U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–220 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW SHORT AND LONG TERM 

COSTS OF HUNGER IN AMERICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT, DAIRY, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 23, 2008

Serial No. 110–43

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

BOB LATTA, Ohio 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND

FORESTRY

JOE BACA, California, Chairman 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana, 

Ranking Minority Member 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

LISA SHELTON, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from California, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Boustany, Jr., Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from Louisiana 4

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

Kagen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 7

Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from Kansas, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 5

WITNESSES

Nord, Dr. Mark, Sociologist, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Steven Carlson, Director, 

Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Brown, Dr. J. Larry, Visiting Scholar, Harvard University School of Public 

Health, Boston, MA; accompanied by Donald S. Shepard, Ph.D., Professor 

and Economist, Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA ............................................................................ 20

Prepared statement of Dr. Brown ................................................................... 22

Prepared statement of Dr. Shepard ................................................................ 24

Cutts, M.D., Diana B., Faculty Physician, Hennepin Country Medical Center; 

Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota; Principal Investigator, Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C–SNAP), Minneapolis, MN ......................................................................................................... 68

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70

Manalo-LeClair, George, Senior Legislative Director, California Food Policy 

Advocates, Oakland, CA ...................................................................................... 73

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75

Weill, James D., President, Food Research and Action Center, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 79

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 6

Submitted report from Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health 

Policy Institute ..................................................................................................... 99

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW SHORT AND LONG 

TERM COSTS OF HUNGER IN AMERICA 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joe Baca [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Baca, Pomeroy, Kagen, 

Moran, and Boustany. 

Staff present: John Riley, Lisa Shelton, Alejandra GonzalezArias, Tyler Jameson, Kristin Sosanie, Pam Miller, and Jamie 

Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and 

Forestry to review the short and long term costs of hunger in 

America to order. With that, I would like to begin with an opening 

statement and then call on Mr. Boustany to make a statement and 

ask any of the ex officios who are here if they want to make a presentation if they show up. 

I would like to start with my opening statements. 

Good morning to all of you. And thank you for being here with 

the Subcommittee to examine the short and long term costs of hunger and that is a very important subject now as we look at what 

is going on in our country. I am especially grateful to our outstanding witnesses for making the effort to be here today. I appreciate your willingness to educate us. And I state to ‘‘educate us’’ on 

the result of various studies you have conducted. And the more 

education we receive, the better, more knowledgeable we are in 

dealing with the problem. I would like to acknowledge our new 

Ranking Member, Congressman Boustany who has now taken over 

the responsibility and will be here. So I would officially like to recognize him and then welcome him as the new Ranking Minority 

Member. 

With his medical background, I am sure that he will be able to 

provide thoughtful questions and guidance. And I appreciate you 

being a medical doctor and caring for many of the patients in the 

past. And I am sure you do the same thing here in the legislature 

2

as you look at policies and other directions. I look forward to working with Members in the Subcommittee on this issue. 

And I would like to state that 35 million people in our country 

are food insecure, at risk of going hungry. This is a statistic that 

I use regularly to emphasize that hunger is not just a global problem, but a daily fact of life in our own states, towns and neighborhoods. Statistics are easily said, but what is the real meaning? 

What do the numbers mean to those of us who are fortunate 

enough to know where our next meal is coming from? Who are 

these people who live and work among us? Are we truly aware of 

the impact that hunger has on our daily lives? What does this 

mean to us as Members of Congress? 

And that is a deep meaning because when you look at really the 

poor, the disadvantaged and others that are going hungry in the 

true meaning of what it is like to put food on the table, what information is available to us to guide us in making the best policies? 

How can we best serve the needs of hungry Americans, and at the 

same time, spend Federal dollars wisely? 

Today, with the help of the experts on this panel, we will begin 

to answer some of these questions, and I hope we will ask questions to better understand the problems and carefully create solutions that will best use our efforts and resources. That is important, how we use our efforts and the resources. 

Over the past 2 years while we were consumed with the work in 

the 2007–2008 Farm Bill, some interesting studies were published. 

These studies will help us to examine the connection between nutrition programs and health, but both the health of individuals and 

the health of local and state economies. Although we have just successfully passed the farm bill and invested more than $10 billion 

in nutrition, it is always appropriate for us to take a look at how 

Congress spends its hard-earned dollars. 

Recent news showed us that food stamps are now feeding more 

than 28 million people, a record number. It is vital that we, both 

as Congress, as Members of Congress and citizens of this country, 

that we fully understand the workings of our country’s largest supplemental feeding program. As I mentioned, hunger is more than 

just a number. The impact of hunger hits families, neighborhoods, 

towns and states. It is seen through poor health, poor attendance 

at both our schools and at work, among other things. But hunger 

is also expressed in dollars and cents. As a father, a grandfather 

and as an American, I am distressed by the human cost of hunger. 

But as a legislator, I am also troubled by the numbers that illustrate how hunger can mean a loss to funding for government entities. During these times of tight budgets, nutrition programs may 

be some of the best economic stimulus available. For example, I 

represent San Bernardino, California. The studies from the California Food Policy Advocates, who we will hear from today, show 

that because of the low participation in food stamps—and there 

again, low participation in food stamps in a lot of the areas where 

people are not even aware, and our state is not even taking advantage of the food stamps; which also means additional revenue that 

goes back into each of the states, cities and counties by that utilization. 

3

But most important is feeding people that need help. San 

Bernardino County is missing now an additional $371 million in 

economic activity. And that is just the cost in my area. And I am 

not sure what it would be for other counties, other states and other 

cities. So today we will listen and learn from the fine panel of witnesses about their work to quantify the impact of hunger in our 

country. I hope this hearing will build an important body of evidence so that we can continue to work together to fight hunger. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baca follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

CALIFORNIA

Good morning and thank you all for being here before this Subcommittee—to examine the short and long term costs of hunger in America. 

I am especially grateful to our outstanding witnesses for making the effort to be 

here today. 

I appreciate your willingness to educate us on the results of the various studies 

you have conducted. 

Also, I would like to acknowledge our new Ranking Member, Congressman 

Boustany, and thank him for his interest in this hearing. 

With his medical background, I am sure he will be able to provide thoughtful 

questions and guidance. 

I look forward to working with you on this and other issues before our Subcommittee. 

Thirty-five million people in our country are ‘‘food insecure.’’ This is a statistic 

that I use regularly to emphasize that hunger is not just a global problem, but a 

daily fact of life in our own states, towns and neighborhoods. 

Statistics are easily said, but what is their real meaning? What does this mean 

to those of us fortunate enough to know where our next meal is coming from? Who 

are these people who live and work among us? How are we affected by them and 

their needs? Are we truly aware of the impact the hungry have on our daily lives? 

And what does this mean to us as Members of Congress? What information is available to us—to guide us in making the best policy decisions? How can we best serve 

the needs of hungry Americans and, at the same time, spend Federal funds 

wisely? 

Today, with the help of the experts on this panel, we will begin to answer some 

of these questions, and, I hope, ask new questions to better understand the problems and carefully create a solution that will best use our efforts and resources. 

Over the past 2 years—while we were consumed with work on the 2007–2008 

Farm Bill—some interesting studies were published. These studies will help us to 

examine the connection between nutrition programs and health; both the health of 

individuals—and the health of local and state economies.

Although we just successfully passed a farm bill that invests more than $10 billion in nutrition—it is always appropriate for us to take a look at the manner in 

which Congress spends our hard-earned tax dollars. 

Recent news shows us that Food Stamps are now feeding more than 28 million 

people—a record number. It is vital that we—both as Members of Congress and as 

citizens of this country—fully understand the intersection between hunger and our 

country’s largest supplemental feeding program. 

As I have mentioned, hunger is more than just a number. The impact of hunger 

hits families, neighborhoods, towns and states. It is seen through poor health, and 

poor attendance at school and work, among other things. But hunger is also expressed in dollars and cents. 

As a father, grandfather, and a citizen, I am distressed by the human costs of 

hunger. But as a legislator, I am also troubled by the numbers that illustrate how 

hunger can mean a loss of funding for government entities. During these times of 

tight budgets, those of us who serve in government need to understand that nutrition programs may be some of the best economic stimulus available.

For example, I represent San Bernardino County, California. The study from the 

California Food Policy Advocates, who we will hear from today, shows that because 

of low participation in food stamps, San Bernardino County is missing out on an 

additional $371 million in economic activity. 

So, today we will listen and learn from this fine panel of witnesses about their 

work to quantify the impacts of hunger in our country. I hope this hearing will build 

4

on this important body of evidence so we can work with determination and cooperation against hunger.

The CHAIRMAN. So at this time, I would like to turn it over to 

our Ranking Member, Congressman Boustany, to say a few words. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM LOUISIANA 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to offer 

my thanks to you for holding this hearing on a very important 

issue. We have done a lot of work on the farm bill, as you have 

said, and we need to build off of this. So I am pleased that the Subcommittee is starting this process. I want to offer my greetings to 

our distinguished panel and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Clearly without question, this problem of the cost of hunger in 

the United States is a serious problem. And we must tackle this 

problem with policies and programs in an effective way. While everyone is witnessing the effect of increasing energy costs that we 

are all seeing at the pump, it is important to understand how these 

high prices are impacting other areas of our economy. The rising 

prices in grains, other commodities, increased transportation costs, 

the regulatory environment to ensure food safety and the safety of 

our food products are causing food prices to rise. All of this is having an impact. This rise is having a greater impact on low and middle-income earners. Far too many families, working families, face 

difficult decisions about how best to spend their money. Choosing 

between food, fuel, housing needs or medical expenses is a dilemma 

that many of these families are facing today. And Congress, I believe, has a responsibility to take the lead in finding ways to relieve this pressure. 

As a surgeon, a heart surgeon, I understand how important a 

healthy lifestyle can be in avoiding illness and living a more active 

and productive life. And furthermore, I know firsthand how important a person’s eating habits can be in determining how well they 

will recover from surgery or other medical procedures and treatments. And in fact, back when I was in training, in the early days, 

we used what we called perinatal nutrition, intravenous nutrition 

in the intensive care unit. 

Before we had this, patients basically died of starvation in the 

intensive care unit because there was no way to feed them. And 

one of the great advances in surgery was to come up with ways to 

actually provide this IV nutrition as a bridge to get people through 

critical illness to boost their immune systems and boost their ability to ward off disease and to heal. And without that, the mortality 

rates in intensive care units were astronomical. And today we have 

seen significant improvement in those mortality rates because of 

these advances. That is in a clinical setting. 

The same translates outside the clinical setting, outside the hospital for families who can’t afford to provide for their nutrition. The 

prevention of a disease or illness is much cheaper and preferred for 

the individual in terms of quality as well as for our society than 

treatment of the problem at a later stage. And I know our witnesses will address this topic. And I look forward to hearing more 

about these costs and the impact it is having on our society. 

5

Finally in the most recent farm bill, significant increases in funding were made available for the Food Stamp Program and other 

supplemental nutrition programs. And I am interested to hear 

today about how best to improve these programs in order to 

achieve higher rates of participation by those families who are in 

the greatest need of help. As I have said before, in regard to other 

programs, particularly in the health care arena, having coverage, 

meaning some sort of insurance or governmental insurance product 

to cover health care doesn’t necessarily mean access to this care. 

There is still a disconnect in health care. 

And we are seeing the same thing, I believe, in these nutrition 

programs where we have programs, but if families aren’t availing 

themselves of the program that is in place, then it is not doing 

what we intended it to do. So we really need to look at this. 

So while improving access and delivery of these programs will 

improve the lives of millions of deserving Americans, simply adding 

more funding to the program will only raise the burden of every 

American unless we are making sure that those dollars are really 

being used in the most effective way. 

So I am committed to tackling this problem of hunger in the U.S. 

while also trying to be a responsible steward of the American taxpayers’ money. And I believe today’s hearing is an important one. 

And I believe that Chairman Baca has a tremendous passion for 

this. He brings tremendous insight into this problem. And I am 

pleased to work with him on this issue. So I look forward to the 

testimony today, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Boustany. 

I would request that any other Members here that have any 

statements they can submit them for the record. 

[The prepared statements of Messers. Peterson, Goodlatte, 

Moran, and McGovern follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

When people think of the Agriculture Committee, one of the things they rarely 

think of is hunger and the absence of food. from the farm policy standpoint, we take 

great pains to ensure that the country’s farmers are able to continue to provide the 

nation with a safe, stable, and abundant supply of food. Unfortunately, the benefits 

of that food supply are not necessarily available to all and too many families have 

to face the devastating effects of hunger. 

With the completion of the 2008 Farm Bill, we took great strides in fighting hunger here in the United States and abroad. We updated the Food Stamp Program, 

indexed benefits to inflation, and even in these times of budgetary constraints, provided $10 billion in new money for important nutrition programs like The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). 

But our work is not done, because the effects of hunger do not only apply to those 

struggling to provide their families with a healthy meal. The cost of hunger spills 

over into other areas of society, and government as well—whether it be through 

health, education or economic policies. 

That’s why I’m glad the Chairman and Ranking Member have called this hearing 

today, to help us sort through the costs of hunger in the short- and long-term. I look 

forward to the testimony of the witnesses and thank you all for coming. 

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM VIRGINIA

I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to join 

us today to discuss the short and long term effects of hunger in America. I appreciate you sharing with us the information you have found through research, studies 

and personal experiences. 

While one may argue more can be done to address hunger, the recently passed 

farm bill makes an unprecedented investment in nutrition programs to the tune of 

$10.361 billion over current spending levels. When we talk about the farm bill, 

many believe all of the funding goes directly to farmers. The truth is that nearly 

70 percent of the $288 billion goes to the nutrition title alone. This Committee has 

made an incredible commitment to nutrition funding that hasn’t even been implemented yet, and still much of today’s testimony asks for more funding. 

Before we consider new spending, I think we owe it to the taxpayers to evaluate 

the programmatic changes that will be made by the farm bill. Like the rest of the 

Members, I will be interested to see how USDA implements these new provisions. 

Furthermore, I think it is important to note that the Food Stamp Program is designed to expand to fit the need. Food stamp participation is at an all-time high of 

28.1 million people. As more people are eligible and choose to participate, the program will be able to accommodate their needs. 

While it is easy to ask for more nutrition funding to solve the problems, we in 

Congress have to ask ourselves the tough question—if we increase funding for nutrition, where are we going to make cuts in spending? Under PAYGO rules, to increase 

nutrition spending, we will, have to cut spending on other meritorious programs or 

raise taxes. Given our tight budget situation, I hope we can consider options beyond 

providing additional money. Increasing spending without offsets only adds to our 

Federal deficit—which also has the short and long term effects on all of us, our children and the generations to come. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM KANSAS

Like most hearings in this Subcommittee, today’s hearing is important. It is important because the testimony we will hear is not just about human suffering or 

about families sitting down to tables without adequate food on them. This hearing 

is going to try to get at the effect, the cost of hunger to our country. 

It is clear that hungry students struggle to learn as well as those with good nutrition. And if today’s students are tomorrow’s workforce then we should be worried 

about under-performance in our economy. Hungry students struggle to stay awake 

and pay attention in class. Or even be in class. Many students cannot even make 

it to class and employees to work because of the effect poor nutrition has on the 

body. Unfortunately, those who cannot afford food likely cannot afford health insurance. Without insurance, many of the malnourished in our country will head to the 

Emergency Room when they are sick. ERs are the most expensive way to deliver 

health care and so everyone else’s health care bills go up, which is one of the largest 

problems our country faces. 

I am glad we have economists here today. This issue often involves stories and 

anecdotes that tug at your heart strings. I appreciate those stories because they 

draw me in and get me engaged in the issue. But as this Committee makes decisions on programs that will affect millions of people we must vote based on data 

and information that will help communities, churches and individuals feed the hungry and help lead them out of poverty. 

