Nord and Bickel, 2002). See also the 

recent assessment of the measurement 

methods by a panel of the Committee on National Statistics (National 

Research Council, 2006).

5Psychometric analysis of the CCHS 

2.2 food security data was conducted 

using statistical methods based on the 

Rasch measurement model to assess 

whether the instrument measured the 

same phenomenon in the two countries 

(Health Canada, 2007, appendix B). 

Results confi rmed that responses by 

both English- and French-speaking 

Canadians were directly comparable 

with responses by U.S. respondents to 

the CPS-FSS.

 6The U.S. methodology and reporting 

language were selected for this study to 

facilitate comparison with other studies 

published by USDA.

 7Food-insecure conditions are 

indicated by responses of “often” or 

“sometimes” to questions 1-3 and 11-13, 

“almost every month” or “some months 

but not every month” to questions 5, 10, 

and 17, and “yes” to the other questions.

 8Prior to 2006, households with low 

food security were described by USDA 

as “food insecure without hunger” and 

households with very low food security 

were described as “food insecure with 

hunger.” Changes in these descriptions 

were made in 2006 at the recommendation of the Committee on National 

Statistics (National Research Council, 

2006). The criteria by which households 

were classifi ed remained unchanged.
5

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

 1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy 

 more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? 

 2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get 

 more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

 3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or 

 never true for you in the last 12 months?

 4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of

 your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

 5. (If yes to Question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some 

 months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

 6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because 

 there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

 7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there 

 wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

 8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money 

 for food? (Yes/No)

 9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for

 a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

10. (If yes to Question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some

 months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children under age 18) 

11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because

 we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or

 never true for you in the last 12 months? 

12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford 

 that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough 

 food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s 

 meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t 

 afford more food? (Yes/No)

16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there 

 wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No) 

17. (If yes to Question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some 

 months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day 

 because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

*Wording of some questions in the CCHS 2.2 module differs slightly from the U.S. 

standard presented here. Canadian researchers may prefer to use the CCHS 2.2 module to 

ensure comparability with the Health Canada statistics.

Survey Questions Used To Assess Households’ 

Food Security*
6

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

conditions. They are classifi ed as food insecure if they report three or more 

food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure households are further classifi ed 

as having either low food security (3 to 7 food-insecure conditions) or very 

low food security (8 to 18 food-insecure conditions).

The low food security category is intended to identify households in which 

dietary quality and variety are reduced, but quantity of food intake is not 

reduced substantially. Households in this category have reported multiple 

indications of food access problems, but have typically reported few, if 

any, indications of reduced food intake (fi g. 1). The very low food security 

category identifi es households in which food intake of one or more members 

(adult members in the case of the adult scale and child members in the case 

of the child scale) was reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of 

insuffi cient money and other resources.

The Adult Food Security Scale and Children’s Food Security Scale are used 

for most analyses in this report. The household measure is used only to 

compare national-level prevalence rates in Canada and the U.S. The adult 

scale is preferred for most analyses because it provides the most comparable 

statistics between households with and without children and among households with children in various age ranges (Nord and Bickel, 2002).

Figure 1

U.S. households reporting each indicator of food insecurity, 

by food security status, 2006

Source: USDA, ERS, Household Food Security in the United States, 2006, 

ERR-49 (Nord et al., 2007).

Did not eat whole day, in 3+ months

Did not eat whole day

Lost weight

Hungry but did not eat

Ate less than felt should

Cut or skipped meal in 3+ months

Cut size of meal or skipped meal

Could not afford balanced meal

Food bought did not last

Worried food would run out

0 20 40 60 80 100

Food secure

Low food security

Very low food security

Percent
7

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Comparison of Food Security in Canada 

and the United States

Methods

Prevalence rates throughout this report are expressed as percentages of populations and subpopulations (i.e., as percentages of individuals). This differs 

from the usual statistics presented in Economic Research Service (ERS) food 

security reports, which express prevalence rates as percentages of households. The population-oriented statistics were necessitated by the character 

of the Canadian survey and data. The Canadian Community Health Survey 

Cycle 2.2 (CCHS 2.2) sampled and collected data on individuals. In both 

Canada and the U.S., food security was assessed for the entire household 

(or for all adults or all children in the household). However, the CCHS 2.2 

public-use data provide demographic information (and employment information for adults) only for the sampled person and provide only person-level 

sampling weights. The U.S. data, from the Current Population Survey Food 

Security Supplement (CPS-FSS), samples households, but also provides 

demographic information on all household members, employment information on all adults, and both person-level and household-level sampling 

weights. The two data sources can, therefore, be compared only at the individual level.

Details on the measurement of demographic and economic characteristics 

are provided in appendix B, along with percentage breakdowns of adults and 

children by these characteristics in the Canadian and U.S. analysis samples.

Standard errors of prevalence estimates were calculated using the following 

design effects:

• 1.6 for all U.S. prevalence estimates, consistent with Cohen et al. (2002). 

The unweighted number of cases used to calculate standard errors was 

reduced to the number of unique households represented by the person 

records in the denominator of each calculated rate;

• Age-specifi c design effects for Canadian prevalence estimates disaggregated by age, as specifi ed by Statistics Canada (2005); 

• 5.67 for Canadian prevalence estimates of individuals and of adults, 

except when disaggregated by age, as specifi ed in the CCHS 2.2 – 

Nutrition User Guide (Statistics Canada, 2005); and 

• 3.15 for Canadian prevalence estimates for children, except when disaggregated by age. This is a weighted (by population size) average of the 

age-specifi c design effects specifi ed by Statistics Canada (2005).

National Level

At the national level, food insecurity and very low food security were less 

prevalent in Canada than in the U.S., as represented by all three measures 

(table 1). In Canada, 7.0 percent of the population lived in food-insecure 

households compared with 12.6 percent of the population in the U.S. The 

prevalence of very low food security was 2.4 percent in Canada compared 
8

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

with 3.6 percent in the U.S. Prevalence rates of food insecurity based on the 

Adult Food Security Scale were somewhat lower, but in similar relationship 

(6.2 percent and 10.6 percent, respectively).

Canada-U.S. differences were larger for children than for adults. In Canada, 

the percentage of children living in food-insecure households (as measured 

by the household and adult scales), was about half that in the U.S. The prevalence rates based on the adult scale should be interpreted as the percentage of 

children living in households with food insecurity among adults in the household. Differences based on the Children’s Food Security Scale were somewhat smaller; in Canada, 5.3 percent of children lived in households in which 

one or more child was food insecure, compared with 9.9 percent of children 

in the U.S.

Table 1

Percentage of individuals by household-level food security status in 

Canada and the U.S.1

Household security level Canada U.S. 

Percent of individuals

All individuals

In food-insecure households (low and very low food 

security)

7.0 12.6

In households with very low food security 2.4 3.6

In households with food-insecure adults (low and very low 

food security among adults)

6.2 10.6

In households with very low food security among adults 2.3 3.6

Adults

In food-insecure households (low and very low food 

security)

6.6 10.8

In households with very low food security 2.4 3.3

In households with food-insecure adults (low and very low 

food security)

6.2 9.5

In households with very low food security among adults 2.4 3.4

Children

In food-insecure households (low or very low food security) 8.3 17.9

In households with very low food security 2.3 4.3

In households with food-insecure adults (low or very low 

food security among adults)

6.2 14.0

In households with very low food security among adults 2.1 4.3

In households with food-insecure children (low or very low 

food security among children)

5.3 9.9

In households with very low food security among children .44E .72

Note: All Canada-U.S. differences are statistically signifi cant with 95-percent confi dence.

E=Interpret with caution, coeffi cient of variation exceeds 16.6.

1Statistics for both countries are based on U.S. food security classifi cation methodology. All 

measures are at the household level and over a 12-month period. For example, food insecurity 

among children means that one or more child in the household was food insecure at some 

time during the year.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
9

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Age

In both Canada and the U.S., food security improved steadily across the adult 

age ranges (fi g. 2). In the U.S., the prevalence of food insecurity declined from 

12.5 percent for the youngest adults to about 5 percent for those ages 66 and 

older. In Canada, the decline was even steeper, dropping from 9.2 percent for 

the youngest adults to less than 2 percent for those ages 66 and older. 

In every age range, the prevalence of food insecurity was lower in Canada 

than in the U.S. Children in Canada were less than half as likely as U.S. children to live in a household with food-insecure adults and about half as likely 

as U.S. children to live in a household with very low food security among 

adults. From ages 19 to 65, the prevalence of food insecurity in Canada was 

about two-thirds that in the U.S. For ages 66 and older, the prevalence of 

food insecurity in Canada was about one-third that in the U.S. The prevalence of very low food security followed a similar pattern across the adult 

age range, but the differences were smaller, and for the age-range 19-35, the 

difference was not statistically signifi cant. 

Figure 2

Percentage of individuals living in households with food insecurity 

among adult members, by age of individual

NS=Canada-U.S. difference in prevalence of very low food security not statistically 

significant (p>0.05).

E=Coefficient of variation for prevalence of very low food security exceeds 16.5 percent; 

interpret with caution.

NA=Prevalence of very low food security suppressed because the coefficient of variation 

exceeds 33 percent. Low food security bar includes both low and very low food security 

for this age category.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05. 

Percent of individuals

66+, U.S.

66+, Canada

46-65, U.S.

46-65, Canada

36-45, U.S.

36-45, Canada

19-35, U.S.

19-35, Canada

9-18, U.S.

9-18, Canada

0-8, U.S.

0-8, Canada

All ages, U.S.

All ages, Canada

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Very low food security

Low food security

NS

NS

NA

E
10

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

In both Canada and the U.S., the percentage of children living in households 

in which one or more children were food insecure increased with age until the 

early teenage years (fi g. 3). Food security of Canadian children then improved 

for children ages 14-17, while that of U.S. children remained about the same 

as that of children ages 9-13. Differences in the food security experienced by 

individual children probably differed somewhat more across age groups than is 

suggested by these comparisons. The Children’s Food Security Scale is based 

on whether any child in the household was food insecure. In some households 

with more than one child, the measure refl ects the food insecurity of the oldest 

child and overstates the severity of food insecurity of younger children. 

Parents appear to have protected their children—especially younger children—from the effects of food insecurity to a considerable extent. Adults 

were more likely to be food insecure than children in the same household, 

especially compared with children in the youngest age group. In Canada, 

about 56 percent more children age 3 and younger lived in households with 

food insecurity among adults than in households with food insecurity among 

children (7.8 percent vs. 5.0 percent; table 2). In the U.S., the corresponding 

fi gure was 64 percent (13.9 percent vs. 8.5 percent). By age 14-17, the corresponding statistics were 7 percent in Canada and 28 percent in the U.S. 

Children were protected to an even greater extent from the more severe 

aspects of food insecurity. Canadian children were about fi ve times as likely, 

and U.S. children about six times as likely, to live in a household with very 

low food security among adults as in a household with very low food security among children. For children 3 and younger, the ratio was about 10 to 1 

Figure 3

Percentage of children living in households with food insecurity 

among children in the household, by age

Note: All Canada-U.S. differences are statistically significant with 95-percent confidence.