That is why last year my colleague Jim McGovern and I requested a hearing like 

this to look into Dr. Brown’s study on the cost of hunger. I would like to hear from 

our witnesses how close we are to a fully fed nation and what programs can help 

accomplish that. It is very likely that the investment in our food insecure households could outweigh the cost to our nation’s charities, health care providers, lost 

educational opportunities and lowered workforce productivity. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Hon. JOE BACA,

Chairman,

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, 

7

Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Baca,

I commend you on holding today’s hearing to review the short- and long-term 

costs of hunger in America. As you know, I have long believed that hunger is a political condition that, while solvable, requires political leadership. Hearings like these 

are necessary steps in raising awareness of the scourge of hunger and, specifically, 

on the economic costs of hunger on our society. 

Despite the efforts of the Federal Government and the best efforts of the nonprofit, anti-hunger community, hunger is getting worse in America. Too many go 

without food at some point during the year, and this has a real cost to our nation. 

Last year, with the help of the Sodexho Foundation, Dr. J. Larry Brown, Dr. Donald 

Shepard, Dr. Timothy Martin, and Dr. John Orwat released a study titled ‘‘The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger: Estimate Annual Burden to the United States.’’ 

Stephen J. Brady, President of the Sodexho Foundation, should be commended for 

funding this study and for his dedicated work in ending hunger here in the United 

States. This important study found that the minimum cost of hunger is $90 billion, 

and that the true cost is likely much more than that. While I believe we have a 

moral responsibility to end hunger once and for all, this study makes it clear that 

hunger is a real financial burden on our country. 

We have opportunities to end hunger in our nation. Although the domestic nutrition title clearly is not enough to end hunger in America, the farm bill is a good 

first step. Next year Congress will reauthorize the Child Nutrition Programs, where 

we will have an opportunity to invest in the school meal programs and after-school 

feeding programs. But it’s clear we must do more to end hunger once and for all 

in America. I believe your hearing today is a good step in that direction and that 

it will prove that doing nothing not only impacts the person who is forced to go 

without food but that doing nothing actually has a fiscal impact on this country. 

Sincerely,

Hon. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Member of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Before I call on the witnesses, I would like to call 

on Steve Kagen to say a few words. Our ex officios are not here yet. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KAGEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WISCONSIN 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to point out to everyone that there are two doctors up here on the podium so it is 

two to one, Joe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I can be an honorary doctor. 

Mr. KAGEN. We will make you a doctor of nutrition. I will just 

point out to everyone here in the room, everyone listening across 

the country that we are seven meals away from anarchy. If you 

take food away from people for seven meals in a row, as we saw 

in Louisiana and parts of Mississippi with Katrina, we human 

beings cease to be civilized human beings. So I take this issue of 

nutrition, this other issue of housing, our economy very seriously. 

But if our children are not getting the nutrition that they require 

to develop into healthy productive citizens, we will all pay that 

price over the long term. 

In my district, northeastern Wisconsin in Green Bay, the City of 

Green Bay, 45 percent of the children attending public school now 

qualify for free or reduced meals at school. Now that is a 

generational shift, and I think my district really mirrors the country. I look forward to your testimony today. And if I don’t have the 

opportunity to hear you outright here, I will be studying your testimony. I look forward to your communications with our Committee. 

I think you will find that all of us understand the value of good 

nutrition and aiming at our target correctly, getting our resources 

8

to those who need it the most. And I look forward to working together with you, Mr. Chairman, to guarantee that hunger in America becomes something, where it belongs, in our past. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. With that, I would like 

to introduce members of the panel that are here. I would like to 

welcome you again. Thank you very much for taking time from 

your busy schedule to inform us and give us the kind of knowledge 

that will make the kind of programs more effective and also deal 

with the problems that we have with hunger. We want to be cost 

effective in the programs that we have as we look at Federal and 

state to make sure that they are utilized effectively and not just 

put in the money to address the issue. We want to actually address 

the issue by allowing the people that need the assistance that do 

qualify will get it in each of our counties, in each of our states as 

well. 

With that, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Nord, Sociologist, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. Welcome and 

thank you for being here. And he will be accompanied by Steven 

Carlson, Director, Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service with the U.S. Department of Agriculture from Washington, D.C. And then we also have Dr. J. Larry Brown from Harvard University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, 

accompanied by Donald S. Shepard, Economist, as well from the 

Heller School, Brandeis University from Waltham, Massachusetts. 

And also we have Dr. Diana Cutts, Principal Investigator of Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program, and Faculty Physician of Hennepin County Medical Center, and Assistant Professor 

at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. And then, 

of course, we have Mr. George Manalo-LeClair, Senior Legislative 

Director from the California Food Policy Advocates from Oakland, 

California. And then we have James D. Weill, President of Food 

Research and Action Center from Washington, D.C. With that, let 

us begin by asking Dr. Nord to begin with his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK NORD, SOCIOLOGIST, ECONOMIC 

RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY STEVEN CARLSON,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, FOOD 

AND NUTRITION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE 

Dr. NORD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name 

is Mark Nord. I am a Sociologist with USDA’s Economic Research 

Service. My main expertise is in measuring and monitoring household food security, by which we mean households’ consistent ability 

to afford adequate food. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 

you today about food security and how USDA measures it. I am accompanied by Steven Carlson of the Food and Nutrition Service, 

who will also be available to answer questions. 

I will begin with these national statistics and then I want to go 

behind these statistics to describe how the food security of these 

households was measured. The reason for giving some detail on 

measurement is to provide as adequate an idea as possible of what 

the statistics mean. Our two word labels unfortunately don’t really 

give adequate information about whether the conditions in food-inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
9

secure households are serious or not or how serious they are. 

Knowing the specific conditions that the households in each category reported will give a more complete picture of what the statistics mean. 

So 2006, our most recently published statistics, 89 percent of 

U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year. They 

had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life 

for all household members. The remaining 10.9 percent were food 

insecure. They were unable at times during the year to put adequate food on the table. These included four percent with the more 

severe condition we describe as very low food security. In these 

households, food insecurity was severe to the extent that food intake of some members was reduced and their eating patterns were 

disrupted at times during the year. The statistics come from a nationally representative survey of about 45,000 households and it is 

conducted by the Census Bureau for USDA. 

The food security of each household is assessed by a series of 

questions about their food situation. Questions range in severity 

from worrying about running out of food to not eating for a whole 

day. So let’s look at responses to those specific questions to see 

what conditions were actually reported by households in each 

range of food insecurity. 

I should mention first that the food security of a household is determined by how many of these conditions they report. And to be 

classified as food insecure, a household must report at least three 

indicators of food insecurity. The more severe condition, very low 

food security is indicated by reports of six or more indications of 

food insecurity. You can think about the difference between low 

and very low food security as the difference between the reduced 

quality of food and reduced quantity or sufficiency of food intake. 

Households classified as having low food security—so this is the 

part of the food insecure population that is included in the 11 percent but not the four percent—the low food secure households basically report reductions in quality or variety of their diets but typically report few, if any, indications of reduced food intake. In 2006 

households in this group, low food security, that are represented by 

the middle blue bars here, middle blue colored bars, and you is see 

they reported the least conditions. They couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals, the food they bought didn’t last, and they didn’t have 

money to get more and they were worried that their food would run 

out. Few of them reported having to reduce the quantity of their 

food intake. 

On the other hand, households classified as having very low food 

security—this is the four percent of households in the more severe 

category—in 2006, almost all of them reported that an adult had 

cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not 

enough money for food, that they had eaten less than they felt they 

should because there was not enough money for food. And most reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they 

could not afford enough food. One in three reported that an adult 

in the household did not eat for a whole day because there was not 

enough money for food. This is what it means to have very low food 

security, to experience these conditions at times during the year. 

10

It is important when interpreting these statistics to keep in mind 

that food insecurity in the U.S. is not usually chronic. So the prevalence on a given day, a typical day is much lower than our statistics which reflect whether this happened at any time during the 

year. 

Two more quick graphics now to wrap up. Children are usually 

protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security among adults. In 2006, 6⁄10 of 1 

percent of households with children had conditions so severe that 

children also were subject to reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns, that was about 221,000 households. 

Over the last decade, the prevalence of food insecurity has moved 

approximately in parallel with the national poverty rate, it declined 

in the late 1990s, increased following the recession in 2001, declined after 2004. The prevalence of very low food security followed 

a similar pattern, except that it has remained essentially flat at 

four percent since 2004. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nord follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARK NORD, SOCIOLOGIST, ECONOMIC RESEARCH

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Mark Nord, and I am 

a sociologist with the USDA’s Economic Research Service. My main area of expertise 

is measuring and monitoring household food security—the extent to which households can consistently afford adequate food. I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

to you today about how USDA measures household food security and to provide an 

overview of recent food security statistics. I am accompanied by a representative of 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, who will also be available to answer questions. 

Food security is a foundation for a healthy and well-nourished population—and 

food security statistics are a measure of the strength of that foundation. Information 

on unmet food need is of particular interest to USDA because of its responsibility 

for the Federal food and nutrition assistance programs. 

I will begin with two or three salient food security statistics and then go behind 

those statistics to describe how households’ food security was measured. Understanding the specific food conditions households reported in order to be classified as 

food insecure, or as having very low food security, may provide policy officials the 

best sense of what the food security numbers mean and how serious the conditions 

described by the statistics are. I will then conclude with a few further national-level 

statistics. 

Household Food Security in the United States, 2006

Most Americans can afford to put enough healthful food on the table each day. 

USDA estimates that slightly more than 89 percent of U.S. households were food 

secure throughout the entire year in 2006 (figure 1). Food secure households had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining 12.6 million households (10.9 percent) were food insecure at 

some time during the year.

11

Source: Calculated by USDA, Economic Research Service using data from 

the December 2006 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.

About 2⁄3 of food-insecure households—those with low food security—obtained 

enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, 

using a variety of coping strategies such as eating less varied diets, participating 

in Federal food and nutrition assistance programs, or obtaining emergency food from 

community food pantries or emergency kitchens. But 4.6 million households (4.0 

percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security—that is, they were food 

insecure to the extent that eating patterns of one or more household members were 

disrupted and their food intake reduced, at least some time during the year, because 

they couldn’t afford enough food. 

Behind the Statistics: How Does USDA Measure Household Food Security? 

USDA monitors the food security of the nation’s households through an annual 

food security survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey is administered each December as a supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS)—the 

same survey that provides monthly employment and unemployment statistics and 

annual income and poverty statistics. A nationally representative sample of about 

45,000 households complete the food security survey each year. 

The food security of each interviewed household is assessed by a series of questions about behaviors, conditions, and experiences that are related to households’ 

food access. The questions cover a wide range of severity of food access problems, 

from worrying that food will run out to not eating for a whole day. Each question 

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

12 months and specifies a lack of money as the reason for the behavior or condition 

in question so that reduced food intake due to voluntary fasting or dieting does not 

affect the measure. 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 

present in the household, an additional eight questions about their food conditions. 

The food security questions are listed in Appendix A. The food security status of each household is determined by the number of foodinsecure conditions they report. Households are classified as food secure if they report no food-insecure conditions or if they report only one or two food-insecure conditions. They are classified as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure 

conditions. 

Food-insecure households are further classified as having either low food security

or very low food security. Households classified as having low food security have reported multiple indications of food access problems and reductions in the quality or 

variety of their diets, but typically have reported few, if any, indications of reduced 

food intake. Households classified as having very low food security have reported 

multiple indications of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources for food. 

What Are the Food Conditions in Households with Low and Very Low Food 

Security? 

The responses of households in the December 2006 food security survey clearly 

reflect the difference between low and very low food security (figure 2). Households 

with low food security (about 2⁄3 of food-insecure households) reported mainly reducVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11042001
12

tions in diet quality and variety (they could not afford to eat balanced meals) and 

difficulties and worries about food access. They typically report few if any indications of reductions in quantity of food intake.

Source: Calculated by USDA, Economic Research Service using data from 

the December 2006 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.

The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the 

year, the food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. 

Households classified as having very low food security in the 2006 survey reported 

the following specific conditions:

• 98 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they 

got money to buy more.

• 96 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not 

have money to get more.

• 94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.

• 95 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals 

because there was not enough money for food.

• 85 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

• In 95 percent, respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they 

should because there was not enough money for food.


11042002
13

• In 69 percent, respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat 

because they could not afford enough food.

• In 46 percent, respondents reported having lost weight because they did not 

have enough money for food.

• 33 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was 

not enough money for food.

• 24 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

When interpreting food security statistics, it is important to keep in mind that 

households are classified as having low or very low food security if they experienced 

the condition at any time during the previous 12 months. The prevalence of these 

conditions on any given day is far below the corresponding annual prevalence. 

How Does Food Insecurity Relate to Hunger? 

Several years ago, USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) 

of the National Academies to convene an expert panel to ensure that the measurement methods used to assess households’ access—or lack of access—to adequate food 

were conceptually and operationally sound. One of the central issues the CNSTAT 

panel addressed was the concept and definition of hunger and the relationship between hunger and food insecurity. 

The CNSTAT panel recommended that USDA make a clear and explicit distinction between food insecurity and hunger. Food insecurity is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Hunger 

is an individual physiological condition that is a potential, although not inevitable, 

outcome of food insecurity. By measuring and monitoring food insecurity, USDA provides important information about the social and economic context in which hunger 

may occur, and contributes to the effective operation of the domestic nutrition assistance programs that provide millions of children and low-income people access to 

food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. 

Household Food Security in the United States, 2006—A Few More Statistics 

Children in most food-insecure households—even in households with very low food 

security among adults—were protected from substantial reductions in food intake. 

However in about 221,000 households (0.6 percent of households with children) one 

or more children were also subject to reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns at some time during the year (figure 3). In some households with very low 

food security among children, only older children may have been subjected to the 

more severe effects of food insecurity while younger children were protected from 

those effects.

Source: Calculated by USDA, Economic Research Service using data from 

the December 2006 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.

The prevalence of food insecurity varies considerably among different types of 

households. In 2006, rates of food insecurity were well below the national average 

for households with two or more adults and no children (6.5 percent) and for houseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN

11042003
14

holds with one or more members over the age of 65 (6.0 percent). Rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes below the poverty line (36.3 percent), households with children headed by single women (30.4 percent) or single men (17.0 percent), and for Black and Hispanic 

households (21.8 percent and 19.5 percent, respectively). 

Over the last decade, the prevalence of food insecurity has moved approximately 

in parallel with the national poverty rate, declining in the late 1990s, increasing following the recession of 2001, and declining after 2004 (figure 4). The prevalence of 

very low food security has remained essentially unchanged since 2004.

Note: Two year rolling averages are presented for 1996–2001 to smooth seasonal fluctuations.

Source: Calculated by USDA, Economic Research Service using data from 

the December 2006 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer questions 

the Committee may have. 

APPENDIX A 

Questions Used To Assess the Food Security of Households in National Surveys 

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)


11042004
15

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 Are Asked Only if the Household Included Children Age 0–18)

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)

7. (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)

Household food security status is determined by the number of food-insecure conditions reported. (Food-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.) 

Households are classified as food secure if they report no food-insecure conditions 

or if they report only one or two food-insecure conditions. They are classified as food 

insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions. 

Food insecure households are further classified as having low or very low food security by the following criteria:

• For households with no child present, 3–5 food-insecure conditions indicates low 

food security and 6–10 indicates very low food security.

• For households with one or more children, 3–7 food-insecure conditions indicates low food security and 8–18 indicates very low food security. Five or more 

food-insecure conditions among the children (that is, in response to questions 

11–18) indicates very low food security among children. 

16

ATTACHMENTS


11042006
17


11042007
18


11042008
19


11042009
20

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Nord. 

Next I would like to call on Dr. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF DR. J. LARRY BROWN, VISITING SCHOLAR, 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH,

BOSTON, MA; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD S. SHEPARD, PH.D., 

PROFESSOR AND ECONOMIST, SCHNEIDER INSTITUTES FOR 

HEALTH POLICY, HELLER SCHOOL, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, 

WALTHAM, MA 

Dr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. The United States is actually very unique among industrial 

democracies because we let so many of our people go hungry; year 

after year. You have heard, and if you have seen the reports from 

USDA and Census Bureau, say, over the last 5 or 6 years, it ranges 

from 33 to 38 million people living in households that don’t have 

enough to eat. So what we once termed a hunger epidemic back in 

the 1980s has now actually just become a real part of our national 

landscape. And we are letting this problem remain virtually the 

same from year to year, a little bit of fluctuation, but basically the 

same. 

And before I turn to the results of our study on the cost burden 

of hunger, I will at least mention some of the things that we know 

about the health and cognitive effects of hunger, what it does to the 

minds and bodies of children. 

Two or 3 decades ago I used to teach my public health and medical students that while hunger impacts one’s health status, it seldom has had an effect on the brain, at least morphologically. We 

now know that this is not true. Science now knows that there is 

no safe level of hunger. When a child is forced to go without 

enough to eat, his body or her body suffers and the brain function 

is impaired. And the same is true for adults, particularly the vulnerable elderly. The body and brain require sufficient energy just 

as our cars do in order to run. A child sitting in the classroom 

without breakfast does not have the cognitive capacity to take part 

in the educational process. Her body, in other words, is there in the 

classroom but her mind is elsewhere. She is not fueled to learn. 

And when the body doesn’t have enough nutrition, even on a shortterm basis, it goes into triage. Just like triage on the battlefield, 

the body must decide how to allocate insufficient nutritional resources. And the first priority is to maintain critical organ function. 

The next priority of course if there is enough dietary energy is for 

normal height and weight gain, to maintain health. 

And the final priority is for brain function. So that child in the 

classroom may be present in body, but she came through the 

schoolhouse door with one arm tied behind her back not because 

she lacks innate ability, but simply because she doesn’t have the 

dietary wherewithal to learn. 

So in short, Members, we now know in science that hunger produces startling effects on the mind and body, things we just did not 

know even 2 decades ago. 

And while this is true for both adults and children, most of the 

research is focused on the young because we can more easily track 

their growth and their educational development. 

21

Children without enough to eat, science now shows: get sick more 

frequently, particularly in terms of preventable outcomes; they 

have more difficulty overcoming illnesses once they occur; they 

miss school more often due to illnesses; they experience more behavioral disorders, aggressiveness and as well as sullen and withdrawn behavior; and they do less well in terms of grades and on 

standardized test scores. 

So it is in this context of these outcomes that the Sodexho Foundation commissioned me along with three other scholars to look at 

the costs. In other words, the question was, do we pay more in 

terms of illness and lost productivity in educational outcomes than 

if there were no hunger in America? 

So I am joined here today by Dr. Donald Shepard to my left, an 

Economist from Brandeis, who has done similar cost burden analyses including that of dengue fever. Sodexho is known for its corporate interests, as you may know, and charitable responses to 

hunger and to inform policy responses; and they funded our interdisciplinary team. Now the bottom line is that when people go hungry, it costs the nation in a variety of ways and the first of these 

is charity. 

There are 300 food banks across the nation. There are 50,000 

soup kitchens and food pantries. And these facilities have to rent 

or purchase offices and warehouses, freezers, trucks and related 

materials. They also have literally thousands upon thousands of 

volunteers for hours or days a week helping to feed the hungry. 

And each of these activities, including volunteers, has a cost. We 

figured that out. The enormous charitable enterprise in the nation 

today as of last year came to $14.5 billion each year. 

I turn next to the cost of excess illness, that is illness that is associated with hunger and food insecurity over and above the typical 

presence of those outcomes in the general population. We did this 

both for psychosocial function, that is mental health, as well as 

physical health. And you might be interested briefly in how we did 

it. We know that food-deprived groups have higher rates of certain 

health outcomes. Iron deficiency occurs at a rate that is 1.66 percent times more likely. Activity limiting impairments, three times 

more likely, headaches twice as high, nutrient deficiencies three to 

four times as high. And in terms of mental health outcomes, particularly in children, depression is 31⁄2 times higher than among 

non-hungry children. The need for special education is twice as 

high and so on. I won’t go further. 

But Dr. Shepard and I will be happy to answer questions about 

the calculation of these costs. What is worth noting now is the 

health-related cost of hunger comes to nearly $67 billion annually. 

The final cost area is the limited education and lower workforce 

productivity that is associated with not having enough to eat. 

According to a number of studies in the field, children from food 

insecure homes are more likely than their non-hungry peers to do 

less well on tests of mental ability and overall school performance. 

They miss school 50 percent more, they get suspended about twice 

as often, they have to repeat more grades, they are less likely to 

complete high school. And as a result, children who are so affected 

face an increased likelihood of unemployment, limited employment, 

22

lower job performance, and all of this impacts workforce productivity. 

The cost of this workforce productivity loss comes to about $9.2 

billion annually. So when we add up the costs in these three areas 

that I have cited, we can say that we pay a staggering bill for hunger, more than $90 billion a year. That is enough to get our attention, although I would like to stress that the actual cost is no doubt 

higher due to the conservative research techniques that we employed and the fact that we had insufficient data for certain outcomes. This bill arguably tacks onto the American public, it means 

that a typical household in our country pays about $800 a year because hunger exists. 

This bill is paid in terms of charitable contributions and related 

tax deductions as well as lowered workforce productivity and competitiveness in the international market system. 

By contrast, in closing, this $90 billion bill, it recently was estimated that we could virtually end hunger in America if we increased spending for existing programs, food stamps, child nutrition, elderly feeding by about $12 billion a year over current spending. The very recent jump in food and fuel cost may make this calculation somewhat higher. Former nutrition advisor to President 

Nixon and my former college President, Dr. Jean Mayer once 

noted, ‘‘of all the dumb ways to save money, not feeding children 

is the dumbest.’’

While I prefer to speak a slightly different language, perhaps less 

remarkable for its clarity, the economics are clear, our nation pays 

far more to let hunger exist than it would cost us to eliminate it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of Dr. Brown and Dr. Shepard follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. J. LARRY BROWN, VISITING SCHOLAR, HARVARD

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, BOSTON, MA 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I thank you for your invitation to appear today as you consider the health and 

economic costs of hunger in America. Although I have appeared before this and 

other Committees on many occasions over the years, I must begin with the bottom 

line: The United States is quite unique among industrial democracies because we 

let so many of our people go hungry, and we seem to be doing precious little to close 

this gap. Year after year the Department reports that about 35 million Americans 

live in households that do not have enough to eat. What was once termed a ‘‘hunger 

epidemic’’ in our nation has now become a continuing fact of life. We are letting this 

problem remain pretty much the same from year to year. Clearly we can do better, 

and I applaud you for holding this hearing to exercise the leadership to make a difference. 

Before I turn to the results of our study of the cost burden of hunger, I will begin 

by reviewing what science knows about the health and cognitive effects of hunger—

what it does to the minds and bodies of both children and adults. Some of this information may be new to you, even to the two Members who also are physicians by 

training. 

Two or 3 decades ago I used to teach my public health and medical students that 

while hunger impacts one’s health status, it seldom had an effect on the brain. We 

now know that this is not true. Science now knows that there is no ‘‘safe’’ level of 

hunger: when a child is forced to go without enough to eat her body suffers and her 

brain function is impaired. The same is true for adults, particularly the vulnerable 

elderly. This is because the body and the brain require sufficient food energy to 

function adequately. When it is not there, even temporarily, the body and mind cannot function properly. Just as your car cannot run without the proper fuel, so too 

is the mind impaired when it goes without its own fuel. 

23

A child sitting in the classroom without a breakfast does not have the cognitive 

capacity to take part in the educational process. Her body is in the classroom but 

her mind is not fueled to learn. This is because when the body does not have enough 

nourishment, even on a short-term basis, it goes into triage. Just like triage on the 

battlefield, the body must decide how to allocate its insufficient resources. Its first 

priority is to use whatever energy there is to maintain critical organ function. Its 

next priority, if there is enough nutrient energy, is to maintain health. Its final priority is for brain function. As my colleague Carl Sagan bluntly put it when we discussed these new research findings, ‘‘better dumb than dead.’’ That child in the class 

may be present in body but she came through the schoolhouse door too impaired 

to learn—not because she is dumb but because she suffers cognitive impairment due 

to lack of nutrition. In short, science now knows that hunger, not just in its absolute 

state but even in the form of chronically ‘‘mild’’ under-nutrition, produces startling 

effects in both the mind and body. While true for both adults and children, most 

of the research has focused on the young because we can more easily track their 

growth and educational patterns. Children without enough to eat:

• Get sick more frequently, particularly in terms of preventable outcomes such 

headaches, stomachaches and colds,

• They have more difficulty overcoming illnesses once they occur,

• They miss school more often due to these illnesses,

• They have more behavioral disorders, such as aggressiveness and classroom disruption, as well as sullen and withdrawn behavior, and

• They do less well in terms of their grades and do more poorly on standardized 

test scores than do similar children who get enough to eat.

It is in the context of these poorer health, behavioral and mental outcomes that 

the Sodexho Foundation commissioned me, along with three other scholars, to assess their cost to the nation. In other words, how much more money do we pay in 

terms of illness, poor educational outcomes and lost productivity than we would if 

no one went hungry in America. I am joined today by one of my colleagues in this 

research, Dr. Don Shepard, an economist from Brandeis University, who has done 

similar cost burden analyses, recently one commissioned by the United Nations regarding the cost of dengue fever. Sodexho, known for its corporate interest not only 

charitable responses to hunger but to informed policy responses to help end hunger 

altogether, funded our interdisciplinary team from three major universities. Parenthetically, I should mention that none of us receives a salary from Sodexho, and 

the Foundation played no role whatsoever in our research or its outcomes. 

When people go hungry it costs the nation in a variety of ways, some of which 

are not easily measurable. We dismissed cost areas for which calculations were too 

difficult, and focused instead on four key cost arenas that are more easily measurable, that is, where the scientific literature is sufficient to develop cost burdens that 

are both reasonable and conservative. The first of these is charity. It is said that 

‘‘there is no free lunch.’’ Somebody, somewhere, pays. Charity operates the same 

way, and hunger charities exist throughout the country, in each of your districts and 

in virtually every community in the nation. More than 300 food banks exist, covering every state and averaging six to a state (although they are not that equally 

distributed). These food banks provide nutritional and other commodities to more 

than 50,000 soup kitchens and food pantries. These food banks and local charities 

have to rent or purchase offices, warehouses, freezers, trucks and related materials. 

They have to have full-time, paid staff, and their work is supplemented by literally 

thousands upon thousands of volunteers who often spend from several hours to a 

day or 2 a week helping to feed the hungry. Each of these activities, even among 

volunteers, has a cost. We figured out what it is. This enormous charitable enterprise comes to more than $14.5 billion each year. 

We next turn to the excess cost of illness, that is, illness that is associated with 

hunger over and above the typical levels that occur in the population(s). We did this 

for both mental health services and for medical and other forms of health care. You 

might be interested in how we did this. As indicated earlier, we know that fooddeprived groups have higher rates of ill health: iron deficiency occurs at a rate that 

is 1.66 times more likely; activity-limiting health impairments are nearly three 

times as high; headaches nearly twice as high; and nutrient deficiencies from three 

to four times normal levels. In terms of mental health outcomes, particularly in children, depression is 3.5 times higher than among non-hungry children; the need for 

special education twice as high; and general psychosocial dysfunction is seven times 

as high. As you’re probably beginning to see, it costs far less to feed children than 

it is to let them go hungry and par a higher price after-the-fact. I will go no further 

now in terms of how we attributed actual costs of these adverse outcomes, but Dr. 

24

Shepard and I can take questions, or you can refer to the detailed methodology in 

our research report. What is worth noting now is that the health-related costs of 

hunger come to nearly $67 billion annually. And please bear in mind that the actual 

costs certainly are higher, quite a bit higher, because of our conservative methodology. This is because for some outcomes, say Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the research literature is insufficient to develop likelihood ratios for 

excess outcomes. For yet other outcomes, we had adequate data to compute direct 

costs but not for indirect ones. It is the responsibility of researchers to be careful—

conservative—and it is for this reason that we know our estimate of $67 billion a 

year does not capture the full cost in this arena. 

The final cost arena is the limited education and lowered workforce productivity 

that is associated with having too little nourishment. According to a number of studies in this field, children from food insecure homes are more likely than their nonhungry peers to do less well on tests of mental ability and overall school performance. They miss school 50% more; they get suspended about twice as often; and they 

have to repeat more grades. They also are less likely to complete high school. As 

a result, children so affected face greater likelihood of unemployment or limited employment; poor judgment and lowered job performance; and, as a result, lowered 

workforce productivity. The cost of this productivity loss comes to $9.2 billion annually. 

When we add the costs of each of these arenas (more than $14 billion for charity; 

nearly $67 billion for illness; and almost $10 billion in lowered education and productivity) we pay a rather staggering bill for hunger—more than $90 billion each 

year. This is enough to get our attention, although I stress again that the actual 

cost is clearly higher than this, due to our utilization of conservative research techniques and lack of sufficient data for some outcomes known to be associated with 

hunger. 

While this bill, sort of an additional tax on the American public, is not evenly distributed across the population, it means that a typical household in our country 

pays $500 a year. While this bill often is not direct, it shows up in terms of higher 

taxes to cover the costs of outcomes that the victims of hunger suffer. It also is paid 

in terms of charitable contributions and related tax deductions, as well as lowered 

workforce productivity and competitiveness in the international market system. 

By contrast to this $90 billion annual cost, it recently was estimated that we could 

virtually end hunger in America if we increased spending for existing nutrition programs (food stamps, school meals, summer feeding and elderly feeding) by about $12 

billion a year over current spending. (The very recent jump in food and fuel costs 

may now make this calculation somewhat higher). 

Former nutrition advisor to President Nixon, Dr. Jean Mayer, once noted that ‘‘of 

all the dumb ways to save money, not feeding children is the dumbest.’’ While I prefer to speak a slightly different language than his remarkable clarity, our economics 

are clear: our nation pays far more to let hunger exist than it would cost us to eliminate it. 

Thank you.

Copies of the research analysis, The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger: Estimated Annual Burden to the United States, is available to download by going to 

www.sodexofoundation.com. For further information from the researchers, e-mail: 

[Redacted]; [Redacted]; [Redacted]; and [Redacted]. This research initiative was 

sponsored by Sodexho Foundation, which has been working to eliminate the root 

causes of hunger since 1996. Its work also includes a broad menu of child feeding 

programs (summer and school year), and disaster response initiatives such as Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf Coast. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD S. SHEPARD, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND ECONOMIST, 

SCHNEIDER INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH POLICY, HELLER SCHOOL, BRANDEIS

UNIVERSITY, WALTHAM, MA 

Chairman Baca, Ranking Minority Member Boustany, and other Members of the 

Committee. My name is Donald S. Shepard. I am a professor at the Heller School, 

Brandeis University, in Waltham, MA, and lead the Cost and Value Group in the 

Schneider Institutes for Health Policy. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify today to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Dairy, Nutrition, and Forestry. My testimony is based largely on the study I co-authored entitled, ‘‘The economic cost of domestic hunger: Estimated annual burden to the United 

States.’’ The authors, in their order or listing, are Dr. J. Larry Brown, Harvard 

School of Public Health, myself, Dr. Timothy Martin, also of Brandeis University, 

25

and Dr. John Orwat, Loyola University. My co-author, Dr. Brown has spoken about 

this study as well. 

The scholarly literature is replete with studies that assess the cost to society of 

adverse outcomes associated with social practices such as smoking, alcohol abuse 

and obesity. The analysis of a cost burden, the compilation of the direct and indirect 

economic costs of a particular problem or policy, often provides helpful information 

to the public and policy makers about the financial ramifications of a problem and 

the potential savings that could result from reducing or eradicating it. As Dorothy 

Rice, a pioneer in such studies, has noted, they have been widely performed and 

proved useful to inform resource allocation across such wide ranging areas as biomedical research, public health, and injury prevention (Rice, 2000). 