*The Canada statistic includes a small proportion of 18-year-olds. In both countries, the 

child-referenced food security questions were administered only to households with at least 

one child age 17 or younger. However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are 

indistinguishable from children ages 14-17 in the CCHS 2.2 public-use data because age is 

identified only in ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS data, where age is reported in single years, 

including or omitting 18-year-old siblings results in only negligible changes in the estimated 

prevalence of food insecurity in this age range.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of children

14-17 years*

9-13 years

4-8 years

0-3 years

All children

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Canada

United States
11

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

in the U.S. The ratio in the Canadian sample was also about 10 to 1, but the 

number of children in households with very low food security among children was too small to generalize to the population. 

Household Living Arrangements

The prevalence of food insecurity among adults did not differ signifi cantly 

between Canada and the U.S. for either men living alone or women living 

alone (fi g. 4). In both countries, married couples living alone or cohabiting 

couples living alone (i.e., without children or other individuals in the household) were less likely to be food insecure than men or women living alone. 

Couples either with or without children, as well as single parents with children, were less likely to be food insecure in Canada than in the U.S. The 

prevalence of food insecurity among adults was highest for single parents 

with children, 16 percent in Canada and 26 percent in the U.S.

The prevalence of food insecurity among children was also considerably higher 

in single-parent than in two-parent households in both countries (fi g. 5). In all 

three household categories (two-parent, single parent, and other), Canadian 

children were less likely to be food insecure than U.S. children. 

Income

Income is a primary proximate determinant of food security (Nord et al., 

2007; Bartfeld et al., 2006). The association of food security with income 

in Canada and the U.S. was examined using the Statistics Canada “income 

adequacy” categories because the public-use data for the CCHS 2.2 provides 

income information only in these categories. Income adequacy is calculated 

from annual household income by adjusting for household size (table 3; 

Statistics Canada, 2005). The incomes of U.S. households were classifi ed into 

the Statistics Canada income adequacy categories after fi rst being converted 

to Canadian dollars using the purchasing power parity index for 2004 

(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008).9 

9U.S. incomes for 2003 and 2005 

were fi rst converted to 2004 dollars 

based on the Consumer Price Index. 

U.S. incomes for all 3 years were then 

converted to Canadian dollars using 

the purchasing power parity index for 

2004 published by the Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (2008). Purchasing power parities 

are rates of currency conversion that 

adjust for differences in price levels. 

The purchasing power parity was 

C$1.23=US$1.00 in 2004.

Table 2

Percentage of children living in households with food-insecure children and food-insecure adults

 Canada United States

 Food insecurity Very low food security Food insecurity Very low food security

 Among Among Among Among Among Among Among Among 

Age children adults children adults children adults children adults

 Percent

All ages 0-17* 5.3 6.2 0.44 2.12 9.9 14.0 0.72 4.32

Age 0-3 years 5.0 7.8 NA 2.76 8.5 13.9 .43 4.37

Age 4-8 years 5.4 6.3 NA 1.84 9.8 14.2 .64 4.19

Age 9-13 years 6.5 6.9 NA 3.16 10.7 14.3 .80 4.52

Age 14-17 years* 4.0 4.3 NA .81 10.5 13.4 .97 4.16

NA = Prevalence of very low food security not reported because fewer than 30 cases had this characteristic.

*The Canada statistic includes a small proportion of 18-year-olds. In both countries, the child-referenced food security questions were 

administered only to households with at least one child age 17 or younger. However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are 

indistinguishable from children ages 14-17 in the CCHS 2.2 public-use data because age is identifi ed only in ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS 

data, where age is reported in single years, including or omitting 18-year-old siblings results in only negligible changes in the estimated 

prevalence of food insecurity in this age range. 

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
12

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Percentage of adults living in households with food insecurity 

among adult members, by household living arrangements

NS=Canada-U.S. difference not statistically significant (p>.05).

E=Coefficient of variation exceeds 16.5 percent; interpret with caution.

 *No other adults are present in the household unless they are adult children of the 

sampled person.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of adults

Other

Single parent with children*

With spouse/partner and children*

With spouse/partner only

Female living alone

Male living alone

All adults

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Canada

United States

NS

NS

E

NS

NS

E

E

Other*

With single parent

With 2 parents

All children

0 5 10 15 20 25

Canada

United States

Figure 5

Percentage of children living in households with food insecurity 

among children in the household, by household living arrangements

Note: All Canada-U.S. differences are statistically significant with 95-percent confidence.

* Includes children living in households with neither parent and children living in a household 

that includes one or both parents along with other adults who are not siblings of the child. 

E=Coefficient of variation exceeds 16.5 percent; interpret with caution.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of children

E
13

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Income concepts in the two surveys were similar; both of them included all 

pretax cash income received by the household, but omitted in-kind assistance.

Income adequacy categories are not directly comparable with U.S. incometo-poverty categories or with Statistics Canada’s low-income cutoffs (LICOs, 

a commonly used measure of income poverty in Canada). The U.S. poverty 

line and Canadian LICOs adjust more completely for household size and age 

composition than do the income adequacy categories. Most households in the 

lowest income adequacy category have incomes less than 50 percent of the 

U.S. poverty line, those in the lower-middle-income adequacy category have 

incomes near the U.S. poverty line, and those in the middle-income adequacy 

category have incomes around 1.5 times the U.S. poverty line (see box, 

“Income Adequacy and Poverty,” p. 14). Similarly, household incomes in the 

lowest and lower-middle income adequacy categories, and some of those in 

the middle-income adequacy group, fall below Statistics Canada’s LICOs.

As expected, food insecurity was strongly associated with income adequacy 

in both countries. About one-third of people in the lowest income adequacy 

category lived in households with food-insecure adults, compared with 1 

to 2 percent in the highest income adequacy category (fi g. 6). In the lowest 

income adequacy category, the prevalence of adult food insecurity was 

similar in the two countries (somewhat higher in Canada than in the U.S. in 

the sample, but the difference was not statistically signifi cant). In all other 

income adequacy categories, the prevalence of adult food insecurity was 

lower in Canada than in the U.S. Food insecurity among children was less 

prevalent in Canada than in the U.S. in all income adequacy categories in the 

sample, but the differences were not statistically signifi cant in the two lowest 

income adequacy categories (fi g. 7).

Income distribution differed between the Canadian and U.S. surveys. The 

U.S. had larger population shares than Canada in the lowest and lower-middle 

income adequacy categories, in which food insecurity was more prevalent in 

Table 3

Statistics Canada income adequacy categories

Income adequacy Household income Household size

category

 ($CND) Number

Lowest < 10,000 1 - 4 persons

 < 15,000 5+ persons

Lower-middle 10,000 - 14,999 1 - 2 persons

 10,000 - 19,999 3 - 4 persons

 15,000 - 29,000 5+ persons

Middle 15,000 - 29,999 1 - 2 persons

 20,000 - 39,999 3 - 4 persons

 30,000 - 59,999 5+ persons

Upper-middle 30,000 - 59,999 1 - 2 persons

 40,000 - 79,999 3 - 4 persons

 60,000 - 79,999 5+ persons

Highest ≥ 60,000 1 - 2 persons

≥ 80,000 3+ persons

Source: Statistics Canada, 2005. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), Cycle 2.2 

(Nutrition) 2004: Derived Variables Specifi cations.
14

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Statistics Canada provides household income data in some public-use fi les in 

“income adequacy categories” that represent annual income adjusted for household size. The categories primarily differentiate income across a relatively 

low income range; median income for all households in the country is in the 

upper-middle income adequacy category. The only income data available in the 

Canadian Community Health Survey 2.2 is for income adequacy. 

Income adequacy categories are not directly comparable with U.S. income-topoverty categories (or with Statistics Canada’s low income cutoff, which is a 

commonly used measure of income poverty in Canada). The poverty line and low 

income cutoff adjust more completely for household size and age composition 

than do the income adequacy categories. 

To relate income adequacy to U.S. poverty line-based income categories that are 

more familiar to most readers in the U.S., the 25th percentile, median, and 75th 

percentile of the income-to-poverty ratio for U.S. households in the analysis fi le 

for this study were calculated within each income adequacy category. The poverty 

line for each household was calculated based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s table 

of poverty thresholds for the survey year. The annual income reported by each 

household (evaluated at the midpoint of the range in which it was reported) was 

divided by the poverty line for that household to calculate the income-to-poverty 

ratio. The income adequacy category was assigned according to Statistics Canada 

criteria, after fi rst converting the U.S. dollar income to Canadian dollars based on 

the purchasing power parity index (OECD, 2008).

Median income of households in the lowest income adequacy category was 

less than half the poverty line; for those in the lower-middle income adequacy 

category, the median was about at the poverty line; and for those in the middleincome adequacy category, at about 1.6 times the poverty line.

Income Adequacy and Poverty

Income-to-poverty ratios of U.S. households by Statistics Canada 

income-adequacy category

Income-to-poverty ratio

Note: U.S. households were classified by Statistics Canada income adequacy 

criteria after adjusting household Income to Canadian dollars by the purchasing 

power parity index.

Source: Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Income adequacy category (Statistics Canada)

Lowest Lower-middle Middle Upper-middle Highest

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 75th percentile

25th percentile

50th percentile
15

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 6

Percentage of persons living in households with food insecurity 

among adult members, by income adequacy*

NS=Canada-U.S. difference not statistically significant (p>0.05).

E=Coefficient of variation exceeds 16.5 percent; interpret with caution.

*Income adequacy is a Statistics Canada classification of households by annual 

income adjusted for household size. Low and lower-middle income adequacy correspond 

approximately to incomes below the U.S. poverty line; middle-income adequacy corresponds 

approximately to the range of from 1 to 2 times the U.S. poverty line; and upper-middle-income 

adequacy corresponds approximately to the range of from 2 to 3.5 times the U.S. poverty line.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of persons

E

Not reported

Lowest

Lower middle

Middle

Upper middle

Highest

All persons

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

United States

Canada

Income adequacy*

E

NS

NS

Not reported

Lowest

Lower middle

Middle

Upper middle

Highest

All children

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

United States

Canada

Figure 7

Percentage of childern living in households with food insecurity 

among childern in the household, by income adequacy*

NA=Prevalence of very low food security not reported because coefficient of variation 

exceeds 33 percent.

E=Coefficient of variation exceeds 16.5 percent; interpret with caution.

NS=Canada-U.S. difference not statistically significant (p>0.05).

* Income adequacy is a Statistics Canada classification of households by annual 

income adjusted for household size. Low and lower-middle income adequacy correspond 

approximately to incomes below the U.S. poverty line; middle income adequacy corresponds 

approximately to the range of from 1 to 2 times the U.S. poverty line; and upper-middle income 

adequacy corresponds approximately to the range of from 2 to 3.5 times the U.S. poverty line.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of children

NA

Income adequacy*

E

NS

NS

NS

NS

E

E
16

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

both countries, but also in the highest income adequacy category, in which 

food insecurity was least prevalent in both countries (fi g. 8).10 It is not apparent 

whether the combined effect of the two differences contributed to the overall 

Canada-U.S. difference in the prevalence of food insecurity, since the effects 

would be partially or completely offsetting. This question will be explored in 

the multivariate analysis later in the report.

Employment and Labor Force Status

In both Canada and the U.S., adults who were employed or retired were less 

likely to live in households with food insecurity among adults than those who 

were unemployed, disabled, or not in the labor force for other reasons (fi g. 