The cost of a particular societal burden includes all known private and public sector spending, counting both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those expenditures incurred as a result of the medical treatment of some illness or problem, while 

indirect costs are the non-medical expenditures incurred as a result of that illness, 

such as missed days of work. The annual cost of health care associated with alcohol 

abuse, for example, has been calculated at $22.5 billion, but when indirect costs, 

such as lost productivity are factored in, the total economic burden to the nation 

has been reported by various scholars to run to nearly $200 billion annually. The 

costs of problems like alcoholism frequently are as hidden as they are surprising, 

since costs are not only borne by the user but their families and society at large. 

The children of alcoholics are sick more often, are admitted to the hospital 62% 

more often than other children, and remain in the hospital 29% longer (Rice, 1999). 

Alcohol abuse significantly elevates the likelihood of traffic accidents, particularly 

among teenagers, but also among all ages. Alcohol abuse also is linked to increased 

homicides and other violent crimes, as well as increased drowning and suicides 

(Rice, 1999). 

In recent years cost burden analyses have put the annual cost of alcohol abuse 

at $185 billion (Harwood, 2000), smoking at $138 billion (Rice, 1999), drug abuse 

at $161 billion (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2003), obesity at $79 billion 

(Finkeklstein, 2003), and poverty at $500 billion (Holzer, 2007). The high societal 

costs of such problems strongly suggest greater focus on reduction or prevention. So 

commonly accepted is the premise of prevention that it is encoded in various state 

and Federal laws. Most states require motorcyclists to wear helmets because of the 

frequency of serious brain damage associated with not wearing a helmet. Similarly, 

childhood vaccinations are generally required as a condition for school entry, and 

transportation workers may not use certain drugs and must accept random screening on request to confirm their adherence. 

It is notable that such decisions do not extend to all possible adverse outcomes. 

Society does not, for example, require people to eat only certain foods to avoid the 

costs to the nation of obesity. Neither is smoking or alcohol use banned altogether, 

although their public use is now greatly regulated to protect the public good. 

The History and Prevalence of Hunger in America 

The extent of domestic hunger has been fairly well understood since at least the 

late 1960s, (Citizens’ Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition, 1967). While 

professional and government entities were unable to estimate precisely how many 

individuals were impacted, they placed the number of chronically hungry Americans 

in the millions. Revelations at the time spurred bipartisan Congressional hearings, 

resulting the expansion or creation of programs that include Food Stamps, School 

Breakfast, Elderly Feeding and WIC programs (Brown, 1970). 

In 1985, a prominent group of medical researchers affiliated with Harvard University announced the results of its research and field investigations in half the 

states of the nation (Physician Task Force on Hunger in America, 1985). Its members had traveled to the states to investigate hunger first hand; yet unlike their 

predecessors, they had the scholarly training to estimate the size of the problem the 

nation faced, reporting that the number of Americans afflicted by hunger was at 

least 20 million. Their report led to significant national news coverage and, as in 

1968, Congress took further action to ameliorate the problem. 

Although the estimate of 20 million people going hungry was criticized in some 

quarters, other sources soon weighed in, with one national pollster placing the estimate well above 30 million (Bregglio, 1992), a figure later corroborated by the university-based Center on Hunger and Poverty in 1992 (Communication to Congressman Tony Hall from J. Larry Brown, 1992), which had been consulted by Congressional leaders as to the true extent of domestic hunger. In 1995, the Federal Government implemented a standard measure to evaluate the extent of hunger annually. Over the past ten years, with relatively minor variations, this standard has indicated that about 35 million Americans live in households with insufficient food. 

26

Like the Federal poverty rate, which varies annually with changes in job opportunities, wages and the overall economy, the extent of hunger rises and falls each year 

as well and for similar reasons—but the variation is slight. This Federal data set 

consistently indicates that over 12% of the nation’s people lack sufficient nutrition. 

The extant standard for tracking hunger and food insecurity is known as the Federal Food Security Module, and it is conducted by the Department of Agriculture 

and the Bureau of the Census (Bickel et al., 2000). In its annual census tracking, 

the Bureau asks a special set of eighteen questions developed by the Department 

of Agriculture that is applied to a broad national sample of households to determine 

the adequacy of their diets: do they sometimes not have enough food for their families, do they sometimes have to skip meals because of insufficient income, do they 

ever have to put their children to bed hungry. The researchers also ask questions 

about when such occurrences happened and how often over the past year, since the 

number of positive responses to such outcomes must reflect a repetitive or chronic 

problem before the household actually is counted as vulnerable. 

Unlike the earlier hunger estimates, the Federal measure reflects a refined definition of the problem. The governmental report defines hunger as a ‘‘painful sensation’’ in the stomach, and the measure of it reflects a high degree of food deprivation 

or ‘‘insecurity’’ before a household actually is considered to experience hunger. Some 

nutritionists and medical experts consider this standard to be too high. Since ‘‘pain’’ 

is only one of the possible sensations from hunger, many victims of hunger do not 

actually feel pain as such. Thus, people can be chronically hungry by any common 

understanding of the term, yet be missed by the Federal definition because they do 

not experience ‘‘a painful sensation.’’ 

Alongside the category of ‘‘hunger,’’ the Federal measure also includes a new and 

more encompassing category of nutritional deprivation known as ‘‘food insecure.’’ 

Households that are not determined to be hungry, as such, may be food insecure 

if they run out of food or do not know where the next meal is coming from, or if 

parents have to cut back on the portions of food served, cut down on the types of 

food categories available to the family, or have to rely on soup kitchens or food pantries to feed their family. While many consider this two-tiered measure—hunger and 

food insecurity—to be useful in differentiating degrees of household food deprivation, some experts consider the distinction to be tenuous. They note that since hunger is more than a pain, and includes inadequate food resources to nourish individuals and families, then food insecurity is hardly different from hunger, if at all. 

Federal Food Security Module outcomes for the years 2000–2006 are reported in 

Table 1.

Table 1. Annual Levels of Hunger and Food Insecurity 

Year Number of 

Households 

Percent of 

Households 

Number of

Individuals 

Percent of

Individuals 

2000 11.1 million 10.5 33.2 million 12.1

2001 11.5 million 10.7 33.6 million 12.2

2002 12.1 million 11.1 34.9 million 12.5

2003 12.6 million 11.2 36.3 million 12.7

2004 13.5 million 11.9 38.2 million 13.2

2005 12.6 million 11.0 35.1 million 12.1

2006 12.6 million 10.9 35.5 million 12.1

Source: Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 

2006, Economic Research Service (ERR–49), November 2007. 

To analyze the cost burden of domestic hunger, we treat the extent of food deprivation in the nation as being the more encompassing number combining both hunger and food insecurity. Two factors support this treatment of the data. One, mentioned above, is that even households that are considered to be food insecure actually experience hunger (people don’t eat enough to satisfy their needs, and are 

forced to cut back in terms of satisfying their nutritional requirements). The other 

factor supporting this decision is the scholarship in the field of hunger and food security. For more than a decade now, scores of studies and analyses have shown that 

even the most elementary forms of food insecurity have detrimental effects on its 

victims. See, for example, Murphy et al. (1998); Sahyoun and Sasiotis (2000), and 

Kleinman et al. (1998). People who go without enough to eat are sick more often 

and miss work more frequently. Children who live in food insecure households (not 

27

necessarily categorized as hungry) are sick more frequently, miss school more often, 

and do more poorly in school. The research shows that food insecure children are 

more susceptible to cognitive impairment (mental dysfunction), more likely to engage in anti-social behaviors, and more in need of both medical and mental health 

interventions (Center on Hunger and Poverty, 2002). In short, there are significant 

‘‘cost burdens’’ when people are hungry or food insecure. Hence, we treat the burden 

of hunger and food insecurity as a unified problem or cost center. 

Approach 

Because the cost burden of a problem such as hunger includes all public and private expenditures, both direct and indirect, we reviewed scientific literature to identify odds ratios for various adverse outcomes known to be associated with hunger. 

These include the following categories: (a) charitable efforts to feed the hungry; (b) 

mental health and medical care to address problems such as anxiety and depression, 

illnesses, nutrient deficiencies, physician visits and hospitalizations; and (c) lowered 

economic productivity associated with missed days of school, school suspensions, repeating a grade, overall educational success and dropping out of school. We then reviewed economic literature and, where relevant, expenditure data to establish attributable costs for each of these outcomes. 

Due to limited data availability, it was generally assumed that the odds ratio for 

children and adults were the same. This was the most plausible assumption that 

could be made in the absence of complete data. 

The Cost Burden of Charity 

Charity is the practice of short-term relief when structural factors (economic, policy and programmatic) are insufficient. A home burns down or a job is lost and the 

family may be consoled with lodging or other forms of short-term care until more 

lasting solutions come into play. With respect to domestic hunger the charitable 

community has played a significant role since the early 1980s (Physician Task Force 

on Hunger in America, 1985), developing both immediate and long-term strategies 

to address the problem of households without sufficient nutrition. 

With about 35 million Americans consistently living in households that struggle 

each year to get enough to eat, (USDA, Economic Research Service, ERR–47, 2007) 

the charitable response has shifted from individual in nature to largely an institutional one. Tens of thousands of ‘‘emergency’’ feeding programs now dot the landscape of the nation, so many in fact that if they were evenly distributed, about one 

thousand would exist in each of the fifty states. (Cohen, 2006). 

The largest domestic hunger relief organization is America’s Second Harvest, an 

umbrella organization that represents a network of more than 200 food banks and 

food rescue organizations across the country that serve the smaller emergency programs mentioned above. Located in every state, these entities collect canned, boxed 

and sometimes fresh foods from industry and other sources, and then distribute it 

to a variety of local programs to feed the hungry with actual meals or periodic bags 

of groceries. Another 50 or so food banks exist outside the Second Harvest system 

meaning that the nation has an average of five food banks for each state (though 

not actually so distributed). 

These 250-plus food banks exist to provide food pantries that typically reside in 

church basements and social service agencies. These facilities usually bag the food 

products to distribute weekly to families depending on household size. The banks 

also service soup kitchens, establishments where individuals and families can come 

for a sandwich or even a hot meal. America’s Second Harvest reports that its food 

banks alone service more than 40,000 food pantries and soup kitchens across the 

nation. In 2005, these Second Harvest programs fed more than 24 million people 

(Cohen, 2006). When non-Second Harvest food banks and other programs are 

factored in, the number of people fed through charitable efforts in the nation is substantially higher. 

It is the nature of charity that it typically is a donation: a hungry household is 

given food. But the food itself is not free since, somewhere along the line, it was 

paid for. Even the act of giving the food was not free but relied on volunteer time 

and institutional overhead, both of which have calculable costs. In this sense, America’s huge charitable enterprise, developed largely over the past 25 years, is not free. 

In fact, its price tag, its economic investment to feed the hungry, is more than $14 

billion each year (see Table 2).

28

Table 2. Annual Cost Burden of Charitable Efforts To Feed Hungry Americans 

Charitable Activities Estimated 

Cost 2005

Food Banks: products, operations and depreciation $3.8 billion 

Local Feeding Programs: food pantries and soup kitchens $7.5 billion 

Volunteer Support: volunteer hours and expenses (1. and 2.) $1.1 billion 

Other National Feeding Programs (non-food bank related) $0.7 billion 

Unaffiliated Local Programs $1.4 billion

Total costs $14.5 billion 

Illness and Psychosocial Dysfunction 

We evaluated and summarize the economic costs of poorer health, illness, increased utilization of psychological services, and other psychosocial outcomes that 

are shown by research to be associated with food insecurity. To estimate the cost 

of adverse health and mental health outcomes, we first reviewed the scientific literature to identify studies that show a link between food insecurity and adverse 

health outcomes. Studies were chosen that calculated multivariate risk ratios or 

odds ratios of these adverse outcomes to increase our confidence that the associations were found after statistically controlling for other explanatory factors. For 

some outcomes associated with insufficient food, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we concluded that the existing likelihood ratio for excess 

outcomes was insufficient to rely on. For yet other outcomes such as iron deficiency, 

hospitalizations, and excess costs of fair and poor health status, we were able to 

compute direct costs but not indirect costs because available data did not provide 

a basis for estimating indirect costs. 

Medical conditions identified to have higher rates of adverse conditions among 

those who are food insecure include iron deficiency anemia (1.66 times more likely), 

headaches (1.92), stomach aches (2.16), frequency of colds (1.54), activity-limiting 

health impairments (2.95), specific nutrient deficiencies (2.85 to 4.39), more hospitalizations and longer in-patient stays (1.3), and poorer overall health status (2.9) 

(Table X1). Mental health conditions with a higher rated of adverse conditions 

among the food insecure include anxiety and irritability (1.95 times as likely), depression (3.50), withdrawn behavior (1.74), psychosocial dysfunction (7.0), suicidal 

thoughts and behaviors (5.00), and need for mental health services (1.93). 

The cost of illness was then calculated for these conditions by searching the cost 

of illness literature and calculating the fraction of the cost attributable to food insecurity, as described in the methods section. The total cost from a societal perspective 

for mental health services and ill health, assuming these outcomes are independent, 

comes to $66.8 billion annually, in 2005 dollars (Table X3). The state of the literature allowed us to calculate both indirect and direct costs for migraine headaches 

($1.7B), colds ($0.4B), iron deficiency ($0.2B), depression ($15.6B), anxiety ($9.2B), 

and suicide ($6.4B). However, we were only able to calculate direct costs for upper 

GI disorders ($2.5B), hospitalizations other than for the conditions listed here 

($7.1B), and the excess cost of fair or poor health status ($23.7B) as reliable estimates for indirect costs were not available. 

Education and Lowered Productivity 

This impact was estimated through a two step process, as existing literature did 

not permit the one-step estimation available for illness and psychosocial dysfunction. According to a number of recent studies, children from food insecure households are more likely than their non-food insecure peers to experience higher rates 

of various forms of educational trauma: Missed days of school were 1.6 times the 

risk, and repeating a grade was 1.44 times the risk compared to a child without food 

insecurity. These factors, in turn, were linked to a higher risk of dropping out of 

school. This translated to the economic burden from dropping out of school of lower 

lifetime earnings of $9.2 billion. 

Summary of Burden 

When summed for 2005, these burdens total $90.4 billion (Table 3). The results 

can further be broken down by state based on the prevalence of food insecurity in 

each state in 2005 (Figure 1).

29

Table 3. Minimum Total Cost Burden of Hunger in America 

Cost Burden by Outcome 

2005 Direct 

and Indirect 

Costs 

Charity $14.4 billion 

Illness and psychosocial dysfunction $66.8

Less education and lowered productivity $9.2

Total costs $90.4 billion 

Figure 1.

Implications 

This country’s nutrition programs can be seen as a glass half full. Were the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called Food Stamps) and 

other government programs not in existence, the burden would have been even 

greater than $90 billion. That is the part of the glass that is full. Had those programs had the structure and funding that the problem requires, however, there 

would have been virtually no cost of domestic hunger. My colleagues and I would 

not have estimated a $90 billion problem. That is the half empty part of the glass. 

Using round numbers, I would like to estimate the expansion in 2005 that might 

have funded the empty part of the glass. I will assume:

—The program cost $35 billion;

—Food stamps covered 2⁄3 of those eligible; and

—Benefits, on average met about 3⁄4 of the needs for those who received them 

(higher food prices today might lower this share).

Putting these two shares together, the program in 2005 covered about half the 

food needs of those eligible (i.e., 2⁄3 of 3⁄4). Thus, the spending of $35 billion represents about half the food needs of eligible hungry Americans. There is another 

half, another $35 billion cost to serve eligible Americans, that was not being met. 

In other words, additional funding of $35 billion would have addressed substantial 

parts of the gap. 


11042005
30

We can compare the economic burden of $80 billion against the additional investment of $35 billion and see a return of about $2.28 for every increased dollar invested in terms additional support for reducing hunger. 

I am pleased that the farm bill passed by this Congress will take useful steps towards expanding benefits under SNAP and help lower the empty part somewhat. 

Further investments in funding, outreach, and expanded benefits will ensure that 

the empty part of this glass is completely addressed and that hunger in America 

can be largely eliminated. Thank you very much. 

31

ATTATCHMENT


11042010
32


11042011
33


11042012
34


11042013
35


11042014
36


11042015
37


11042016
38


11042017
39


11042018
40


11042019
41


11042020
42


11042021
43


11042022
44


11042083
45


11042023
46


11042024
47


11042025
48


11042026
49


11042027
50


11042028
51


11042029
52


11042030
53


11042031
54


11042032
55


11042033
56


11042034
57


11042035
58


11042036
59


11042037
60


11042038
61


11042039
62


11042040
63


11042041
64


11042042
65


11042043
66


11042044
67


11042045
68

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. 

Next we have Dr. Diana Cutts. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA B. CUTTS, M.D., FACULTY PHYSICIAN, 

HENNEPIN COUNTRY MEDICAL CENTER; ASSISTANT

PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA; 

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, CHILDREN’S SENTINEL

NUTRITION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (C–SNAP),

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 

Dr. CUTTS. Chairman Baca and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Diana Cutts and I am truly honored to be here 

today. 

At Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

I practice pediatrics, teach bright young medical students and residents and direct research with Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program, C–SNAP, a national multi-site program which 

monitors the well-being of very young children. 

I have relied on my distinguished co-panelists to dazzle you with 

information so I can instead share with you the experience of taking care of kids. So please join me in clinic this morning. I hope 

you have had a good breakfast and have lots of energy. Place your 

stethoscopes around your necks, but don’t bother with white coats. 

They only scare the kids. 

Julia is a 13 month old here after a 3 day hospitalization for dehydration due to a virus. Looking at her vital signs we see she is 

slowly regaining her weight. She screams bloody murder the 

minute she sees us. But after we talk to her parents and do our 

best possible exam, we decide she is on the mend. Mom is told to 

bring her back in a few months and the clinic quiets as she leaves. 

Next up, Terrence, a 4 year old here to complete forms for Head 

Start enrollment. A quiet little guy, he doesn’t pass the developmental screening. His mother, 5 months pregnant, accepts our referral to the public schools for more extensive evaluation. We are 

also concerned about mom’s affect, she seems depressed. We talk 

about maternal depression and refer mom to mental health resources. Before they leave, one of the C–SNAP interviewers approaches me. ‘‘Dr. Cutts’’ she says ‘‘I hope it was okay that I gave 

that family two bags of groceries.’’

You see, we offer a bag of groceries to families who are surveyed 

for our research. It turns out you have a background in political 

science, and you ask me about our findings. So I explained that although Minnesota is a birth place and home to many large food 

corporations and has a very respectable state food insecurity rate 

of 8.2 percent and is a top-ranking state for most health ratings, 

HCMC rates of household food insecurity for families with very 

young children are the highest of any of the five C–SNAP sites: 35 

percent compared to an average of 15 percent for Baltimore, Boston, Little Rock, and Philadelphia. The C–SNAP interviewer taps 

me again. ‘‘Dr. Cutts, I am really worried about that mom. She told 

me she hasn’t had much food in the last week because she was 

kicked out of her apartment because the landlord defaulted on the 

mortgage, and now she is living with some friends and her WIC 

vouchers were lost when they moved.’’

69

And now we contact the clinic social worker to meet with mom. 

I turn to you to teach. Let’s talk about the implication of food insecurity in this family. In terms of mom’s pregnancy, poor maternal 

nutrition is associated with more risk of prematurity, complications 

of delivery and low birth weight, which increases the likelihood of 

infant mortality, infant and child health problems, long-term developmental delays and even later adult chronic disease. Food insecurity is also linked to maternal depression, which has a trickle down 

negative impact on children’s health. For Terrance, there is an 

abundance of research on children from infancy to adolescence 

showing associations between food insecurity and lower cognitive 

scores and more emotional and behavioral problems. Developmental services to young children are the beginning of a societal 

cost of food insecurity that may be carried on into school years and 

throughout a lifetime. 

I think back to the earlier patient we saw, Julia, the screamer. 

Children in food insecure households are more frequently hospitalized with an average hospital cost of over $11,000, another economic cost of food insecurity. Children of color like Julia are at 

highest risk for food insecurity which contributes to health and 

achievement disparities by race and ethnicity. As the morning goes 

on, we see little twins with anemia, which is 21⁄2 times more likely 

in food insecure children, and when present, harms brain development. And then an adolescent weighing nearly 300 pounds with 

multiple medical and psychosocial problems whose C–SNAP survey 

many years ago revealed some of the most severe food insecurity 

we had ever encountered. 

I plan to talk to you after clinic about the complex relationships 

between food insecurity and obesity. We end with a child whose 

asthma has relapsed because his family didn’t fill his prescriptions 

because they had to choose between medicine, food or rent. Do all 

my patients’ ills stem from food insecurity? Of course not. But for 

too many of them, food insecurity is an invisible constant companion to their health, directly and indirectly influencing it in ways 

both immediate and distant. 

I am privileged to be their physician. But my reach as their doctor is typically one child, one family at a time. Your reach spans 

the country. And I urge you to think of our time together in clinic 

as you consider legislation like the new economic stimulus package. 

Temporarily increasing food stamp benefits as part of the package 

would do much to directly help the children I just told you about. 

Other programs that address basic needs that compete with the 

food budget, such as housing, energy and child care assistance, are 

equally vital, particularly in our current economic climate of rising 

food and energy prices. 

No child deserves to be burdened with the consequences of this 

fully preventable condition for the duration of his or her life. And 

no responsible farsighted society should permit the widespread incidence of an economic costly condition like food insecurity that is 

guaranteed to produce a less healthy, less capable and less productive population. I have been impressed by the insightful questions 

you have asked as we saw patients today and we will try to remember to give you all high marks on your rotation evaluation, if 

70

I haven’t gotten so hungry for lunch that my memory is impaired. 

Class dismissed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cutts follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANA B. CUTTS, M.D., FACULTY PHYSICIAN, HENNEPIN

COUNTRY MEDICAL CENTER; ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF

MINNESOTA; PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, CHILDREN’S SENTINEL NUTRITION

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (C–SNAP), MINNEAPOLIS, MN 

Chairman Baca and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. 

Diana Cutts. I am honored to be given the opportunity to share with you my experience as a pediatrician and researcher at Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) 

in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

At HCMC my colleagues and I provide care for a diverse, urban population of children, including a significant immigrant population. I work in both out-patient and 

in-patient settings in a large general teaching hospital, usually supervising a team 

of bright young medical students, interns, and residents. I have special interest in 

pediatric nutritional problems and direct an interdisciplinary team of professionals 

devoted to the care of children who are not growing well. For the past fifteen years, 

I’ve also been involved in research on childhood hunger and I am a Founder and 

Principal Investigator of the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C–

SNAP), a national, multi-site pediatric research program which focuses on the impact of public policies on babies and toddlers under the age of 3 years. 

As I thought about how I could best add to the discussion today, I recognized the 

tremendous expertise and knowledge of those with whom I sit. And I concluded—

with some relief—that I could rely on them to present specific policy information, 

while I could speak about a large part of what I do—take care of patients and teach 

trainees. So—I am going to ask you all to join me on rounds as my team this morning, as I see children. Please place your stethoscopes around your necks, but don’t 

bother with white coats—they only scare the kids. 

Our first patient is Julia, a 13 month old who is seen following her recent 3 day 

hospitalization for dehydration due to a stomach virus. You tell me her blood chemistries were markedly abnormal at admission, but normalized with IV fluids. Looking at the vital signs that the nurse has obtained, we see that she is regaining her 

weight though still underweight. In the exam room she begins to scream the minute 

she sees us, clutching her mother in fear. We examine her over her protests. Mom 

is told to bring her back for her well child visit in a few months. Her howls cease 

only as she is carried out of the clinic. Suddenly, the clinic is a lot quieter. 

Second on our schedule is Terrance, a 4 year old here to complete forms for enrollment in Head Start. He’s a busy pre-schooler, but does not pass the developmental 

screening today. His mother, 5 months pregnant, is also concerned and accepts our 

referral to the public schools for more extensive developmental evaluation. Together 

in the room, we talk with mom and I become concerned about mom’s slightly withdrawn and flat affect. She admits yes, she’s tired, but she’s also a bit depressed. 

We talk about maternal depression and refer mom to mental health resources. As 

we come out of the room, we worry about whether mom has the energy to take care 

of Terrance, the baby, and herself. The smartest among you anticipate that I will 

want to know if you made sure that the family is enrolled in the WIC program. 

As they leave for the lab to get Terrance’s CBC and lead level, one of the C–SNAP 

interviewers approaches me. ‘‘Dr. Cutts,’’ she says, ‘‘I hope it was okay that I gave 

that family two bags of groceries.’’ I explain to you that it is our practice to offer 

a bag of groceries to families who are surveyed for our C–SNAP program, which has 

monitored the rate of household and child food security and other hardships in the 

clinic for the last 10 years. It turns out you have a background in political science 

and you ask me more about our findings. So I explain that although Minnesota is 

known as one of the top-ranking states for most health parameters, the home to a 

large number of international food corporations and a state with an overall state 

food insecurity rate of 8.2%, our hospital’s rates of household food insecurity for 

families with children under three are the highest of any of the five C–SNAP sites—

35% compared to an average of 15% for the Boston, Baltimore, Little Rock, and 

Philadelphia sites. 

The C–SNAP interviewer taps me again. ‘‘Dr. Cutts, I’m worried about that mom. 

She told me that she hasn’t had much food for the last week because she was kicked 

out of her apartment building because the landlord couldn’t pay the mortgage, and 

now she is living with some friends, and her WIC vouchers were lost when they 

moved, and . . .’’ Our morning is unraveling pretty fast—we contact the clinic social 

71

worker and try to get a message to mom in the lab to return to clinic so she can 

meet with him. 

I turn to you to teach—Let’s talk about the implications of food insecurity for her 

pregnancy and that not-yet-born child. Prenatal nutrition is essential to a healthy 

pregnancy, but poor maternal nutrition is associated with greater risk of prematurity, complications of delivery, and low birth weight which increase the likelihood of infant mortality, infant and child health problems, long-term developmental 

delays, and even chronic disease, such as heart disease and diabetes in adulthood. [i] 

In addition, maternal depression is more than 21⁄2 times as likely in food insecure 

households. [ii] Depression impacts parenting in negative ways. We’ve offered mental health and visiting nurse services, we’ve ensured that Terrance and she stay enrolled in WIC, which will help protect his health and growth and her wellbeing [iii]—is there more we should do? 

What about Terrance’s developmental delay? you ask, interrupting my litany.I am 

impressed with your insightful question and will try to remember to give you high 

marks on your rotation evaluation—I tell you that C–SNAP research has shown 

that very young children who live in food insecure households, even those meeting 

the level of only mild food insecurity, are 2⁄3 more likely to be at risk for cognitive, 

motor or socio-emotional problems on screening tests when compared to those living 

in food secure households. [iv] Kindergarteners who are food insecure are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, too. [v] In older school-age children, 

we know that food can make a difference in school performance. Some of the strongest words of support for school breakfast programs have come from the school staff 

who provide time-out supervision for children who are disrupting a classroom. They 

tell us that a dramatic decrease in these behaviors follows institution of breakfast 

programs, in addition to improved school attendance and improved standardized 

test scores. [vi] 

At any rate, it’s probably not a coincidence that this particular child, whose mother described serious food insecurity, failed our screening. Developmental services to 

toddlers and pre-schoolers are the beginning of a societal cost of food insecurity that 

may be carried on into school years and throughout a lifetime of economic and social 

difficulties and diminished potential. [vii] 

Even I’m getting tired of my long-winded responses to your questions now and the 

nurse is getting worried about us being behind schedule. I wisely decide to split you 

all up to send you each into the rooms of the remaining waiting patients. And I sit 

down for a breather. 

I think of the earlier patient we saw:

The little screamer, Julia, her family seemed okay, but I know from my own local 

data that children of color, like Julia, are at highest risk for food insecurity. Poor 

nutrition is an important contributor to the health disparities that are seen in children of color [viii] as well as poor children compared to more privileged children. 

Children from food insecure households are 30% more likely to be hospitalized because of their diminished reserve and vulnerability in the face of typical childhood 

illnesses. [ix] An average pediatric hospitalization for a child under three costs approximately $11,300, [x] so, at least in part, these medical costs are actually another 

societal economic cost of food insecurity. These kids can’t just bounce back because 

their immune systems are depressed from inadequate nutrition and they often begin 

a cycle of weight loss and recurrent infections that then perpetuate each other. I’ll 

have to keep a close eye on Julia’s growth at the next visit. Could Julia’s hospitalization have been avoided if she was living in a more food secure environment? 

Oh, and was she well-insured? Would hospital bills further erode the family’s ability 

to put nutritious food on the table? 

I take a look at the schedule which tells me which patients you are each seeing. 

One of you is doing a follow-up for anemia in 6 month old twins. Young children 

in food insecure households are 21⁄2 times more likely to have iron-deficiency anemia 

as children in food secure households. [xi] And iron deficiency anemia influences 

young children’s brain development in detrimental ways, affecting attention, memory and language and social ability as well as depressing their immune systems. 

Gotta check in with mom about food security and watch their development carefully 

as I see them at future visits. 

Someone else is interviewing Stephanie, a 14 year old whom I’ve known since she 

was 3 years old. She’s struggled with childhood obesity since infancy, really, and her 

last recorded weight was 278 pounds. She began refusing to be weighed 2 years ago, 

so there’s no weight recorded today by the nurse. She’s had surgery to remove her 

tonsils and adenoids because of obstructive sleep apnea, a well-recognized complication of obesity. And she complains of chronic back pain, among other medical complaints. More threatening to her current well-being, her behavior’s become out of 

72

control—she’s sampling every imaginable risky behavior and not attending her alternative school. She’s even admitted to suicidal thoughts. [xii] I recall how C–SNAP 

data obtained from this family years ago revealed the most severe food insecurity 

the interviewer had ever encountered—and our subsequent discussion about the apparent paradox of obesity co-existing with food insecurity due in great part to tight 

food budgets forcing parents to choose low-cost foods, which are mostly high in calories and very poor in nutrition. [xiii] Many years later, we still have a long way 

to go to help people understand this, and to impart the message that a piece of the 

response to the obesity epidemic must be to address food insecurity. 

We end our morning with Brandon, a 5 year old with a cough, and his grandmother. He tells me a knock-knock joke. You tell me he has a history of asthma 

and, in fact, was hospitalized 3 weeks ago for an asthma attack and pneumonia. 

He was in the hospital for 4 days, but his grandmother reports he was okay until 

2 days ago, when his cough re-appeared. I’m surprised when she tells me that he’s 

not on any medicines. She explains to me that the family was not able to afford to 

fill the prescriptions that were given to them at hospital discharge, stating the 

charge to them was well over $100, and that they needed the money for food, the 

gas bill, and rent. We work out a plan to provide the needed medications, and hopefully prevent another hospitalization, while still preserving food security, energy access, and housing. 

It’s time to dismiss you all for your noon conference while I face the chart documentation and a stack of phone messages that I need to get to. 

Do all of my patients’ ills stem from food insecurity? Of course not. But, my reality is that for more than a third of them, food insecurity is a constant companion 

to their health, directly and indirectly influencing it in both immediate and distant 

ways. None of these children, who each came to clinic for a different reason, had 

a placard around their neck or a physical sign identifying them as food insecure. 

They are simply the typical pediatric patients seen daily all over this country in 

medical clinics serving low-income populations. 29 million children in this country 

are considered low-income, nearly 40% of our citizens less than 18 years old. [xiv] 

These are the faces of child hunger in the United States, very different from the 

visibly starved Appalachian babies I saw in LIFE magazine when I was growing up, 

but no less real, no less impactful. Food insecurity in childhood changes the trajectory of young lives in a real and significant way. The quality of our communities 

is impacted, and there are high, and rising, economic costs which we all bear. 

I feel privileged to play a role in creating a healthy and bright future for the children I see at HCMC. But my reach as their doctor is typically one child, one family 

at a time. Your reach spans the country and I urge you to think of our time together 

in clinic and boldly work to create programs and policies that promote healthy and 

bright futures for all children. For example, I know that Congress is considering another economic stimulus package; I encourage you to make a temporarily increased 

food stamp benefit part of the package, as it would do so much to directly help the 

children I’ve just told you about. 