9).11 Canadian adults who were employed, retired, or unemployed were less 

likely to live in households with food insecurity among adults than their U.S. 

counterparts. The largest difference was for those who were unemployed. 

Canada-U.S. differences were not statistically signifi cant for adults who were 

out of the labor force because of disability or for reasons other than disability 

or retirement. 

Education

Educational attainment of the most highly educated adult in the household 

was associated with adult food insecurity in both countries, but the association was stronger in the U.S. than in Canada (fi g.10). In Canada, the 

percentage of people living in households with adult food insecurity was 

about the same (10 percent) across the three lowest education categories and 

 10The differences in income distribution between Canada and the U.S. 

observed in these surveys are consistent 

with those for family income in 1995 reported by Wolfson and Murphy (1998).

 11Employment status generally 

referred to “usual” status, but unemployed (in this report, referring to those 

actively seeking work) referred to the 

current status (i.e., a week prior to the 

interview). See appendix B for details 

of the classifi cation protocol.

Figure 8

Distribution of population by income adequacy* in the Canadian 

Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 and the U.S. Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement

* Income adequacy is a Statistics Canada classification of households by annual 

income adjusted for household size. Low- and lower-middle income adequacy correspond 

approximately to incomes below the U.S. poverty line; middle-income adequacy corresponds 

approximately to the range of from 1 to 2 times the U.S. poverty line; and upper-middle income 

adequacy corresponds approximately to the range of from 2 to 3.5 times the U.S. poverty line. 

United States incomes were adjusted to Canadian dollars by purchasing power parity index.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Income adequacy (Statistics Canada system)

Percentage of population

Low Lower-middle Middle Upper-middle Highest 0

10

20

30

40

50

Canada (CCHS 2.2)

United States (CPS-FSS)
17

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Not in labor force

Disabled

Unemployed

Retired

Employed part time

Employed full time

All adults

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Canada

United States

Figure 9

Percentage of adults living in households with food insecurity 

among adult members, by labor force status

E=Coefficient of variation exceeds 16.5 percent; interpret with caution.

NS=Canada-U.S. difference not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of adults

E

NS

NS

NS

NS

E

E

E

Post-secondary 

graduation**

Some post-secondary

Secondary graduation*

Less than secondary

All persons

0 5 10 15 20 25

Canada

United States

Figure 10

Percentage of persons living in households with food insecurity 

among adult members, by education of the most highly educated 

adult in the household

*Secondary graduation includes high school graduation (or GED in the U.S.), 

with no further education. 

**Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

NS= Canada-U.S. difference not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.

Percent of persons

NS

NS

NS

NS
18

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

about half as high for those in households with a post-secondary graduate. 

In the U.S., food insecurity among adults was about twice as prevalent in 

households in which the most educated adult had less than a secondaryschool education—i.e., less than a high school diploma or General Education 

Development certifi cate (GED)—as in households with an adult with some 

post-secondary education, and almost fi ve times as high compared with 

households with a post-secondary graduate. 

The prevalence of food insecurity for individuals living in households in 

which a member had completed post-secondary schooling was similar in the 

two countries (about 5 percent), and was considerably lower than in other 

households.12 The share of the population that lived in households with a 

post-secondary graduate was larger in Canada than in the U.S. (72 percent 

vs. 48 percent in these surveys). The extent to which this is associated with 

the overall difference in food insecurity between the two countries will be 

explored in the multivariate analysis later in the report.

 12The post-secondary graduation 

category included those with a 2-year 

college degree.
19

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Multivariate Analysis: To What Extent 

Might Differences in Income, Employment, 

Education, Age, and Household Structure 

Account for the Lower Prevalence of Food 

Insecurity in Canada?

Analytic Approaches

The national-level difference in food security between Canada and the U.S. 

could result from a variety of social, economic, and policy differences in 

the two countries. Effects of such differences cannot be examined directly 

in the data used in this study, but analysis of associations of food insecurity 

with more proximate causal factors may provide indirect information about 

the effects of those policies. Two analytic approaches were used to explore 

two general questions about possible effects of proximate causal factors. 

Both approaches used multivariate logistic regression analyses, which assess 

the associations of food insecurity (measured at the household level) with 

multiple, potentially causal factors, while statistically holding constant the 

other potentially causal factors in the analysis.

Did Composition of the Canadian and U.S. Populations 

Account for Differences in Food Insecurity? 

The fi rst approach examined whether differences in the makeup of the 

Canadian and U.S. population across factors that were measured in both 

surveys could account for the national-level differences in food insecurity. 

The bivariate associations described above demonstrate that adults in both 

countries were more likely to live in food-insecure households if they were 

younger, less educated, unemployed, disabled, living alone or as a single 

parent, or in a household with lower income. If there were smaller proportions of these vulnerable populations in Canada than in the U.S., then those 

differences in population composition could account for some or all of the 

difference in food security between the two countries.

To assess the extent to which the data are consistent with this potential 

explanatory scenario, a series of logistic regression models were estimated 

using pooled data for adults from the two countries. Food insecurity among 

adults in the household was the dependent variable in these models, and the 

independent variable of primary interest was a binary variable indicating 

whether the observation was from the Canada CCHS 2.2 data (Canadian 

residence=1) or the U.S. CPS-FSS data (Canadian residence=0).

In the baseline model, the Canadian residence variable was the only independent variable. The logistic regression coeffi cient on the variable refl ects the 

overall difference in food insecurity between the two countries. 

The full model was estimated next, including sets of dummy variables for 

age, household living arrangements, income adequacy, employment and 

labor force status, and education. The extent to which the coeffi cient on the 

Canadian residence variable approaches zero (or the associated odds ratio 

approaches 1) in this model, compared with the baseline model, is a measure 
20

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

of the extent to which differences in composition of the Canadian and U.S. 

populations across these observed characteristics might account for the 

overall difference in food insecurity between the two countries. If the size 

of the coeffi cient on the Canadian residence variable were to become zero 

or very small (i.e., if the odds ratio approached 1.0), it would suggest that 

differences in population composition could account for much or all of the 

Canada-U.S. difference. If the coeffi cient remains unchanged or near that of 

the baseline model, it would suggest that differences in population composition are, at most, a minor factor in the overall difference.13

Several partial models were then estimated to identify which characteristics accounted for the change observed between the baseline and full model 

(while holding other factors constant). Again, the indicator of interest was the 

coeffi cient on the Canadian residence variable.

Which Characteristics Were Differently Associated With 

Food Insecurity in the U.S. and Canada?

The second approach examined the assumption, implicit in the pooled-data 

analyses, that each independent variable was similarly associated with food 

insecurity in the two countries. Separate models for adults in Canada and the 

U.S. were estimated, and the size of each coeffi cient was compared between 

the two countries. The models comprised the same covariates as the full model 

described above, except that the Canadian residence variable was omitted.

The purpose of the separate regression models was to identify characteristics 

that were associated differently with food insecurity in the two countries, 

while holding other factors constant. These characteristics may suggest 

economic or policy factors that could be infl uencing food security. These 

analyses cannot defi nitively identify specifi c factors responsible for the 

differences, but by identifying subpopulations that are affected differentially, 

they may suggest policy factors that could be responsible and may thus 

suggest fruitful directions for research.

All of the logistic regression analyses were repeated with children ages 0-17 

as the unit of analysis and food insecurity among children as the dependent 

variable. Employment could not be included in the analysis of children’s 

food security because household-level employment information is not available in the CCHS 2.2 data.

In all regression analyses, sample weights were adjusted to approximate 

the number of independent observations. Sample weights in the Canadian 

data were multiplied by a constant selected to equate the sum of weights 

to the number of unweighted cases. Sample weights in the U.S. data were 

multiplied by a constant selected to equate the sum of weights to the sum of 

unweighted households represented by the adult cases in the sample (or child 

cases in the child analyses). In the U.S. data, each member of a household 

contributes a case to the analysis fi le, but all members of the same household 

have the same food security status since food security was measured at the 

household level. (In the Canadian survey, only one person was interviewed 

in each household.) The logistic regression analyses and calculation of variances of the logistic coeffi cients were based on these adjusted weights. The 

weight adjustments did not account for any further clustering due to the 

 13Caution should be exercised in 

inferring causality from these results. 

Cross-sectional association does not 

prove causality. However, a lack of 

change in the Canadian residence coeffi cient with controls for characteristics 

that are known to be strongly associated with food insecurity is quite strong 

evidence that differences in population 

distribution on those characteristics 

does not account for the Canada-U.S. 

difference in food insecurity.
21

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

sampling designs. However, such clustering is not likely to substantially 

affect variance estimates for complex associations involving the number of 

covariates in these models, and marginally signifi cant associations are interpreted with caution.14

Details on measurement of covariates are provided in appendix B, along with 

percentage breakdowns of adults and children by these characteristics in the 

Canadian and U.S. analysis samples.

Several subsidiary analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the 

fi ndings to various analytic decisions. Descriptions of those analyses and 

results are reported after the main fi ndings.

Findings of the Multivariate Analyses

Population Composition and Adult Food Insecurity

Canada-U.S. differences in population composition on characteristics 

measured in both surveys accounted for only a modest proportion of the 

lower prevalence of food insecurity in Canada. The baseline difference in 

adult food insecurity corresponded to a Canada-to-U.S. odds ratio of 0.636 

(table 4). In other words, for adults age 19 or older, the odds of living in a 

household with food insecurity among adults were 36.4 percent lower in 

Canada than in the U.S. Controlling for age, household living arrangements, 

income adequacy, employment, and education only reduced that down to 

30.7 percent (odds ratio=0.693 in the full model). Thus, the proportion of the 

overall Canada-U.S. difference in the prevalence of adult food insecurity that 

was associated with differences in population composition (on the observed 

variables) amounted to about 16 percent if calculated on odds ratios. If calculated based on the logistic regression coeffi cients (not shown), the proportion 

was 19 percent.15

Thus, the Canada-U.S. difference in food insecurity does not appear to have 

resulted, to any great extent, from differences in population composition that 

were measured in both of these surveys. The lack of a substantial reduction 

in the size of the Canadian residence coeffi cient does not refl ect a poorly 

fi tting or inadequately specifi ed model. In fact, the model fi t the data quite 

well. Each set of variables representing a characteristic or construct was 

highly signifi cant, and coeffi cients for almost all individual variables were 

statistically signifi cant (i.e., they differed from the reference category by a 

statistically signifi cant amount). Somers’ D for the full model was .629, also 

indicating a reasonably good fi t.16

The small proportion of the Canada-U.S. difference accounted for by the 

model could result from there being only small differences in population 

composition on the characteristics represented in the model, or from the 

effects of some differences in composition offsetting the effects of others. To 

explore the latter possibility, additional models were estimated with selected 

sets of variables included. 

 14Neither survey provides the information on sample design that would be 

needed to calculate corrected variance 

estimates using Taylor series approximations. The average design effect for 

national-level prevalence estimates in 

the CPS-FSS has been calculated at 

about 1.6 (Cohen et al., 2002). Design 

effects for age-specifi c prevalence estimates in the CCHS 2.2 range from 3.11 

to 4.03 (Statistics Canada, 2005). Effects of survey design on the complex 

associations in the multivariate models 

are expected to be much smaller.

 15A Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition 

(Blinder 1973; Oaxaca, 1973) using a 

linear probability model and average 

coeffi cients, assigned 22 percent of the 

Canada-U.S. difference to differences 

in population composition.