Nutrition assistance programs, such as the Food Stamp Program and WIC, are 

the medicines needed to treat food insecurity and these accompanying illnesses, but 

the programs need to be dosed at levels that cure rather than just diminish the 

problem. The programs are also critical and economically sound investments on the 

health end of the equation, as they provide the physiological building blocks necessary for proper growth, health, development, and learning. Better still would be 

a society in which an adequate, nutritious diet is achievable for every child without 

targeted intervention programs. Until that day comes, preventive efforts are the 

best way to avoid the tangible and long-lasting costs of food insecurity in childhood. 

Other programs that assist low-income families with basic needs that compete with 

the food budget, such as housing, energy, and childcare assistance, are equally vital, 

particularly in our current economic climate of rising food and energy prices. 

No child deserves to be burdened with the consequences of this fully preventable 

condition for the duration of his/her life, and no responsible, far-sighted society 

should permit the widespread incidence of a condition like food insecurity that is 

guaranteed to produce a less healthy, capable, and productive population. 

Class dismissed. 

Thank you. 

Endnotes 

[i] Cook J.T. and Frank D.A. Food Security, Poverty, and Human Development in 

the United States. ANN. N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 2008; xxxx: 1–16. 

[ii] Casey P., Goolsby S., Berkowitz C. et al., Maternal Depression, Changing Public Assistance, Food Security, and Child Health Status. PEDIATRICS. 2004; 

113(2):298–304. 

73

[iii] Black M., Cutts D., Frank D.A. et al., Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Participation and Infants’ Growth 

and Health: A Multisite Surveillance Study. PEDIATRICS 2004: 114(1):169–176. 

[iv] Rose-Jacobs R., Black M., Casey P., et al. Household food insecurity: Associations with at-risk infant and toddler development. PEDIATRICS 2008; 121:65–72. 

[v] Stormer A. and Harrison G.G. Does household food insecurity affect cognitive 

and social development of kindergarteners? California Center for Population Research, University of California-Los Angeles, November 2003. 

[vi] Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning, Fast Break to 

Learning—1999–2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and MEALS FOR LEARNING 2000 Report. 

[vii] Murphy C., Ettinger de Cuba S., Cook, J. et al. Economic Costs of Food Insecurity for Young Children: A Report from the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C–SNAP) and the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). Commissioned by the Partnership for America’s Economic Success and Pew Charitable 

Trusts. Forthcoming October 2008. 

[viii] The Impact of Food Insecurity on the Development of Young Low-Income 

Black and Latino Children; and Protecting the Health and Nutrition of Young Children of Color: The Impact of Nutrition Assistance and Income Support Programs.

Research Findings from the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C–

SNAP); Prepared for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute, May 2006. 

[xi] Cook J.T., Frank D.A., Berkowitz C., et al. Food Insecurity is Associated with 

Adverse Health Outcomes Among Human Infants and Toddlers. JOURNAL OF NUTRI- TION. 2004; 134:1432–1438. 

[x] Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program unpublished data (excluding costs associated with birth), 2007. 

[xi] Skalicky A., Meyers A., Adams W., et al. Child Food Insecurity and Iron Deficiency Anemia in Low-Income Infants and Toddlers in the United States. MATERNAL

AND CHILD HEALTH JOURNAL. 2006;10(2):177–185

[xii] Falkner, N.H. et al. Social, educational, and psychological correlates of weight 

status in adolescents. OBESITY RESEARCH 2001; 9(1):32–42. 

[xiii] Drewnowski, A. and S.E. Specter. Poverty and obesity: The role of energy 

density and energy costs. AM. J. CLIN. NUTR. 2004;79(1):6–16. 

[xiv] National Center for Children in Poverty. Poverty 101. http://www.nccp.org/

faq.html Accessed July 20, 2008.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Next I would like to have Mr. Manalo-LeClair. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MANALO-LECLAIR, SENIOR

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA FOOD POLICY

ADVOCATES, OAKLAND, CA 

Mr. MANALO-LECLAIR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is George Manalo-LeClair, and I 

am with the California Food Policy Advocates. We are a statewide 

organization dedicated to improving access to nutritious and affordable food for low-income Californians. I have come a long way to 

do three things: One, to describe the problem of hunger and food 

insecurity in California, the enormous problem that we have. I also 

want to tell you about how the Food Stamp Program is working to 

address part of that problem. However, it still falls very short in 

reaching a number of households, particularly working households 

in our state. And third, I want to say thank you for recent improvements in the farm bill to address nutrition. But because of our 

struggling state economy, I am going to need to ask for additional 

help. 

So let’s start with the problem of food insecurity in California. 

People are often surprised when I describe the situation because it 

is in stark contrast to the image many people have of the Golden 

State. The problem is real and well documented. Since 2001 the 

University of California Los Angeles has examined the problem of 

food insecurity through the nation’s largest state health instruVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
74

ment, the California Health Interview Survey also known as CHIS. 

My written comments go into greater detail on CHIS and its findings. 

I just want to summarize the findings. As an example, a woman 

I met just a few years ago, she was part of a culinary training program in Silicon Valley, one of the more prosperous parts of our 

state. And though she was working around food all day, money was 

very tight, and at home she didn’t have enough for her and her 

children. So what she would do at meal times is that every dinner 

she would pour herself a big glass of water and drink it, and then 

pour herself another one and drink it. She did this to fool herself 

into feeling full so she wouldn’t be tempted to take food away from 

her children. The CHIS data make it clear that this woman is not 

alone. Over 21⁄2 million adults in California struggle to put food on 

the table. And like this woman in Silicon Valley, many of those 

struggling are surrounded by wealth and food. 

It is ironic that in California the counties with the greatest agricultural production output also have the highest rates of food insecurity. And as this mom knows, hard work is no guarantee against 

hunger. The majority of those experiencing food insecurity in California are working. The combination of high rents and low wages 

leave little resources for food. But while we have seen the consequences that other panelists have noted this morning, we have 

also seen a powerful tool at work, the Food Stamp Program in our 

state. It serves over two million people and brings in over $4 billion 

in economic activity. That does much to address the problems discussed today. 

However, one of the most troubling findings from CHIS is that 

77 percent of those struggling to put food on the table who are likely eligible for food stamps were not getting them. This is consistent 

with USDA’s own estimates of over two million people in California 

not participating in the program and only 35 percent of working 

households are getting these benefits in our state. So given that 

working families make up the majority of those struggling, the 

Food Stamp Program can and must do more. 

Some help is already on the way, thanks to the changes in the 

recently passed farm bill. So I want to extend our thanks to the 

Chairman and Members for their work in this area as California 

stands to be a big winner with these changes. But while we are 

very grateful, we are compelled, given the scope of the problem in 

our state, to ask for additional action. We need action to improve 

access to the Food Stamp Program, to make it more accessible to 

working families. We need action to increase food stamp benefits 

not just to address rising food costs, but also to make the cost of 

the program, the long waits, the paperwork, the trips to the welfare office cost beneficial to participants. 

We also need to extend aid to populations whose participation in 

the program is currently limited, such as legal immigrants and 

childless adults. There are a number of Congressional proposals 

that already exist that would move us in this direction such as the 

Chairman’s Nourish Act and the McGovern-Emerson Feeding 

America’s Families Act, and moving these proposals forward would 

certainly help the situation. But right now things are getting worse 

for our low-income residents. Average gas prices in California are 

75

over $4.51 a gallon. We have seen double-digit increases in basic 

foods like bread and eggs, and demand for emergency food and food 

stamps has increased. 

We have enormous budget shortfall in our state, and we have 

been hit hard by the mortgage and lending crisis, but there is hope. 

Our legislative analysts have demonstrated that the Food Stamp 

Program has broad economic effects on our state. Here is the quick 

version of the analysis. When families get food stamps in California, it frees up resources in their tight budgets to be spent on 

taxable items like clothes and shoes. So our state’s general fund 

benefits as well as local jurisdictions. 

So we are requesting a short-term boost in food stamp benefits 

to help our struggling families and our struggling economy. We are 

pleased to hear that Speaker Pelosi is considering a package that 

includes food stamps in overall economic recovery. We strongly support efforts that help people better afford a basic healthy diet. 

Given the importance of agriculture and the food industry to our 

state’s economy and because of the revenue effect discussed earlier, 

such action would go a long way to helping our families and our 

fiscal situation. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in this 

issue and do hope that help is on the way. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manalo-LeClair follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE MANALO-LECLAIR, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA FOOD POLICY ADVOCATES, OAKLAND, CA 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

My name is George Manalo-LeClair and I am Senior Legislative Director for California Food Policy Advocates. CFPA is a statewide public policy and advocacy organization whose mission is to improve access to nutritious and affordable food for 

low-income Californians. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, as California has much to offer to 

this Committee’s consideration of the short and long term effects of hunger in America.

First, we have undertaken the largest statewide health survey in the country 

and found the problem of food insecurity is enormous in scope and impact.

Second, as our state has sought to address the problem, policymakers have acknowledged and quantified the contribution that Food Stamp Program benefits 

make, not only to families, but also to our state and local economies.

Third, building upon this economic benefit, I’d like to make a request for swift 

action to provide California residents immediate relief in these tough times. 

Food Insecurity in California 

Let’s start with the problem of food insecurity in California. Though California 

has been number one in food and agriculture production in the U.S. for more than 

fifty years, we have millions of people struggling to put food on the table. We know 

this because in 2001, and biennially since, the University of California has conducted a large scale, statewide study, called the California Health Interview Survey 

(CHIS), to assess a broad range of health conditions, including food insecurity. 

CHIS has been a massive and reliable effort. CHIS is the largest state health survey and one of the largest health surveys in the country. Because of its large sample 

size, with over 50,000 households interviewed, it generates statistically significant 

findings for the entire state and for most of our 58 counties. This biennial survey 

is conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles in collaboration with the 

California Department of Public Health, the Department of Health Care Services 

and the Public Health Institute 

UCLA publishes the food insecurity findings every 2 years. I have been a co-author of this research since its inception and have participated in each biennial release. 

At first, the scope of the food-insecurity problem seemed unbelievably large, but 

over time the results have painted a consistent picture. According to the most recent 

76

1 UCLA Food Insecurity Brief, June 2007. http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/publication.asp?pubID=225. 2Shared Tables, Shared Struggles. CFPA. November 2007. http://www.cfpa.net/press/

shared%202007/shared%20tables%20shared%20struggles%202007.pdf. 3The Economic Costs Of Physical Inactivity, Obesity, And Overweight In California Adults,

State Department of Health Care Services http://www.wellnesstaskforce.org/PDF/obese.pdf.

CHIS release in 2007, approximately 2.5 million low-income adults in California 

struggle to put food on the table.1 But this figure doesn’t capture the full extent of 

the problem since this survey measures food insecurity only among adults. We know 

that these adults are not alone in their struggles, and we know that despite their 

best efforts, parents aren’t always able to shield their kids from the consequences 

of hunger and food insecurity. Before I quantify the full dimension of this comprehensive understanding of how food insecurity affects real households, let me give 

you an example of one parent’s attempt to protect her children. 

Several years ago I met a woman who was in a culinary training program in our 

state’s prosperous Silicon Valley. Money was really tight for her and despite working around food all day, she just did not have enough to provide for her family. At 

the dinner table she’d be hungry, but there wasn’t always enough food for her children and for her. So to keep herself from taking food from her children, she’d pour 

herself a big glass of water. And then another. And sometimes another so that she 

would fool herself into feeling full and not be tempted to take food that would otherwise go to the children. 

Not all parents are this successful in shielding their children. Based on the CHIS 

data, more than 7.5 million other people living with these adults also experience 

food insecurity. Given that these households share dinner tables, in many cases they 

must also share in their struggles with food. Understood this way, over nine million 

people in California—perhaps a quarter of the population—are being affected by 

these struggles.2

The wealth of data provided by the CHIS survey presents a surprising snapshot 

of who is hungry in the state:

• In California, hard work is no guarantee against hunger; the majority of households experiencing food insecurity are employed. Low wages and high rents 

mean many working families don’t always have enough resources for food.

• In California, hunger does not discriminate. Food insecurity affects people of 

many races, though Latinos and African-Americans experience it at higher 

rates. Immigrants are among the hardest hit.

• Food insecurity in California also knows no boundaries as it is prevalent in all 

58 counties. But some communities are hit much harder than others. It is ironic 

that the counties with the greatest agricultural production also have the greatest percentage of their population struggling with food.

Families with children are much more likely than families without children to 

struggle to put food on the table in California. 

Consequences of Food Insecurity in California 

It is clear that those lacking consistent access to adequate food suffer profound 

consequences. Other panelists today are going to go into greater detail on the 

health, employment and academic consequences of food insecurity. I’d also like to 

acknowledge the connections we have seen and measured, most notably that children in very low food-insecure households miss more school and do less well academically. And that those adults with food insecurity who experience health problems, such as diabetes and other obesity related conditions, have significantly more 

complications, more hospitalizations and more trips to the emergency room because 

of their food insecurity. One challenging finding is that in California those experiencing food insecurity are more likely to be overweight or obese. The remarkably 

steep price tag of obesity to our state—and the nation—is well documented.3

Addressing the Problem 

The common factor among all of these struggling Californians is a lack of income. 

Policy action to increase wages, to make housing more affordable, and to adequately 

provide supports for the working poor like child care and health care would go a 

very long way to address the problem. 

Short of this, we need a strong nutrition safety net. However, the CHIS data 

make it clear that current efforts are failing to make much progress in providing 

food security for low-income Californians. 

77

4 Reaching those in need. USDA. October 2007. http://www.fns.usda.gov/OANE/MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/Reaching2005.pdf. 5 Comparison of Participation Rates Working vs. Non-Working. CFPA. April 2001. http://

www.cfpa.net/foodstamps/Participation/workpart.pdf. 6State Participation Rates for the Working Poor. USDA. http://www.fns.usda.gov/OANE/

MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/Participation/WorkingPoor2003.pdf. 7LAO Budget Analysis Food Stamp Program. http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysisl2004/

healthlss/hssl20lfoodstampslanl04.htm.

Problems With Food Stamps in California 

One of the most troubling findings of the California Health Interview Survey was 

the severe underutilization of the Food Stamp Program. More than 77 percent of 

those households identified as experiencing food insecurity in California who had 

qualifying incomes were not participating in the program. This means that essential 

help—that Congress put in place precisely for these people in this predicament—

is not getting to those most in need. 

These CHIS findings are consistent with USDA research on food stamp participation in California. California has one of the worst food stamp participation rates in 

the country, and USDA estimates that over two million eligible Californians are not 

receiving food stamps.4 If more Californians were receiving these valuable nutrition 

benefits, the problem of food insecurity discussed earlier would be greatly reduced. 

The average monthly benefit per person in California is now just over $100. With 

rising food costs, this amount falls short of providing families with an adequate diet, 

but it certainly could make a tremendous difference for those not currently participating. Unfortunately, a number of state and Federal rules make it difficult for 

struggling households, especially working families, even to participate. More than 

70 percent of the households eligible for food stamps in California are working 

households.5 According to USDA, California has the worst rate of food stamp participation among working people in the country. Just 35 percent of eligible working 

households in California participate in food stamps.6

When struggling working families don’t get food stamps, it is not just the families 

that miss out but our economy as well. As CFPA’s report Lost Dollars, Empty Plates

points out, poor participation hurts our economy as well. California is passing up 

over $2 billion a year in Federal nutrition benefits. This money would certainly help 

families, but in addition it could generate close to $4 billion annually in economic 

activity. 

Capturing the Economic Benefits of Food Stamps to California 

Policymakers in California are working to improve the reach of food stamps in our 

state. In response to interest from state legislators, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office published a policy brief that has helped capture the economic benefits 

of food stamps to the state.7

The direct benefits of food stamps to families in our state are clear. But our analyst discovered that food stamps can also have economic benefits for our state and 

local economies. Under this analysis, food stamp dollars can lead to increased spending on taxable items. Though food is not taxed in our state and food stamp law prohibits taxes on food stamp purchases, increased food stamp funding nonetheless can 

actually increase state general fund revenues. This is so because when families get 

food stamps there is indeed increased spending on food but, in addition, resources 

are freed up in tight family budgets to be spent on taxable items such as clothes 

and shoes. Under this so-called ‘‘premise,’’ this food stamp infusion generates about 

45% of the value of the food stamps in taxable activity. With a state share of the 

sales tax pegged at 5%, one can see that increased food stamp spending can have 

a significant and positive impact on our state’s strained general fund. And, because 

local communities receive a share of sales tax revenues (and in many cases add on 

to the sales tax), there are significant benefits from increased food stamp participation for local jurisdictions as well. 

While this analysis falls short of the standard of peer-reviewed research, it is 

nonetheless embraced by the legislature, the Schwarzenegger Administration and 

advocates. Recognizing this, this analysis deserves further considerations and the 

Food Stamp Program deserves further investment. If Food Stamp Program participation were maximized in California, our state and counties could realize over $70 

million a year in increased revenues. Given our state’s fiscal crisis, we can use all 

the help we can get. 

78

Taking Action 

Recent Progress 

Some help is already on the way, thanks to changes in the recently passed farm 

bill. We want to thank the Chairman and Members for your efforts to improve food 

stamps. The actions taken will help stop the erosion of food stamp benefits, will provide additional relief for working families with high child care costs, and help remove several disincentives to savings and asset development. 

California stands to be a big winner with these changes. Support for nutrition will 

increase by an estimated $700 million dollars over the next 5 years. More than 

800,000 California residents will feel these benefits. 

While we are very grateful for this new investment, given the scope of the problem we are compelled to ask for additional action. We need to bring benefits to those 

struggling families who aren’t participating in food stamps and we need to improve 

benefits for those that are. California needs a combination of actions which:

1. Simplify the program and improve access for working people who often can’t 

complete program requirements because of work commitments.

2. Increase benefits not only to address rising food costs and to better support 

a healthy diet but also to better offset the ‘costs’ of participating in food stamps 

(long waits, lots of paperwork, many trips to the food stamp office) to families.

3. Extend aid to populations whose participation in food stamps is currently 

limited, such as legal immigrants and childless adults.

Congressional proposals already exist which would continue the progress already 

made by the farm bill and help families meet the demands of rising food prices. 

There are a number of provisions from the Chairman’s ‘‘Nourish Act’’ that were not 

incorporated in the farm bill that would help—most notably a restoration of benefits 

to legal immigrants who are currently denied help. The McGovern-Emerson ‘‘Feeding America’s Families Act’’ has additional provisions, which if enacted would further improve benefits, help vulnerable childless adults, and further support savings 

and asset development. If Congress were to enact the provisions found in these two 

pieces of legislation, the pain of hunger would be lessened in our state. 

A New Opportunity To Help Struggling Families and Our Economy 

We will soon have an updated picture of the problem of food insecurity, as a new 

round of health survey data has been collected for the next CHIS report. Though 

updated, it still won’t capture the most recent impacts of rising food and gas prices 

and other struggles. Our state legislature recently convened hearings on the topic 

and it was clear things were getting worse for low-income residents: Average gas 

prices over $4.51 a gallon. Double digit increases for basic foods like bread and eggs. 

There have been increased demands for emergency food and food stamps. More 

needs to be done. 

Our state economy needs help, too. We have an enormous budget shortfall—currently estimated at more than $15 billion. Unemployment is rising with preliminary 

estimates for June of a 6.9% unemployment rate. And we have been hit hard by 

the mortgage and lending crisis. 

A short-term boost in food stamp benefits could help our struggling families and 

our struggling economy. The annual adjustment in food stamp benefits scheduled 

for October 1st will fall well short of providing what struggling families need for 

a bare-bones diet. Because the data used to calculate these benefit levels is already 

out of date, the new increase—on the day it is delivered—may already be more than 

$40 a month less than what a family of four needs to purchase a minimally adequate diet. Given this forecast, swift action is needed. 

We are pleased to hear that Speaker Pelosi is considering including food stamps 

in an economic recovery package. We strongly support efforts to provide a temporary 

boost in basic food stamp benefit levels to help people afford a basic healthy diet. 

We would welcome the opportunity to help the Committee shape such a package—

its passage would minimize hunger by giving families a boost to meet these rising 

demands. 

We also need this boost to help our state’s struggling economy. 

Given the importance of agriculture and the food industry to our state’s economy, 

such action would go a long way in improving our fiscal situation. We hope that any 

new stimulus package would include this much-needed economic spark. 

Thank you for your consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Next is Mr. Weill. 

79

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WEILL, PRESIDENT, FOOD 

RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WEILL. Good morning. Chairman Baca, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Weill from the Food Research and Action Center. And I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We 

greatly appreciate as well the work you did to produce such an excellent nutrition title in the farm bill. 

The number of people living in households facing food insecurity 

is far too high in this country and it has been growing. It rose from 

31 million in 1999 to more than 35 million in 2006. And the problem has been getting deeper as well as broader. The large majority 

of that numerical growth in that period was in the most severe 

subcategory, very low food security or what USDA used to call food 

insecure with hunger. And almost certainly the problem is considerably worse today than in 2006 as families face declining wages 

and rising food and energy prices. That is why it is important for 

Congress to pass a temporary boost, as has been mentioned, in food 

stamp benefits soon that will not only mitigate the impact of rapid 

food inflation and the worsening economy, but will also provide real 

stimulus. 

Dollar for dollar, there is no better economic stimulus, both conservative and liberal economists have recognized this, there is no 

better economic stimulus expenditure than food stamp benefits because they get into the economy so fast and have multiplier effects. 

But too many families were struggling with hunger before the recent economic problems. So even if and when we get back to the 

situation in 2006, we badly need long-term solutions as well. 

We need solutions because, as the panel has said, hunger and 

food insecurity harm physical, social and cognitive development, 

education, health and mental health and productivity. They contribute to obesity, stress and depression. They increase public and 

private health costs, mental health costs, hospitalization and educational and other costs. And even when parents skip meals to insulate their children from hunger, the parents’ own struggle, their 

stress and depression, ultimately affects the children. 

As Dr. Mark Nord indicated earlier, parents do a great deal to 

protect children against the worst deprivation of food insecurity in 

the household. But the children can suffer considerable harm nonetheless. 

We should be appalled that our society allows all of this to happen. And it is well within our capacity to end hunger. Yet we have 

more than 35 million people in households where members are 

skipping meals, where unhealthy diets are routine because of economic necessity, where children dread weekends because there are 

no school meals and cupboards at home are nearly empty. And 

these problems are interwoven with other national challenges that 

we face. We are going to have to solve the food insecurity problem: 

if we want an effective and cost-effective national health strategy; 

if we want a successful anti-obesity strategy; and if we want to improve schools and student performance. 

Food stamps alone can’t end hunger in this country. We also 

need better wages and stronger programs for economic security. 

And we need stronger child nutrition programs, school meals and 

WIC and summer and after-school food and childcare food. The food 

80

stamps are the critical base of the strategy. The recent farm bill, 

as you know, made some important improvements. Again, we 

thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Subcommittee. But the Food 

Stamp Program, or as it will be known from October 1, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has to be strengthened further. 

First, allotments just aren’t enough to sustain health and wellbeing. Benefits typically run out well before the end of the month. 

The many Members of Congress, journalists, religious leaders and 

others who, over the last 18 months have taken the food stamp 

challenge, trying to live for a week on a typical food stamp allotment, have spoken eloquently to the hardships. Dr. Debbie Frank, 

a C–SNAP colleague of Dr. Cutts, has referred to food stamps as 

the equivalent of a magical medicine or vaccine, but one that we 

provide in a sub-therapeutic dose. We need to make the dose adequate to create and sustain health. 

We also need the program to reach many more low-income people. This means removing some arbitrary barriers. But it also 

means better efforts at all levels of government to connect eligible 

people to benefits. Nationally only 67 percent of those eligible actually receive benefits. And in many places the number is far worse 

because there is too much red tape or too little outreach or state 

and local rules purposefully narrow participation. 

When my organization looked at participation in 24 big cities, the 

estimated rates were as low as 35 percent in San Diego. USDA’s 

study show some states with participation rates as low as 49 percent, and 39 percent for working families. Of course this harms 

low-income people, but it also harms local economies. Every dollar 

of benefits that enter a community produces nearly twice that 

much in economic activity. 

So in sum, the cost of hunger is far too high to continue to tolerate such losses rather than to seize the potential for gains by 

making every American family food secure. There is too much at 

stake, not only in terms of health and early childhood development 

in education, but also productivity, economic growth and community development. And we look forward to working with you to 

make a stronger SNAP program a far more reliable bulwark 

against hunger in this country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weill follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WEILL, PRESIDENT, FOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION

CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Baca and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Weill, President of 

the Food Research and Action Center, and we deeply appreciate the opportunity to 

testify at this important hearing today. 

We greatly appreciate as well the work you did to produce an excellent nutrition 

title in the farm bill over the past 18 months; and we applaud your leadership in 

taking up so quickly the important concern of what remains to be done to address 

hunger in America and its harmful effects. 

Before talking about the effects of hunger on the people of this country, I would 

like to discuss very briefly the extent of hunger and food insecurity. It is, after all, 

only because the problems of hunger and food insecurity are so unnecessarily widespread in our country that the effects are so significant for children and for adults, 

for our nation’s health and educational systems and outcomes, for our nation’s productivity, and for the economy as a whole and our fiscal well-being. 

The latest official poverty data and hunger data from the Census Bureau and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture are for 2006, and they tell us that, even as the econVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
81

* These and other statements can be found at www.realstimulus.org.

omy grew in the early part of this decade, lower-income Americans were receiving 

a shrinking share of the economic pie. Because of inadequate wages and economic 

supports, the number of people living in poverty rose from 31.6 million in 2000 to 

36.5 million in 2006. The number of people living in households facing food insecurity—the government phrase for families without the resources to feed themselves 

enough, or unable for economic reasons to purchase a healthy diet, or otherwise 

struggling with hunger—rose from 31 million in 1999 to 35.5 million in 2006. More 

than 12 million of the people living in food insecure households were children. 

The problem not only has been getting broader, it has been getting deeper: almost 

all of the growth in food insecurity from 1999 to 2006 was in the most severe subcategory, what USDA now calls ‘‘very low food insecurity’’ (and which was known, 

until 2 years ago, as ‘‘food insecure with hunger’’). The number of people in households in this most severe sub-category rose from 7.8 million in 1999 to 11.1 million 

in 2006. 

Almost certainly the numbers are considerably worse today. For much of the last 

year the economic data have been dominated by rising food and energy prices, stagnant or declining wages, and growing unemployment, as well as severe housing 

problems. The food insecurity numbers described earlier were for 2006. There is little doubt that the 2007 data, which will be released in November, will be worse, 

and that the data for 2008, which we will not see released for another 16 months, 

will be worse still. 

There are interventions needed now to mitigate the impacts of wider and deeper 

food insecurity caused by the current inflation and economic downturn. The suffering of families has deepened considerably. For example, the Food Research and 

Action Center estimates that the monthly cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (the food 

stamp market basket) has grown by $40 for a family of four since food stamp benefits were last adjusted for inflation—a huge impact on low-income families that already had inadequate resources to purchase a healthy diet. 

Most important, in the short run, is the need for a temporary boost in food stamp 

benefits. This not only will help low-income families grapple with weak economic 

conditions, including rapidly rising food prices, but also will provide real economic 

stimulus to the nation’s economy. Dollar for dollar there is no better stimulus expenditure than food stamp benefits because they get into the economy so fast: USDA 

and the states can get them quickly onto beneficiaries’ Electronic Benefit Transfer 

cards, and hard-pressed beneficiaries will spend the boost quickly. This has been 

noted in the last 6 months by economists and budget experts ranging from Martin 

Feldstein to Robert Rubin, and from Ben Bernanke to Peter Orszag.* It is essential

that a significant increase in food stamp help be part of any forthcoming economic 

stimulus or economic recovery package. 

But we also must recognize that this nation had intolerably high levels of food 

insecurity before the economic downturn and escalating food price inflation, and will 

have them after economic recovery unless we focus on long-term solutions as well. 

Long-term solutions are essential because the damage from hunger and food insecurity to individuals and families, to schools and the health care system, and to our 

economy as a whole is so great. I am just going to summarize how the harms play 

out, and then focus briefly on a couple of particular points.

• Maternal undernutrition can impair body, organ and cellular growth in the 

fetus; increases the risk of certain birth defects; and contributes to low infant 

birthweight, which is strongly correlated with perinatal and infant mortality.

• Food insecurity among very young children can cause stunted growth, iron deficiency anemia and delayed cognitive development. Cognitive delays then can 

last well beyond the period of nutritional deficiency—the resulting impaired IQ, 

motor skills and coordination can last into the elementary school years and beyond.

• Food insecurity harms children’s physical growth and immune systems, and 

causes weakened resistance to infection. Food insecure children are far more 

likely to be reported in poor health, to catch colds, and to have stomach aches, 

headaches, ear infections and asthma.

• Food insecurity in both early childhood and the school years means that children lag their peers and learn less, and these learning deficits cumulate. 

School-age children who are food insecure are more likely to be absent from 

school, be hyperactive; behave poorly; be held back; do worse on tests; and be 

placed in special education.

82

All of these consequences of hunger and food insecurity result in increased health, 

mental health, hospitalization, educational, juvenile justice and other costs. As just 

one example, among children under age 3, according to one study, those who are 

food insecure are 90 percent more likely to be in poor health and 30 percent more 

likely to require hospitalization. 

For adults as well, there is a broad range of adverse outcomes of food insecurity. 

Some of them carry over from childhood. But food insecurity during the adult years 

independently means lower productivity and, as is true with children, means more 

doctor visits, higher rates of hospitalization and longer hospital stays, and poorer 

health. 

Adult hunger and food insecurity also harm the children in the household. Two 

examples show how not only does hunger harm adults and children, but also how 

children will suffer even when adults bear the brunt and the children have enough 

to eat. One example involves depression, anxiety and stress; the other, overweight 

and obesity. 

Often both of the parents or the single custodial parent in a household do everything they can to protect the children from the direct consequences of food insecurity 

or hunger: the children eat first, and get ‘‘enough’’ to eat (it may be filling but not 

be an adequate, healthy diet because of the resource constraints). But the parents 

are often hungry or skipping meals to protect the children. The resulting stress and 

depression with which food insecurity is associated harm not only the parents but 

the children’s health and mental proficiency. Food insecurity adversely affects parent-child relationships. 

One survey of several thousand mothers of 3 year old children in 18 large cities 

found that mental health problems in mothers and behavioral problems in their preschool-aged children were twice as likely in food insecure households as in food secure households. In discussing their findings, the researchers assert: ‘‘Social policy 

can address food insecurity more directly than it can address many other early-life 

stresses, and doing so can enhance the well-being of mothers and children.’’ 

As to obesity, research has shown that obesity too can be a consequence of food 

insecurity. Obesity among both adults and children means more cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Among adult food insecure women who have children, the reasons for obesity may include the ways in which low-income mothers 

must cope with limited resources for food—sacrificing at times their own nutrition 

in order to protect their children from hunger and lower nutritional quality. Food 

insecurity and poverty may also act as physiological stressors leading to hormonal 

changes that predispose adult women to obesity. 

But there are connections between food insecurity and obesity for children as well. 

Children in food insecure households are more likely to be at risk of overweight or 

to be obese. When children are both born at low birthweight and live in a family 

suffering from food insufficiency, they have a 27.8 times higher chance of being 

overweight or obese at age 41⁄2. 