 16Somers’ D is a measure of how 

well a logistic regression model fi ts the 

observed data. In a model with food 

insecurity as the dependent variable, 

for example, it assesses the extent to 

which predicted probabilities of food 

insecurity are higher for food-insecure 

households than for food-secure households. A value of 1.0 would indicate 

that predicted probabilities are higher 

for all food-insecure households than 

for any food-secure households.
22

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Logistic regression of food insecurity of adults1 on individual and 

household characteristics and residence in Canada vs. the United States

 Baseline model Full model

Characteristic Odds ratio p Odds ratio p

Canadian residence 0.636 <.001 0.693 <.001

Age 19-24 (reference) 1.000 --.--

Age 25-35 1.074 .023

Age 36-45 .998 .958

Age 46-55 .884 <.001

Age 56-65 .684 <.001

Age 66 or older .432 <.001

Male living alone2 1.197 <.001

Female living alone2 1.278 <.001

Male or female with spouse or 

partner only3 (reference) 1.000 --.--

Couple (married or cohabiting) 

with one or more child4 1.139 <.001

Single male with one or more child4 1.793 <.001

Single female with one or more child4 1.761 <.001

Other male 1.281 <.001

Other female 1.301 <.001

Lowest income adequacy 1.954 <.001

Lower-middle income adequacy 1.758 <.001

Middle income adequacy (reference) 1.000 --.--

Upper-middle income adequacy .443 <.001

Highest income adequacy .128 <.001

Income not reported .396 <.001

Employed full time (reference) 1.000 --.--

Employed part time 1.121 <.001

Unemployed (looking for work) 2.282 <.001

Disabled, not in labor force 2.376 <.001

Retired, not in labor force .695 <.001

Not in labor force for other reasons 1.099 .002

Education less than secondary 

graduation5 1.278 <.001

Education secondary graduation5

(reference) 1.000 --.--

Education some post-secondary5 .982 .486

Education post-secondary graduation5 .615 <.001

Somers’ D .016 .629

 1 Adults age 19 and older were the units of analysis, and food insecurity (low or very low food 

security) among adults was the dependent variable. There were 276,928 observations, but the 

U.S. observations were down-weighted to the number of households, resulting in an effective N 

for the combined Canada-U.S. sample (used to calculate variances) of 160,517.

 2 No other person lived in these households.

 3 These are two-person households.

 4 No other adults lived in these households unless they were an adult child of the individual in 

the sample.

 5 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. 

Secondary graduation includes high school graduation (or GED in the U.S.), with no further 

education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food 

Security Supplements, 2003-05.
23

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

The general picture that emerges from these analyses is that:

• Differences in age and household living arrangements in the two countries account for little or none of the difference in adult food insecurity;

• Differences in education could account for nearly half of the difference in 

adult food insecurity; and

• The effects of education were partially offset by differences in income 

and employment. 

Omitting either the age variables (table 5, model 3) or the household living 

arrangement variables (model 4) from the full model left the coeffi cient 

on Canadian residence essentially unchanged from that in the full model 

(model 2). Furthermore, including only those two sets of variables in the 

model resulted in a coeffi cient on Canadian residence almost identical to 

that in the baseline model (model 5). Adding the education variables, but still 

omitting income and employment variables (model 6), reduced the logistic 

coeffi cient on Canadian residence by nearly half from the baseline (model 

1). The full model, including income and employment variables (model 2), 

reduced the size of the logistic coeffi cient on Canadian residence by only 

19 percent from the baseline (model 2), so the effect of adding income and 

employment variables was to partially offset the effect of education differences. Comparison of the coeffi cients on Canadian residence in models 7 

and 8 suggests that difference in income composition rather than employment composition was the major offsetting factor. Model 9 confi rmed that if 

composition on all factors except education were the same in the two countries, the difference in food insecurity would be larger than the difference 

actually observed (provided associations between food insecurity and the 

modeled household characteristics remained unchanged).

Population Composition and Children’s Food Insecurity

The Canada-U.S. difference in children’s food insecurity, like that in adults’ 

food insecurity, was primarily associated with subpopulation-specifi c differences in food insecurity rates rather than with differences in population 

composition. The baseline (i.e., national-level) difference in the proportion 

of children living in households in which one or more child was food insecure corresponded to a Canada-to-U.S. odds ratio of 0.506 (table 6). In other 

words, for children ages 0-17, the odds of living in a household with food 

insecurity among children were 49.4 percent lower in Canada than in the 

U.S. Controlling for age, household living arrangements, income adequacy, 

and adults’ education reduced that only to 40.0 percent (odds ratio=0.600 

in the full model). Thus, the proportion of the overall Canada-U.S. difference in the prevalence of children’s food insecurity that was associated with 

differences in population composition (on the observed variables) amounted 

to about 19 percent if calculated on odds ratios. If calculated based on the 

logistic regression coeffi cients (not shown), the proportion was 25 percent.17

The model fi t the child data reasonably well, as was true for the adult data. 

Each set of variables representing a characteristic or construct was highly 

signifi cant, and coeffi cients for almost all individual variables were statistically signifi cant. Somers’ D for the full model was 0.605, also indicating a 

reasonably good fi t.

 17A Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition 

(Blinder 1973; Oaxaca, 1973) using a 

linear probability model and average 

coeffi cients assigned 30 percent of the 

Canada-U.S. difference to differences 

in population composition.
24

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

In the child model, as in the adult model, differences in educational attainment accounted for most of the relatively small proportion of overall difference associated with population composition. Differences between the two 

countries in children’s ages and household living arrangements also contributed, and together, age, household living arrangements, and education differences could account for nearly half of the baseline difference (table 7, model 

6 compared with model 1). Differences in income partially offset the differences in composition on the other characteristics.

Characteristics Differently Associated With Food Insecurity 

of Adults in Canada and the U.S.

Since the greater part of the Canada-U.S. difference in adult food insecurity 

cannot be accounted for by differences in population composition, it must 

refl ect differences in food insecurity between Canadian and U.S. households 

that are economically and demographically similar (as measured by the 

variables available for this study). Comparison of coeffi cients from models 

estimated separately for the two countries identifi es characteristics that are 

differently associated with food insecurity, holding effects of other characteristics in the model constant (table 8).

The log-odds of food insecurity presented in table 8 are those predicted for 

the specifi ed subpopulation, with other characteristics held constant at the 

reference characteristics. The reference population was specifi ed as a man or 

woman age 19-24 living with a spouse or partner only, with income in the 

Table 5

Coeffi cient on residence in Canada from logistic regressions of food insecurity of adults1 on selected sets 

of individual and household characteristics 2

Description of model

(“X” indicates that variables representing the characteristic 

or construct are in the model)

Coeffi cient on Canadian residence

Model Age

Household 

living 

arrangements 

Income Employment Education Odds ratio Logistic 

coeffi cient

Std. Error 

of logistic 

coeffi cient

Model 1

(Baseline) 0.636 -0.453 0.031

Model 2

(Full model) X X X X X .693 -.367 .033

Model 3 X X X X .693 -.366 .033

Model 4 X X X X .699 -.358 .033

Model 5 X X .632 -.459 .031

Model 6 X X X .775 -.255 .032

Model 7 X X X X .768 -.265 .032

Model 8 X X X X .707 -.347 .033

Model 9 X X X X .606 -.500 .032

1 Adults age 19 and older were the units of analysis and food insecurity (low or very low food security) among adults was the dependent 

variable. There were 276,928 observations, but the U.S. observations were down-weighted to the number of households, resulting in an 

effective N for the combined Canada-U.S. sample (used to calculate variances) of 160,517.

2 See table 4 for specifi c variables representing each characteristic or construct.

Source: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
25

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

middle-income adequacy range, employed full time, living in a household in 

which the most educated person had completed secondary schooling (high 

school or GED) but had no further education. The prevalence of adult food 

insecurity for this reference subpopulation is refl ected in the log-odds for 

each of the reference categories.18 The Canada-U.S. difference for the reference population was relatively small (17.0 percent in Canada compared with 

16.3 percent in the U.S.) and was not statistically signifi cant (p=.753).19

The subpopulations with lower prevalence of food insecurity in Canada than in 

the U.S., holding constant the other characteristics in the model at reference cate18The coeffi cients shown in other 

categories were calculated as the sum 

of the intercept and the regression coeffi cient for that category. The size of the 

difference in log-odds depends on the 

selection of the reference population, 

but the ranking of differences is invariant to this specifi cation.

19Percentages are calculated from 

log-odds (the metric of the coeffi cients 

in the logistic regression) as follows: 

Percentage = 100/(1+1/exp(Log-odds)).

Table 6

Logistic regression of children’s food insecurity1 on the child’s age, 

household characteristics, and residence in Canada vs. the United States

 Baseline model Full model

Characteristic Odds ratio p Odds ratio p

Canadian residence 0.506 <.001 0.600 <.001

Age 0-3 .730 <.001

Age 4-8 .871 .001

Age 9-13 1.028 .503

Age 14-17 (reference) 1.000 --.--

With two parents (reference)2 1.000 --.--

With single parent2 1.663 <.001

In other living arrangements3 1.336 <.001

Lowest income adequacy 1.633 <.001

Lower-middle income adequacy 1.930 <.001

Middle income adequacy (reference) 1.000 --.--

Upper-middle income adequacy .362 <.001

Highest income adequacy .099 <.001

Income not reported .400 <.001

Education less than secondary 

graduation4 1.317 <.001

Education secondary graduation4

(reference) 1.000 --.--

Education some post-secondary4 1.003 .939

Education post-secondary graduation4 .702 <.001

Somers’ D .059 .605

 1 Children ages 0 to 17 were the units of analysis, and food insecurity (low or very low food 

security) among children was the dependent variable. There were 105,721 observations, but 

the U.S. observations were down-weighted to the number of households, resulting in an effective N for the combined Canada-U.S. sample (used to calculate variances) of 62,873. The 

Canadian sample includes a small proportion of 18-year-olds. In both countries, the child-referenced food security questions were administered only to households with at least one child 

age 17 or younger. However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are indistinguishable 

from children ages 14-17 in the CCHS 2.2 public-use data because age is identifi ed only in 

ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS data, where age is reported in single years, including or omitting 

18-year-old siblings results in only negligible changes in the estimated prevalence of food 

insecurity in this age range.

 2 Some of these households included an adult sibling of the child in addition to the child’s 

parent(s). Households that included adults other than the child’s parents or siblings were classifi ed as “In other living arrangements.”

 3 Includes children living in households with neither parent, and children living in a household 

that includes one or both parents along with other adults who are not siblings of the child.

 4 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. 

Secondary graduation includes either high school (or GED in the U.S.), with no further education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food 

Security Supplements, 2003-05.
26

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

gories, are identifi ed by more negative values in the next-to-right-hand column in 

table 8 Those with substantially lower prevalence in Canada included:

• All age groups older than 19-24 (possibly excepting ages 25-35, for which 

the difference is only marginally statistically signifi cant), and especially those 

ages 46-55 and ages 66 and older. These differences were not due to differences in income, employment, education, or household living arrangements, 

since those factors were controlled in the regression analyses;

• Single men with children (although the number of such cases in the CCHS 

2.2 was so small that its effect on the national-level prevalence was negligible, and the estimation of the coeffi cient is somewhat suspect);

• People with incomes in the upper-middle income adequacy range;

• People employed part-time, or unemployed and looking for work; and

• People in households in which no one had completed high school.

On the other hand, some subpopulations had higher prevalence rates of food 

insecurity in Canada than in the U.S., holding constant other factors at the 

reference values. These included:

• Men or women living alone,

• Couples with children (marginally statistically signifi cant), and

• Those with incomes in the lowest and lower-middle income adequacy 

range.

Table 7

Coeffi cient on residence in Canada from logistic regressions of children’s food insecurity1 on selected 

sets of individual and household characteristics 2

Description of model

(“X” indicates that variables representing the 

characteristic or construct are in the model)

Coeffi cient on Canadian residence

Model Age Household living 

arrangements Income Education Odds ratio Logistic coeffi cient

Std. Error 

of logistic 

coeffi cient

Model 1

(Baseline) 0.506 -0.681 0.041

Model 2

(Full model) X X X X .600 -.510 .044

Model 3 X X X .609 -.496 .044

Model 4 X X X .604 -.504 .044

Model 5 X X .539 -.618 .041

Model 6 X X X .693 -.367 .042

Model 7 X X X .532 -.631 .042

1 Children aged 0 to 17 were the units of analysis, and food insecurity (low or very low food security) among children was the dependent 

variable. There were 105,721 observations, but the U.S. observations were down-weighted to the number of households, resulting in an effective N for the combined Canada-U.S. sample (used to calculate variances) of 62,873. The Canadian sample includes a small proportion of 

18-year-olds. In both countries, the child-referenced food security questions were administered only to households with at least one child age 

17 or younger. However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are indistinguishable from children ages 14-17 in the CCHS 2.2 public-use 

data because age is identifi ed only in ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS data, where age is reported in single years, including or omitting 18-year-old 

siblings results in only negligible changes in the estimated prevalence of food insecurity in this age range.

2 See table 6 for specifi c variables representing each characteristic or construct.

Source: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
27

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Characteristics Differently Associated With Food Insecurity of 

Children in Canada and the U.S.

Logistic regression models of children’s food insecurity estimated separately 

for the two countries are compared in table 9 to examine whether any characteristics were differentially associated with food insecurity in the two countries, 

holding constant effects of other characteristics in the models. The log-odds 

presented in table 9 are those for the specifi ed subpopulation with other characteristics held constant at reference categories. The reference population was 

Table 8

Predicted log-odds of food insecurity of adults based on logistic regression of food insecurity on individual 

and household characteristics in Canada and the United States1

 Canada U.S. Canada-U.S. difference

Characteristic Log-odds S.E. Log-odds S.E. Log-odds p

Age 19-24 (reference) -1.59 0.153 -1.64 0.043 0.05 .753

Age 25-35 -1.75 .105 -1.55 .033 -.20 .068

Age 36-45 -1.98 .111 -1.61 .034 -.37 .001

Age 46-55 -2.33 .117 -1.71 .036 -.62 .000

Age 56-65 -2.33 .140 -2.00 .044 -.34 .022

Age 66 or older -3.42 .233 -2.40 .061 -1.02 .000

Male living alone2 -1.01 .141 -1.50 .044 .49 .001

Female living alone2 -1.08 .133 -1.43 .041 .34 .013

Male or female with spouse or partner only3 (reference) -1.59 .153 -1.64 .043 .05 .753

Couple (married or cohabiting) with one or more child4 -1.28 .122 -1.52 .034 .24 .061

Single male with one or more child4 -2.06 .507 -1.02 .060 -1.04 .042

Single female with one or more child4 -.92 .171 -1.08 .062 .16 .381

Other male -1.37 .124 -1.39 .034 .02 .899

Other female -1.26 .124 -1.38 .035 .12 .356

Lowest income adequacy -.12 .111 -1.05 .035 .94 .000

Lower-middle income adequacy -.64 .096 -1.12 .031 .48 .000

Middle income adequacy (reference) -1.59 .153 -1.64 .043 .05 .753

Upper-middle income adequacy -2.68 .088 -2.42 .030 -.26 .005

Highest income adequacy -3.86 .139 -3.67 .040 -.19 .178

Income not reported -2.97 .159 -2.55 .031 -.42 .010

Employed full time (reference) -1.59 .153 -1.64 .043 .05 .753

Employed part time -1.86 .113 -1.49 .033 -.37 .002

Unemployed (looking for work) -1.04 .113 -.79 .039 -.25 .034

Disabled, not in labor force -.83 .120 -.77 .036 -.06 .616

Retired, not in labor force -2.05 .189 -1.98 .054 -.08 .695

Not in labor force for other reasons -1.57 .105 -1.54 .031 -.03 .790

Education less than secondary graduation5 -1.79 .120 -1.34 .031 -.44 .000

Education secondary graduation5 (reference) -1.59 .153 -1.64 .043 .05 .753

Education some post-secondary5 -1.69 .126 -1.66 .027 -.04 .778

Education post-secondary graduation5 -2.08 .086 -2.14 .027 .06 .496

Number of cases (number of households in U.S.) 20,177 140,340

Somers’ D .722 .622

 1 Adults age 19 and older were the units of analysis. Food insecurity (low or very low food security) among adults was the dependent 

variable. Separate models were estimated for Canada and the U.S. The coeffi cient for the intercept (constant) is shown for each reference 

category and was added to the coeffi cients for the other variables.

 2 No other person lived in these households.

 3 These are two-person households.

 4 No other adults lived in these households unless they were an adult child of the individual in the sample.

 5 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. Secondary graduation includes high school 

graduation (or GED in the U.S.), with no further education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
28

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

specifi ed as children age 14-17 living with both parents (or a parent and his 

or her spouse or partner), with income in the middle income adequacy range, 

living in a household in which the most highly educated adult had completed 

secondary (high school or GED) but had no further education. The prevalence 

of children’s food insecurity for this reference subpopulation is refl ected in the 

coeffi cients for each of the reference categories.20

Canada-U.S. differences in predicted prevalence rates of children’s food 

insecurity varied somewhat across subpopulations, but all subpopulations had 

lower prevalence rates in Canada, given the reference characteristics specifi ed in this analysis. The prevalence rates of children’s food insecurity for 

the reference population were 6.6 percent in Canada and 16.3 percent in the 

U.S.21 The Canada-U.S. differences were:

• Greater for older children (ages 14-17) than for those ages 13 and 

younger;

 20The coeffi cients shown in other 

categories were calculated as the sum 

of the intercept and the regression coeffi cient for that category. The size of the 

difference in log-odds depends on the 

selection of the reference population, 

but the ranking of differences is invariant to this specifi cation.

21Percentages are calculated from 

log-odds (the metric of the coeffi cients 

in the logistic regression) as follows: 

Percentage = 100/(1+1/exp(Log-odds)).

Table 9

Predicted log-odds of children’s food insecurity based on logistic regression of food insecurity 

on individual and household characteristics in Canada and the United States1

 Canada U.S. Canada-U.S. difference

Characteristic Log-odds S.E. Log-odds S.E. Log-odds p

Age 0-3 -2.51 0.130 -2.01 0.050 -0.50 <.001

Age 4-8 -2.51 .118 -1.81 .046 -0.70 <.001

Age 9-13 -2.26 .111 -1.67 .044 -0.60 <.001

Age 14-17 (reference) -2.65 .140 -1.63 .050 -1.01 <.001

With two parents (reference)2 -2.65 .140 -1.63 .050 -1.01 <.001

With single parent2 -2.09 .094 -1.14 .041 -0.95 <.001

In other living arrangements3 -2.65 .120 -1.32 .039 -1.32 <.001

Lowest income adequacy -1.87 .158 -1.18 .052 -0.69 <.001

Lower-middle income adequacy -1.61 .099 -1.06 .045 -0.54 <.001

Middle income adequacy (reference) -2.65 .140 -1.63 .050 -1.01 <.001

Upper-middle income adequacy -4.13 .131 -2.55 .055 -1.58 <.001

Highest income adequacy -5.35 .220 -3.88 .074 -1.47 <.001

Income not reported -3.66 .161 -2.53 .054 -1.12 <.001

Education less than secondary graduation4 -2.56 .146 -1.33 .046 -1.23 <.001

Education secondary graduation4 (reference) -2.65 .140 -1.63 .050 -1.01 <.001

Education some post-secondary4 -2.37 .147 -1.67 .044 -0.70 <.001

Education post-secondary graduation4 -2.71 .109 -2.06 .045 -0.64 <.001

Number of cases (number of households in U.S.) 14,187 48,683 

Somers’ D .672 .592 

1 Children ages 0 to 17 were the units of analysis, and food insecurity (low or very low food security) among children was the dependent 

variable. The Canadian sample includes a small proportion of 18-year-olds. In both countries, the child-referenced food security questions were 

administered only to households with at least one child age 17 or younger. However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are indistinguishable from children ages 14-17 in the CCHS 2.2 public-use data because age is identifi ed only in ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS data, where age is 

reported in single years, including or omitting 18-year-old siblings results in only negligible changes in the estimated prevalence of food insecurity 

in this age range. The coeffi cient for the intercept (constant) is shown for each reference category and was added to the coeffi cients for the other 

variables.

 2 Some of these households included an adult sibling of the child in addition to the child’s parent(s). Households that included adults other than 

the child’s parents or siblings were classifi ed as “in other living arrangements.”

 3 Includes children living in households with neither parent present, and children living in a household that include one or both parents along 

with other adults who are not siblings of the child.

 4 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. Secondary graduation includes high school 

graduation (or GED in the U.S.), with no further education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
29

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

• Somewhat greater for children in complex living arrangements than for 

those living with one or both parents and siblings only;

• Considerably greater for those living in households with upper-middle or 

highest income adequacy than for those with lower incomes; and

• Somewhat greater for those in households in which the most highly 

educated adult had not completed high school, or had completed high 

school but had no further education.

Almost all subpopulations of children that can be identifi ed by combinations 

of characteristics measured in both surveys had lower predicted prevalence 

rates of food insecurity in Canada than in the U.S. Only for a subpopulation 

selected to minimize the Canada-U.S. differences in every category in table 

9 was the predicted prevalence of children’s food insecurity higher, or about 

the same, in Canada as in the U.S.22 Estimated prevalence rates of children’s 

food insecurity for that subpopulation—age 3 years or younger, living with 

one or both parents, lower-middle or lowest income adequacy, most-educated 

adult a post-secondary graduate or with some post-secondary education—

were, in fact, nearly the same in Canada (15 percent) and the U.S. (17 

percent). However, that subpopulation comprised only about 1 percent of 

children in each country. 

Robustness of Reported Results

U.S. incomes may, on average, be understated somewhat in the analyses 

reported here. Household income in the CPS is reported in 14 ranges, and 

U.S. households were assigned to income adequacy categories based on the 

midpoint of the range in which they reported their income. However, in the 

lower half of the income distribution (where food insecurity is most prevalent), the distribution of households within each income category is likely to 

be concentrated in the upper part of the income range for the category rather 

than distributed uniformly or symmetrically. The mean income in each range, 

then, is likely to have been somewhat higher than the midpoint of the range. 

The descriptives and regressions were reestimated with income adequacy 

categories for U.S. households assigned at the three-quarters point of each 

income range rather than at the midpoint. This resulted in about 4 percent 

of U.S. respondents moving to the next- higher income adequacy category, 

but changes in the descriptives were negligible. In the full models, the odds 

ratios for the Residence in Canada variable were 0.656 for adults and 0.566 

for children. These were both lower (farther from 1.0) than the corresponding 

coeffi cients in the full model reported in tables 4 and 6. These fi ndings 

strengthen the conclusions that population composition accounted for only 

a small proportion of the overall Canada-U.S. difference in the prevalence 

of food insecurity and that differences in income between the two countries acted to reduce the Canada-U.S. difference in food security rather than 

contributing to the difference. The differences between the Canada and U.S. 

coeffi cients when the models were estimated separately did not vary in any 

important way from those reported in tables 8 and 9.

To examine whether income adequacy categories appeared to be adjusting 

correctly for household size, a set of dummy variables representing the 

number of persons in the household was added to the regression models. 

 22This inference depends on the 

associations refl ected in the regression coeffi cients being purely additive. 

Interactions among characteristics—

interactions that were not modeled in 

the logistic regression—could reduce 

the combined association to a value 

lower than that implied by the sum of 

the coeffi cients. Actual prevalence rates 

in the identifi ed “least different” subpopulation were, however, nearly the 

same in the two countries, consistent 

with associations being purely additive, 

suggesting that effects of interactions 

were modest at most.
30

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Coeffi cients on the income adequacy variables did not change appreciably 

with controls for the number of persons in the household, and the coeffi cient 

on the Residence in Canada variable was unchanged. 

To examine the effects of the imprecise control for income that results from 

using only fi ve income adequacy categories, the full logistic regression 

models were reestimated for the U.S. sample using a set of dummy variables 

for nine income-to-poverty categories in place of the income adequacy variables. Changes in coeffi cients for non-income variables were modest at most. 

The differences that were observed suggest that the results reported in table 

4 slightly understate the extent to which men living alone and women living 

alone are at greater risk of food insecurity than couples with no children, 

overstate the extent to which couples with children are at greater risk of food 

insecurity than couples without children, and overstate the protective effect 

of post-secondary graduation.

The main regression analyses for adults were repeated with the dependent 

variable as very low food security rather than food insecurity. Differences 

in population composition between Canada and the U.S. contributed more 

substantially to the differences between the two countries in the prevalence 

of this more severe condition than to differences in overall food insecurity. 

About one-third of the Canada-U.S. difference could be accounted for by 

the greater proportions of more vulnerable populations in the U.S. than in 

Canada. For very low food security, as for food insecurity, the difference in 

educational attainment was the main factor favoring Canada, partially offset 

by less favorable income and employment characteristics. As was true of 

food insecurity, however, a substantial majority of the national-level difference in the prevalence of very low food security was due to differences 

between households with otherwise similar characteristics, so far as these 

were measured in the two surveys. 
31

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

About 7.0 percent of Canadians and 12.6 percent of U.S. residents lived 

in food-insecure households in 2004 (an average of 2003-05 for the U.S.). 

These prevalence rates were calculated by applying the U.S. classifi cation 

methodology to comparable data in the two countries.23

Similarities in Patterns of Food Security

Although the analyses in this report focused on differences in the patterns of 

food security between Canada and the U.S., in several important respects the 

patterns were similar. In both countries: 

• Food security among adults generally improved with age. The percentage 

of adults living in households in which one or more adults were food 

insecure was highest for respondents ages 19-35, declined with age, and 

was lowest for those ages 66 and older. 

• Single parents with children (and children living with a single parent) 

were more likely to be food insecure than persons in other living arrangements. Men living alone and women living alone also had prevalence 

rates above the national averages.

• Adults who were unemployed and looking for work or were out of the 

labor force because of disability were about three times as likely to live in 

households with adult food insecurity as were those who were employed 

full time. These associations weakened, but remained substantial, with 

controls for income, education, age, and living arrangements. 

• Persons living in households in which one or more adults had completed 

a 2-year or 4-year college degree were much less likely to report food 

insecurity than those living in a household lacking that level of education. 

Only about half of this association was accounted for by measured differences in income, employment, age, and living arrangements.

Differences in Patterns of Food Insecurity

Differences in food insecurity across subpopulations in Canada and the U.S. 

provide insight into the types of policies and programs that may support food 

security. The fi ndings, while not defi nitive with regard to any specifi c program 

or policy, indicate general types of policies and programs that may be infl uential by identifying subpopulations particularly affected by food insecurity.

About 15 to 20 percent of the Canada-U.S. difference in adult food insecurity 

and 20 to 30 percent of the difference in children’s food insecurity could be a 

result of lower proportions in the Canadian population of certain subpopulations that are more vulnerable to food insecurity. The primary factors in this 

regard—indeed, the only aspects of population composition that were found 

to have contributed substantially to the national-level difference in food 

security—were education and, for children, living arrangements. The proportion of the population living in a household in which an adult had completed 

a 2-year or 4-year college degree was higher in Canada than in the U.S. 

(72 percent vs. 48 percent). A larger proportion of children lived with two 

parents in Canada than in the U.S. (73 percent vs. 61 percent). 

 23Rates based on the Canadian classifi cation methodology were somewhat 

higher than those based on the U.S. 

methodology: 8.7 percent in Canada and 

15.5 percent in the U.S. (see appendix A).
32

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Differences in income distribution across income adequacy categories did 

not contribute to the Canada-U.S. difference in food security. The share of 

the population in the lowest income adequacy category was larger in the 

U.S. than in Canada, but so was the share in the highest category. These two 

factors were offsetting, and, on balance, the difference in income distribution 

reduced, rather than contributed to, the overall national-level difference.

The fi ndings with regard to pretax income and income distribution have 

several implications. First, those fi ndings, along with similar fi ndings on 

employment, suggest that differences in employment and earning opportunities in the economies of the two countries were not responsible for the 

Canada-U.S. difference in food security. Using a more detailed measure of 

income might change this inference somewhat. But the change is unlikely 

to be large enough to reverse the associations observed in this study. Those 

associations imply that existing differences in the distribution of pretax 

income acted, on net, to reduce differences in food insecurity between the 

two countries. Any effects of differences in taxation policies—and thus, of 

differences in post-tax income—could not be examined using these data.24

The fi ndings with regard to income also suggest, with some caveats, that 

differences in cash assistance programs were not responsible for any substantial proportion of the Canada-U.S. difference in food security.25 Both the 

Canadian and U.S. surveys intended for any cash assistance to be included 

in the reported household income. The overall Canada-U.S. difference in 

food security was due to differences in food security within income adequacy 

categories, and, most markedly, within the middle- and upper-middle income 

adequacy categories, above the income range of most cash assistance recipients. A caveat is that cash received from an assistance program may be overlooked by some households when they report income in household surveys. 

A second caveat is that cash-like assistance administered through the tax 

system (such as tax credits) may or may not be refl ected in cash income 

reported by a household. Both surveys intend to elicit pretax income, which 

would not include such resources, but it is not clear to what extent household 

reporting was consistent with this intent.

Similarly, pretax income fi ndings suggest that the lower prevalence of food 

insecurity among the elderly population (ages 66 and older) in Canada 

compared with the U.S. did not result from differences in pensions (public 

and private combined).26 Those, too, should have been included in households’ reported cash income, which was controlled in the regression analyses, 

and such income is probably less likely than cash assistance to have been 

overlooked by respondents when they reported their income. Possible effects 

of differences in tax policies on elderly individuals’ sources of income could 

not be examined in these data.

Most of the Canada-U.S. difference in food insecurity refl ected differences between the two countries in rates of food insecurity for households 

with similar characteristics (so far as they could be measured in both of the 

surveys analyzed). Reasons for the generally lower rate of food insecurity in 

Canada cannot be determined from information collected in these surveys. A 

complete explanation will need to be consistent with at least six prominent 

patterns observed in the study:

 24A possible complicating factor in comparing income effects on 

food insecurity is that the purchasing 

power parity index is based on average 

consumption weights and may not 

adjust purchasing power to parity for 

low-income households. This is beyond 

the scope of this report, but could be a 

fruitful area for further investigation.

 25It is possible that differences in 

cash assistance offset differences in 

income from other sources. Data were 

not available to separately identify 

these sources.

 26It is possible that differences in 

pension income could contribute to differences in food insecurity of the elderly, 

but be offset by differences in income 

from other sources. Data were not available to separately assess these effects.
33

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

1. The Canada-U.S. differences—holding other factors constant—were 

greatest for persons living in households with pretax incomes in 

the upper-middle income adequacy range (and, for children, in the 

highest income adequacy range). In the two lower income adequacy 

ranges, Canada-U.S. differences were smaller for children and 

reversed (i.e., lower prevalence of food insecurity in the U.S.) for 

adults.

2. Food insecurity was less prevalent in Canada than in the U.S. for 

households lacking a high school graduate. This was in addition 

to any indirect effects mediated through income and employment, 

which were controlled in the regression models. 

3. Food insecurity was generally more prevalent in Canada than in the 

U.S. for men or women living alone, net of the effects of income, 

employment, age, and education.

4. Food insecurity of adults was less prevalent in Canada than in the 

U.S. across the entire age range, and the gap increased with age. The 

differences persisted with controls for income, employment, living 

arrangements, and education, except that in the youngest age range 

(19-24 in the regression model), the prevalence of food insecurity 

was essentially identical in the two countries.

5. Food insecurity among adults ages 66 and older was considerably 

less prevalent in Canada than in the U.S. Both countries provide 

publicly funded health insurance for this population, and any differences in public and private pension income should have been 

refl ected in income, which was controlled in the regression models.

6. Food insecurity among children was less prevalent in Canada than 

in the U.S. in all age ranges and in virtually all subpopulations that 

could be identifi ed by cross classifi cation of economic and demographic variables available in both surveys.

Further research is needed to investigate factors that may account for these 

patterns. Questions suggested by these patterns include the following:

• Do income and employment stability/volatility differ between the 

countries? Analyses reported here used annual income, usual employment, and reference-week unemployment. But both income and employment can change substantially and frequently during the year. The extent 

of instability in income and employment may also affect food security. 

• Does the lower prevalence of food insecurity among unemployed 

workers in Canada than in the U.S. (other factors equal) result from 

differences in programs that support unemployed workers and 

employment transitions?

• Does government-provided universal health insurance in Canada 

contribute to that country’s lower prevalence of food insecurity?

This might be suggested by several patterns: (1) the pervasiveness of the 

Canada-U.S. difference; (2) the smaller difference for younger adults, 

for whom medical costs are likely to be smaller; (3) the lower prevalence 

of food insecurity among adults who were working part time in Canada 

compared with those in the U.S. Part-time workers in both countries are 
34

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

less likely than full-time workers to be covered by employer-provided 

health insurance, but in Canada the difference for part-time workers is in 

supplemental coverage, while in the U.S. it is often in overall coverage; 

and (4) the smaller difference in the prevalence of food insecurity in the 

lowest income range, because many U.S. households in that range are 

eligible for Medicaid. On the other hand, the Canada-U.S. difference in 

food insecurity is, proportionally, rather large for persons age 66 and 

older—a range in which both governments provide health insurance.

• Does the lower prevalence of food insecurity in the U.S. than in 

Canada among adults in the lowest and lower-middle income 

adequacy categories (holding constant other factors) refl ect, in 

part, the larger role of means-tested, in-kind assistance programs 

in the U.S. than in Canada? Compared with Canada, the U.S. 

provides a larger share of means-tested benefi ts for low-income households through in-kind programs, such as food and nutrition assistance 

programs (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly 

known as the Food Stamp Program; the National School Lunch and 

School Breakfast Programs; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)), and programs for 

housing and energy assistance. The Canadian Government provides 

assistance to low-income households primarily in the form of income 

supports rather than in kind.27 If money received through such cash 

assistance programs is included in reported income (as intended by the 

surveys), it may increase reported income rather than improve food 

insecurity within an income level.

• To what extent do differences in tax and tax credit policies affect 

food security differently in the two countries?

• Do patterns of extended family relationships and support differ 

between the two countries, and do these account for any of the difference in food insecurity? Data were not available to investigate this 

factor, but it should be kept in mind as a potential contributing factor, 

distinct from policies and programs.

Food security measurement in these two similarly industrialized countries 

provides an opportunity to explore the effects of national-level economic 

and social programs and policies. Differences in such programs and policies 

between countries, in combination with a measure of well-being with regard 

to a basic need like food security, may provide research tools for better 

understanding the effects of these programs and policies. 

 27The Canadian and Provincial 

governments also provide some forms 

of means-tested assistance in kind, such 

as subsidized housing and prescription drugs, and the U.S. and State 

Governments provide some assistance 

in the form of income supports, such 

as through the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program. Overall, 

however, in-kind assistance is a substantially larger share of means-tested 

assistance in the U.S. than in Canada.
35

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1998. Canada’s Action Plan for Food 

Security: A Response to the World Food Summit. Available from: http://

www.agr.gc.ca/misb/fsec-seca/pdf/action_e.pdf

Andrews, Margaret, Gary Bickel, and Steven Carlson. 1998. “Household 

Food Security in the United States in 1995: Results from the Food 

Security Measurement Project,” Family Economics and Nutrition Review

11(1&2):17-28. USDA, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

Bartfeld, Judy, Rachel Dunifon, Mark Nord, and Steven Carlson. 2006. 

What Factors Account for State-to-State Differences in Food Security?

Economic Information Bulletin No. 20. USDA, Economic Research 

Service. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib20

Bickel, G., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 1998. “The Magnitude of Hunger: 

A New National Measure of Food Security,” Topics in Clinical Nutrition

13(4):15-30. 

Bickel, G., M. Nord, C. Price, W.L. Hamilton, and J.T. Cook. 2000. Guide 

to Measuring Household Food Security, revised 2000. USDA, Food and 

Nutrition Service. Available at: www.fns.usda.gov/fsec/fi les/fsguide.pdf

Blinder, Alan S. 1973. “Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural 

Variables,” Journal of Human Resources 8:436-55.

Carlson, S.J., M.S. Andrews, and G.W. Bickel. 1999. “Measuring Food 

Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: Development of a National 

Benchmark Measure and Prevalence Estimates,” The Journal of Nutrition

129:510S-516S.

Cohen, Barbara, Mark Nord, Robert Lerner, James Parry, and Kenneth 

Yang. 2002. Household Food Security in the United States, 1998 and 

1999: Technical Report. E-FAN-02-010, prepared by IQ Solutions and 

USDA, Economic Research Service. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/efan02010/

Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, 

Jr., C.M. Olson, and C.A. Wehler. 1997a. Household Food Security 

in the United States in 1995: Summary Report of the Food Security 

Measurement Project. Prepared for USDA, Food and Consumer Service. 

Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/published/foodsecurity/

sumrpt.pdf 

Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, 

Jr., C.M. Olson, and C.A. Wehler. 1997b. Household Food Security in the 

United States in 1995: Technical Report. Prepared for USDA, Food and 

Consumer Service. Available at: www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/published/

foodsecurity/tech_rpt.pdf

Health Canada. 2007. Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2, Nutrition 

(2004)—Income-Related Household Food Security in Canada. Ottawa: 

Health Canada; 2007. Available at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/index_e.html.
36

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

National Research Council. 2006. Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United 

States: An Assessment of the Measure. Committee on National Statistics, 

Panel to Review the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Measurement 

of Food Insecurity and Hunger, Gooloo S. Wunderlich and Janet L. 

Norwood (eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nord, Mark. 2002. “Measuring the Food Security of Households with 

Children.” Paper presented at the National Association for Welfare 

Research and Statistics (NAWRS) Annual Workshop, Aug 25-28, 

Albuquerque, NM.

Nord, Mark, and Gary Bickel. 2002. Measuring Children’s Food Security 

in U.S. Households, 1995-99. FANRR-25, USDA, Economic Research 

Service. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr25

Nord, Mark, Michelle D. Hooper, and Heather A. Hopwood. 2008. 

“Household-Level Income-Related Food Insecurity Is Less Prevalent in 

Canada than in the United States,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental 

Nutrition 3(1):17-35.

Nord, Mark, M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2007. Household Food Security 

in the United States, 2006. Economic Research Report No. 49. USDA, 

Economic Research Service. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/ERR49/

Nord, Mark, M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2002. Household Food Security in 

the United States, 2001. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report 

No. 29. USDA, Economic Research Service. Available from: http://www.

ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRP29/

Oaxaca, Ronald. 1973. “Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor 

Markets,” International Economic Review 14:693-709.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008. 

“Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) for OECD Countries since 1980.” 

Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39653523.xls (accessed 

April 22, 2008).

Statistics Canada. 2005. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), Cycle 

2.2 (Nutrition) 2004: Derived Variables Specifi cations; 2005. Ottawa: 

Statistics Canada. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/document/5049_D6_T9_V1_E.pdf.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy People 2010: 

Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Offi ce, November 2000. Available from: http://

www.healthypeople.gov/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf

Wolfson, Michael C., and Brian B. Murphy. 1998. “New Views on Inequality 

Trends in Canada and the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1998.
37

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix A: Food Security Classifi cation 

Used by Health Canada

Differences in measurement methods must be taken into account to meaningfully compare published food security statistics in Canada and the United States. 

The food security questions in the U.S. Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplement (CPS-FSS) and the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 

2.2 (CCHS 2.2) are essentially identical, but the way in which responses are 

combined to assign food security status, and the language used to describe ranges 

of severity of food insecurity, differ somewhat between the two countries. 

In this report U.S. methodology was applied to data from both countries, so 

results are fully comparable between them. This appendix provides information that researchers will need in order to compare published U.S. statistics 

with those published by Health Canada (or by other researchers who use the 

Health Canada methodology). Researchers should also be aware that most 

food security research conducted in Canada prior to the 2007 Health Canada 

report used the U.S. classifi cation methodology. When interpreting research 

results or prevalence statistics from Canadian surveys, it is important to 

determine which method was used.

The CCHS 2.2 food security questions were adapted from the 18-item U.S. 

Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), which has been used 

as the basis of food security monitoring in the U.S. since 1995. Only minor 

changes in the wording of questions were made to adapt the HFSSM to the 

CCHS 2.2 survey context. Analysis of response data using statistical methods 

based on the Rasch measurement model confi rmed that the questions were 

understood consistently and similarly in the two countries (Health Canada, 

2007, Appendix B.3).

Both Health Canada and USDA determine the food security status of 

surveyed households based on the number of food-insecure conditions that 

households report in response to the questions in the HFSSM. There are two 

primary differences between the methods used by Health Canada and USDA:

• Health Canada assesses the food security of adults and children separately, 

using an adult scale and a child scale. For many monitoring and research applications, either scale may be used independently. Alternatively, the food security status of households with children may be characterized using information 

from both scales. If either adults or children (or both) in the household are food 

insecure, the household is classifi ed as food insecure. If either adults or children 

(or both) in the household are severely food insecure, the household is classifi ed as severely food insecure. The U.S. method combines the adult and child 

items in a single household scale.1

 Applied to the same data and absent any 

other changes, the Health Canada method would produce a somewhat lower 

estimate of the prevalence of food insecurity than the U.S. method.

• Health Canada classifi es households as having adult food insecurity if 

the household reports two or more food-insecure conditions on the adult 

scale. This is less stringent than the corresponding threshold—three or 

more food-insecure conditions—in the U.S. method. Households that 

report two food-insecure conditions among adults and none among chil-

 1U.S. researchers, including those 

at USDA, also use separate adult and 

child food security scales for many 

research purposes, but the measure 

used for offi cial monitoring by USDA 

combines the adult and child items in a 

single, 18-item household scale.
38

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

dren would be classifi ed as food insecure by the Health Canada method, 

but food secure by the U.S. method. This difference, absent any other 

changes, would result in somewhat higher prevalence rates of food 

insecurity, as measured by the Health Canada method compared with 

measurement by the U.S. method. 

The effects of these two methodological differences are partially offsetting in 

households with children. Overall, and among households without children, 

the Health Canada methodology results in higher prevalence rates of food 

insecurity than the U.S. methodology. 

Measurement of the more severe range of food insecurity (described as “severe 

food insecurity” by Health Canada and “very low food security” by USDA) is 

affected only by the fi rst methodological difference. At the national level, the 

effect is slight, but effects may be substantial, and substantially different, for 

households with only very young children and for those with teenage children.2

Children’s food security is measured by Health Canada using the same 

methods as those used by USDA—two or more affi rmative responses indicate food insecurity among children, and fi ve or more indicate severe food 

insecurity among children (described as “very low food security” by USDA). 

The effects of the methodological differences on food security prevalence estimates were examined by applying both the Health Canada methodology and 

the U.S. methodology to the food security data from each country. Applying 

Health Canada methods to the U.S. CPS-FSS data resulted in a higher estimated 

prevalence of household food insecurity by about 3 percentage points and adult 

food insecurity by about 4 percentage points (table A-1). These fi gures represent 

increases in the estimated numbers of food-insecure persons of about 25 and 

40 percent, respectively. The effect on household-level very low food security 

 2The U.S. method is known to bias 

comparisons among households with 

children of different ages, whereas 

the Health Canada method will avoid 

these biases (Nord, 2002; Nord and 

Bickel, 2002).

Table A-1

Percentage of persons living in households with food insecurity and 

very low food security: Comparison of estimates based on U.S. and 

Health Canada methods

Type of Analysis Food insecure

Very low food security 

(described as severely food 

insecure by Health Canada)

Canada U.S. Canada U.S.

Household food security Percent of persons

U.S. method 7.0 12.6 2.4 3.6

Health Canada method 8.7 15.5 2.4 3.7

Adult food security1 Percent of adults

U.S. method 6.2 9.5 2.4 3.4

Health Canada method 8.1 13.4 2.4 3.4

Child food security1 Percent of children

U.S. method 5.3 9.9 .44 .72

Health Canada method 5.3 9.9 .44 .72

1 U.S. and Health Canada use identical methods for determining child food security status 

and adult very low food security (severe food insecurity).

Data sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
39

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

(Canadian severe food insecurity) was slight—less than 0.1 percentage point. 

Differences between the methods when both were applied to the Canadian CCHS 

2.2 data were smaller in percentage points, but similar proportionally. Health 

Canada and USDA use identical methodologies to assess food insecurity and 

severe food insecurity of children and severe food insecurity among adults.3

Prevalence statistics based on the household scale add relatively little information not conveyed by separate presentation of statistics based on the adult 

scale and child scale. In this report, therefore, statistics based on the household scale are reported only at the national level for the two countries. All 

subpopulation analyses are based on the adult food security scale or the children’s food security scale.

 3USDA does not routinely publish 

statistics based on adult food insecurity 

for households with children, but the 

methodology for this measure is specifi ed for households with no children 

present and can also be applied to 

households with children. The measure 

is widely used in research in the U.S., 

and adult food security status based 

upon it is provided in several public-use 

data products, including the CPS-FSS 

(beginning with the December 2005 

data), the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 

and the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Studies kindergarten and birth cohorts 

(ECLS-K and ECLS-B).
40

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix B: Measurement of Food Security and 

Demographic and Economic Characteristics

In order to achieve unbiased estimates of food insecurity associations with 

demographic and economic characteristics of individuals and households, it 

was important to use measures of these characteristics that were identical, or 

as nearly identical as possible, in the two surveys. This appendix describes 

the calculation of variables used in the descriptive and multivariate analyses 

from the data elements available in the CCHS 2.2 and the CPS-FSS. Variable 

names are those in the public-use data sets. Percentages of adults and children with each characteristic in the Canadian and U.S. analysis samples are 

provided in tables B-1 and B-2.

Food Security

CCHS 2.2—The food security status of Canadian households was based on 

responses to the 18 questions in the food security module (FSCD_020—

FSCD_160). Standard U.S. methods were used as described in Bickel et al. 

(2000), and Nord and Bickel (2002). Items with missing responses (“don’t 

know” or “refused”) were imputed as negative responses (“no” or “never”), 

provided that the respondent gave valid answers to other food security questions. Less than 1 percent of all cases had any item-specifi c nonresponse. 

Cases with no valid responses to any of the questions in the food security 

scales (about 0.2 percent) were omitted from all analysis. 

CPS-FSS—The food security status of U.S. households was provided by 

HRFS12M1. Children’s food security status was provided by HRFS12MC in 

2005. In 2003 and 2004, a raw score of 2-4 on the child scale (HRFS12M6) 

was classifi ed as low food security among children and a raw score of 5-8 

as very low food security among children. Adult food security status was 

provided by HRFS12M8 in 2005. In 2003 and 2004, adult food security status 

for households without children was provided by HRFS12M1; for households 

with children, the raw score on the adult scale was calculated by subtracting the 

raw score on the child items (HRFS12M6) from the total raw score on all adult 

and child items (HRFS12M3). Classifi cation was then based on the standard 

methods used for households without children (Bickel et al., 2000).

Age and Child/Adult Status

CCHS 2.2—Age in years is available only in ranges in the CCHS 2.2 

(DHHDGAGE). People in the lowest three ranges (through age 13) were 

unambiguously children. Those aged 14-18 were classifi ed as children 

provided their living arrangement (DHHDGLVG) identifi ed them as a child, 

and provided the child food security questions were administered to the household. (The child questions were only administered if there was at least one 

child age 0-17 in the household. This will have resulted in a small number of 

18-year-olds being classifi ed as children because they were an adult child of an 

adult in the household and had a younger sibling for whom the food security 

questions were administered. Analysis of CPS-FSS data suggested that the 

number of such cases is very small and that the food security status of such 

households is similar to that of households with minor children).
41

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table B-1

Characteristics of adults1 and their households in Canadian and U.S. 

food security analysis samples

Characteristic Canada U.S.

Percent

Food insecurity (self or other adult in household) 6.2 9.4

Age 19-24 11.2 11.2

Age 25-35 18.6 20.4

Age 36-45 21.7 20.6

Age 46-55 20.4 19.2

Age 56-65 13.2 13.3

Age 66 or older 14.9 15.4

Male living alone2 5.9 6.1

Female living alone2 8.3 8.0

Male or female with spouse or partner only3 27.6 28.4

Couple (married or cohabiting) with one or more child4 23.9 22.7

Single male with one or more child4 0.6 1.5

Single female with one or more child4 2.3 1.5

Other male 16.6 16.5

Other female 14.8 15.3

Lowest income adequacy 2.9 4.2

Lower-middle income adequacy 5.5 6.2

Middle-income adequacy 18.6 15.3

Upper-middle-income adequacy 32.3 20.8

Highest income adequacy 31.4 33.9

Income not reported 9.2 19.6

Employed full time 55.2 54.0

Employed part time 18.8 17.2

Unemployed (looking for work) 9.9 10.4

Disabled, not in labor force 4.4 3.4

Retired, not in labor force 3.8 4.5

Not in labor force for other reasons 7.9 10.6

Education less than secondary graduation5 10.2 7.8

Education secondary graduation5 5.2 14.0

Education some post-secondary5 6.8 19.5

Education post-secondary graduation5 70.0 48.1

Number of cases (unweighted)6 20,177 140,340

 1 Adults age 19 and older were the units of analysis.

 2 No other person lived in these households.

 3 These are two-person households.

 4 No other adults lived in these households unless they were an adult child of the individual 

in the sample.

 5 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. 

Secondary graduation includes high school graduation (or GED in the U.S.), with no further 

education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders.

 6 Number of cases shown for the U.S. sample is the number of households, some of which 

included more than one adult.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
42

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

CPS-FSS—The age of each person in the household is provided by PEAGE 

(PRTAGE in some data formats). Individuals ages 0-17 were classifi ed as 

children provided they were not the household reference person, spouse of the 

household reference person, or an unmarried partner of the reference person. 

In both data sets, individuals not classifi ed as children were classifi ed as 

adults. However, 18-year-olds were omitted from the regression analyses 

because there was some possibility of difference in classifi cation between the 

two data sources.

Table B-2

Characteristics of children and their households1 in the Canadian and 

United States food security analysis samples

Characteristic Canada U.S.

Percent

Food insecurity (self or other child in the household) 5.3 9.9

Age 0-3 18.7 21.8

Age 4-8 25.9 26.9

Age 9-13 28.9 28.2

Age 14-17 26.4 23.0

With two parents2 73.3 61.4

With single parent2 14.0 14.9

In other living arrangements3 12.7 23.7

Lowest income adequacy 2.2 6.2

Lower-middle income adequacy 7.9 8.6

Middle income adequacy 20.8 20.0

Upper-middle income adequacy 28.5 16.2

Highest income adequacy 29.4 33.4

Income not reported 11.2 15.5

Education less than secondary graduation4 5.3 9.1

Education secondary graduation4 13.5 25.0

Education some post-secondary4 7.5 18.8

Education post-secondary graduation4 73.7 47.0

Number of cases (unweighted)5 14,190 48,683

1 Children ages 0 to 17 were the units of analysis and food insecurity (low or very low food 

security) among children was the dependent variable. There were 105,721 observations, but the 

U.S. observations were down-weighted to the number of households, resulting in an effective N 

for the combined Canada-U.S. sample (used to calculate variances) of 62,873. The Canadian 

sample includes a small proportion of 18-year-olds. In both countries, the child-referenced food 

security questions were administered only to households with at least one child age 17 or younger. 

However, 18-year-old siblings of younger children are indistinguishable from children ages 14-17 

in the CCHS 2.2 public-use data because age is identifi ed only in ranges. In the U.S. CPS-FSS 

data, where age is reported in single years, including or omitting 18-year-old siblings results in only 

negligible changes in the estimated prevalence of food insecurity in this age range.

 2 Some of these households included an adult sibling of the child in addition to the child’s 

parent(s). Households that included adults other than the child’s parents or siblings were classifi ed as “In other living arrangements.”

 3 Includes children living in households with neither parent, and children living in households 

that include one or both parents along with other adults who are not siblings of the child.

 4 Education variables refer to education of the most highly educated adult in the household. 

Secondary graduation includes high school graduation (or GED in the U.S.), with no further 

education. Post-secondary graduation includes 2-year-degree holders. 

 5 Number of cases shown for the U.S. sample is the number of households with a child, some 

of which included more than one child.

Sources: Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004); Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplements, 2003-05.
43

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

Living Arrangements

CCHS 2.2—Living arrangements of each individual were based on 

DHHDGLVG. Single parents with children, unattached individuals living 

alone, and (in some analyses) “other” adults were further classifi ed by sex 

based on DHHD_SEX.

CPS-FSS—Living arrangements were assigned consistent with those 

in CCHS 2.2, based on aggregating information from all individuals in 

each household, using variables PERRP, PESPOUSE, PESEX, PEAGE, 

PEMARITL, PEPARENT, PRFAMREL, PRFAMNUM, and PRFAMTYP. 

SAS code is available from the lead author.

Income Adequacy

CCHS 2.2—Classifi cation by income adequacy is provided by INCDDIA5 and 

refers to total income from all sources for the 12 months preceding the survey. 

CPS-FSS—Household income was assigned at the midpoint of the “Control 

card” income range (HUFAMINC), converted to 2004 dollars based on CPI-U, 

and then converted to Canadian dollars based on the Purchasing Power Parity 

Index for 2004 (1.23). That income, along with the number of persons living in 

the household, was used to assign income adequacy consistent with Statistics 

Canada criteria. Control card income is income from all sources for the 12 

months prior to the household’s fi rst of four monthly surveys. It is updated 12 

months later when they reenter the sample for four additional monthly surveys. 

In the December CPS-FSS, then, it represents income for 12 months ending in 

the current month, or at most 3 months earlier. 

In both surveys, households that did not report income were treated as a 

separate category in both descriptives and multivariate models. Prevalence 

rates of food insecurity and coeffi cients in regression models suggest that 

households that did not report income were, on average, in the upper-middle 

income adequacy category.

Employment and Labor Force Status

CCHS 2.2—Individuals with LBFDDWSL = 1, 3, or 99 were classifi ed 

as employed full time if LBFDDPFT = 1 or 9 and as employed part time 

otherwise. Those with LBFDDWSL = 2 or 4 were classifi ed as unemployed 

(looking for work). Those with LBFDGRNW = 1 were classifi ed as not in 

the labor force due to disability. Those with LBFDGRNW = 5 or 96 or older 

than 75 were classifi ed as not in the labor force, retired. (CCHS 2.2 does not 

provide employment and labor force information for individuals older than 

75.) Individuals not otherwise classifi ed were classifi ed as not in the labor 

force for other reasons.

CPS-FSS—Employment and labor force status were based on PEMLR, 

PRWKSTAT, and PEAGE. Individuals with PEMLR = 5 or older than 

75 were classifi ed as not in the labor force, retired. Otherwise, those with 

PRWKSTAT = -1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 were classifi ed as employed full time, and 

those with PRWKSTAT = 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 were classifi ed as employed part 

time. Otherwise, those with PEMLR = 3 or 4 were classifi ed as unemployed 
44

A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States / ERR-67

Economic Research Service/USDA

(looking for work); those with PEMLR = 6 were classifi ed as not in the labor 

force due to disability, and those with PEMLR = 7 were classifi ed as not in 

the labor force for other reasons.

Education

CCHS 2.2—The educational attainment of the most highly educated adult in 

the household was provided by EDUDDH04.

CPS-FSS—All persons in the household were classifi ed based on the adult in the 

household with the highest value on PEEDUCA, as follows: 31-38 = Less than 

secondary school graduation; 39 = Secondary school graduation; 40 = Some 

post-secondary (no diploma or degree); 41-46 = Post-secondary graduation.