Finally, we must not forget that food insecurity harms seniors. Food insecure elderly persons have been found to be 2.33 times more likely to report fair or poor 

health status. And food insecurity among elders increases disability, decreases resistance to infection, and extends hospital stays. Moreover, many medications need 

to be taken with food to assure their effectiveness. Too many seniors have to skip 

meals in order to purchase medication, only to see a ‘‘Take with food’’ label on the 

prescription bottle because without food the drug will be less effective. Medically 

this is self-defeating, and, ultimately, costly. And from the patients’ perspective it 

is a cruel ‘‘Catch-22.’’

What all this comes down to is that hunger and food insecurity not only are unnecessary and immoral in our wealthy nation, but they are vastly counter-productive in every important realm. They are a hindrance to our accomplishment of a 

range of essential national goals:

• At a time when the nation is looking for strategies to broaden health insurance 

coverage and improve quality of health care while controlling costs, eliminating 

food insecurity is a necessary part of an effective and cost-effective national 

health strategy.

• As the nation struggles to address its obesity epidemic, establishing food security and assuring that families have resources adequate to purchase a healthy 

diet are essential components of a successful anti-obesity strategy.

• At a time when our scientific knowledge of the critical importance of early childhood development has been growing by leaps and bounds—although our policy 

development is having trouble keeping pace—eliminating food insecurity is a 

prerequisite to the strongest possible early childhood policy.

83

• As the nation struggles with education policy and the reauthorization of the No 

Child Left Behind Act, eliminating food insecurity is a compelling and cost-effective strategy to improve schools and student performance.

• And as we struggle to restore economic growth, boost productivity, improve our 

competitiveness, and keep deficits under control, eliminating food insecurity is 

one important key to improving the nation’s economic and fiscal futures.

It is essential that we address hunger and food insecurity in this nation and 

thereby eliminate the harms they cause. The Food Stamp Program and other Federal nutrition programs have brought the nation a long way; and the recent farm 

bill made some important improvements in the Food Stamp Program. Again, we 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee, for your leadership in accomplishing this. But the Food Stamp Program (or, as it will be known from October 

1st, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) in particular must 

be strengthened further so we can truly move towards eradicating hunger and food 

insecurity in the midst of our great affluence. 

This requires three broad strategies: making benefit allotments adequate; opening 

eligibility to more needy people; and connecting more eligible people with benefits, 

since only 65 percent of currently eligible people, and barely half of eligible low-income working families, participate in the program. 

Food stamps alone can’t end hunger in this country—we also need stronger cash 

programs for economic security (refundable tax credits, unemployment insurance 

and other investments) and stronger child nutrition programs (school meals, WIC, 

summer and after-school food, child care food). But food stamps are the critical base 

of the anti-hunger strategy. 

Let me first address the pre-eminent need—to make benefit allotments more adequate. Food stamps are extraordinarily effective for families, but allotments just 

aren’t enough to sustain health and well-being. It is the norm rather than the exception for a food stamp recipient household’s benefits to run out several days before 

the end of the month—often in the third week of the month. The Thrifty Food Plan, 

which is the underlying structure for the benefit amounts, has never represented 

what a family needs to purchase a minimally adequate diet, other than on an emergency basis. This shortfall of benefits was bad enough before, but it has been exacerbated by program changes in the 1980s and 1990s that, through several negative 

actions, cut benefits. (One 1996 change, freezing the standard deduction from income, was fixed prospectively by this year’s farm bill; but much of the damage that 

the 1996 law and earlier changes have caused to benefit levels remains unremedied. 

As just two examples: benefits used to be adjusted for inflation twice a year, but 

now it is only once a year, which is particularly damaging in times of high inflation; 

and maximum benefit allotments were cut across the board by three percent in 

1996.) 

As this nation seeks to reduce the effects of hunger and food insecurity, adequate 

food stamp allotments are essential. SNAP benefits should be based on a food plan 

that reflects what it actually costs to feed a family a healthy diet, and the income 

counting rules that determine what share of a full allotment a family gets should 

be based in current economic realities. 

The nation will need as well to have the program reach more low-income people. 

This means removing some arbitrary barriers to access for very needy people that 

are still in Federal law. But it also means better efforts, at all levels of government, 

to connect already eligible people to benefits. 

Only 65 percent of eligible people actually receive food stamp benefits. In many 

states, cities, towns and rural areas the number is far worse, because there is too 

much red tape, or too little outreach, or state and local rules narrow and discourage 

participation. Last autumn the Food Research and Action Center released a report 

on Food Stamp Access in Urban America. That analysis found that in 2007, in the 

24 cities we looked at, the estimated rates of participation ranged from a low of 35 

percent in San Diego, California to 98 percent in Detroit (Wayne County), Michigan. 

Three of the cities and counties with the lowest rates were in California—San Diego, 

Los Angeles, and Oakland (Alameda County). 

When states or cities, or any areas, forego food stamp benefits, it harms low-income people. But it also harms local economies. USDA has found that every dollar 

of food stamp benefits, paid for by the Federal Government, that enters a community produces nearly twice that much in economic activity. In other words, there is 

nearly a 2:1 multiplier effect. The food stamp benefits not only, therefore, reduce 

hunger and poverty, but they create jobs and other economic benefits that further 

combat hunger and poverty and boost the community economy. 

84

But states and cities are foregoing many billions of these dollars. Our 24 city study, for example, found that the cities were leaving $2.27 billion in federally-funded food stamp benefits unclaimed. 

The cost of hunger and food insecurity to individuals, families, communities and 

the nation is far too high to continue to tolerate these and other losses. It is too 

high a cost in terms of health, education, productivity, mental health, economic 

growth, and community development. It is within this nation’s capacity to end hunger and food insecurity. We look forward to working together with the Members of 

the Subcommittee to make a stronger, more adequate and more accessible SNAP 

program a far more reliable bulwark against hunger in America.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weill. And I want to 

thank all of the panelists for their statements. 

At this time, we will entertain questions from all of us, and I will 

begin myself and then call on Mr. Boustany and then Mr. Kagen 

to ask some questions as well. And my first question is for Dr. 

Nord. Could you please clarify the difference between food insecurity and hunger in terms of the gathered data? 

Dr. NORD. Can you repeat the question? I am not quite sure I 

understood. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you please clarify the difference between 

food insecurity and hunger in terms of the gathered data. 

Dr. NORD. The data that we collect in the current population survey, which is our national annual survey, asks questions about economic access to food. So it really is directly a measure of that, of 

what we call food security, of whether households can afford 

enough food. We do not ask the kind of questions about physiological symptoms, about stomach pain or weakness or those kind 

of symptoms that you might want if that is the type—the kind of 

notion of hunger that you were trying to measure. 

So what we are measuring currently is economic access to 

enough food. This is the context in which hunger may occur, but 

we don’t measure directly whether hunger ensues from those conditions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Brown the Sodexho study estimates that limited education and workforce productivity costs Americans about $9.2 billion annually. Could you explain the statistics in more detail? 

Dr. BROWN. I will, Mr. Chairman. But I would like to do that by 

deferring to Dr. Shepard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Dr. SHEPARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The way we 

did that was to look at the increased rate of absenteeism and of 

repeating a grade in school, which were higher for people that were 

food insecure: 1.66 times the rate of absenteeism and 1.44 times 

the rate of missing a grade. Other literature, in turn, showed that 

those are related to a higher risk of then dropping out of school. 

And we related that to the economic loss when somebody drops out 

of school and has, over the entire rest of their life, has lower lifetime productivity. So linking those together gave us the $9.2 billion 

of cost. It is very likely conservative but that is what the available 

literature allowed, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me follow up on one of the things that you 

mentioned and about which we are very much concerned. As we try 

to address the dropout rate and the impact it is having on us—and 

a lot of times—what affects then in numbers do we have of the effects of hunger on the dropout rate too, as well as we begin to adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
85

dress it? We know that there are a lot of problems that cause dropout rates. But to what extent then does hunger impact the dropout 

rate that we have? Because we have a high number right now. 

Dr. SHEPARD. We couldn’t—as my colleague Dr. Brown indicated, 

we searched literature for consequences of hunger. And we couldn’t 

find a study that directly linked hunger or food insecurity with 

dropouts in one single study. So the available literature allowed us 

to look at it through this two-step process of first finding that the 

two factors I mentioned of missed days and repeating grades were 

associated with hunger. And then other literature, in fact, showed 

that those studies—that those two factors were then related to 

dropouts. And so it certainly occurs and would welcome further—

literature would further link directly the available literature that 

showed it indirectly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. And then the other effects that it does 

have too as well is that hunger—is No Child Left Behind, definitely 

has an impact on a lot of our teachers now that are required to 

make sure that they are meeting the standards, to leave no child 

behind. But yet at the same time consideration is not given to the 

child that is undernourished or based on hunger too that impacts 

not only that child’s learning ability but also you know the attendance as it was mentioned before. Could you elaborate a little bit 

more? And what effects does it really have on No Child Left Behind? 

Dr. BROWN. I can tell you what effects it has on education and 

then you can extrapolate from that the No Child Left Behind, Mr. 

Chairman. This is going to sound crass. But we can easily take a 

child who is well nourished and doing well in school, manipulate 

her dietary intake and easily impact the next day her ability, or 

I should say her inability to participate in the educational process 

through the processes that I described about body triage of dietary 

energy that I mentioned earlier. 

In other words, simply missing a breakfast, one meal can have 

a serious impact on a child’s ability to learn. A child, as you know 

from your own children, doesn’t eat three meals a day. They graze 

pretty much all day long. And this is because children have small 

livers, and they store dietary energy in the form of glycogen, and 

they have to continually replenish their energy supply. And so the 

educational process for children is very susceptible or very dependent on an adequate supply of nutrient energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The next question that I have is for 

Dr. Shepard. Do the numbers that you use for food banks and local 

feeding programs as charitable contributions include the Federal 

funds? 

Dr. SHEPARD. No. Dr. Brown also worked on that. But it was the 

private fund, private charitable funds that amounted to $14 billion. 

So the Federal direct support we didn’t—it is part of the solution. 

We didn’t consider that part of the consequence in this analysis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Cutts, thank you for your 

insight and your moving testimony. And as a pediatrician who 

works directly with children and families who suffer from hungerrelated issues you are in an unique position to comment on human 

impact and hunger in America. In your opinion, what is the most 

86

important thing that the government can do to end childhood hunger in America? 

Dr. CUTTS. Big question. You know, I think the theme that I am 

hearing as I sit here very much is how the vital importance of food 

stamps—and I would agree with that, it is the number one hunger 

relief program in this country. And as I see the issue of access, I 

am very concerned as I hear your concern. 

I think especially as we see such disparities in hunger, I think 

we see great disparity in the way people access the program. And 

that is something that deserves a lot more attention. I, for example, am particularly concerned about the large immigrant population that I see who are children of immigrants and U.S. citizens, 

96 percent of them, who access this program at very low rates, 

mainly due to fear. I am concerned about rural populations, who 

I believe access at lower rates due to stigma and the fact that they 

cannot remain anonymous in their community as they access this 

assistance program. 

So I think one of the highest priorities would be to take a look 

at this vital program, the number one assistance program and to 

really scrutinize what is the issue about access and utilization. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. Mr. LeClair, as a Member of 

the California Delegation in Congress, your testimony is very relevant to me and all of my constituents in the 43rd Congressional 

District. In particular, the statistics that California is missing out 

on an additional $4 billion in economic activities annually because 

of the low food stamp participation rate, are staggering. Earlier 

this year I wrote Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger, urging him to 

invest more on state funds and food stamps outreach enrollment efforts because we want to be cost effective. 

As we look at the needs, and all of you have indicated that there is a need for an additional $12 billion, probably even going higher, 

but at the same time we would like to do that. But we also want 

to be cost effective in saying, are we really utilizing food stamps? 

We just don’t want to just put in dollars, and we know that there 

is a need out there, but it is not being utilized effectively. And that 

is part of the problem that we have. 

So from your perspective, what steps should we improve for food 

stamp participation to make sure that we do do the outreach that 

needs to be done and that people are aware that there is a service 

for them as well? And I know that we changed the index too, as 

well, to allow more people to be eligible in this food stamp bill than 

in the previous ones. And then, of course, the eligibility that becomes a problem, too, as well. Who is actually eligible and to what 

extent can those individuals apply? So can you please reply? 

Mr. MANALO-LECLAIR. Sure. I think we take a number of steps 

with regard to outreach to let, particularly, the working poor know 

that they are eligible. Many people are under the misconception 

that if you work, you can’t get food stamps. We need to start there. 

But that goes along with some efforts to actually make the program work better and become more accessible for people who are 

employed particularly during the hours of 9 to 5. Just a quick 

story, I was outside a food stamp office in Sacramento, and it was 

around 9 a.m. and a gentleman ran by me, nearly knocked me 

over. I asked him what the hurry was. He said, ‘‘He had to get to 

87

work.’’ What he had tried to do is go to the food stamp office at 

7:30 a.m. that morning and get through the process before 9 a.m. 

so that he could get on the job. I said, ‘‘Is it okay for you to be 

late?’’ He said, ‘‘No. My boss is cool but not that cool.’’ I think it 

is a good example of how the Food Stamp Program can be—here 

in Congress you can take some steps to make it easier for people 

who can’t jeopardize their employment to complete the process. 

At the same time, we need to do a better job locally of making 

sure that, particularly, the working poor knows that the program 

is there and it provides substantial benefits. I think that is one of 

the things that families need to know more about in terms of what 

they can do to get help to support a healthy diet. And one of the 

things Congress can do is help make those benefits more substantial because working families do a bit of math in their head when 

they consider participation in the Food Stamp Program. 

If it takes an average of 5 hours and three trips to the food stamp office, and the perception is, you are only going to get $10 

or $20 in benefits, families recognize that they don’t want to take 

those risks and jeopardize their employment. 

So, improving access and increasing the benefits to make them 

more substantial, I think those kinds of steps would help really 

reach that working poor population that is struggling in our states. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I think we can increase and 

look at access, but yet how do we market it, and what kind of a 

plan needs to be done, and what kind of collaboration can we do 

with both the Federal, the state and the local entities in informing 

people that they are eligible for food stamps? 

And that is part of the problem. And that is what we see as legislators out here saying, ‘‘Well, we would like to increase the funding, we see there is a need, but if it is underutilized, then we have 

X number of dollars that come back year after year after year because they are not being utilized by people that need it.’’ And when 

we look at your statistics that come out and it says, okay, there is 

a high number of people that are going hungry in the United 

States, yet we have not done a good job in marketing. And that is 

what we need to do, is to make sure that we work together with 

all entities, and that includes our local churches and other organizations within the community, about the eligibility. 

And then changing the stigma, because I think the stigma of food 

stamps also—you know, it is very difficult. Because I received food 

stamps, and the stigma itself—it is like—I don’t want to be labeled 

as a person that was receiving food stamps during that period of 

time. And I am glad that we have debit cards now at least to 

change part of it. It at least has a little integrity for someone that 

says, all right, I am on food stamps. But as you said, you described 

a particular individual that went to apply for food stamps and then 

had to rush back to work. 

And then somebody mentioned about the paperwork and the bureaucracy that is there. That also needs to be addressed and expedited. But at the same time, we also want to make sure that people 

are eligible and not fraudulently just applying as well, because we 

care about that in part of the concerns. 

Thank you. 

The next question, I guess I will turn it over to Mr. Boustany. 

88

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Nord, you gave us some statistics at the outset of your testimony. And nearly 11 percent were deemed food-insecure. Do we 

have more of a breakdown, rural versus urban, elderly, without 

transportation? Is there information available there? 

Dr. NORD. We do publish a breakdown by a number of demographic and economic categories. We have, for example, metropolitan-nonmetropolitan. 

Household structure is a fairly important factor. For example, 

single women with children have a rate of food insecurity around—

I am just looking here—30 percent compared to a national average 

of 11. So household structure matters. Income, of course, we would 

expect that. So the rates for households with incomes below the 

poverty line are around 30, 33 percent. 

We publish information for metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan 

areas, which is kind of a proxy for rural. There is not a great deal 

of difference there. There is a little bit more hardship in the more 

urban core areas and in the most rural areas. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Right. 

Dr. NORD. But the differences are not stark. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Well, the reason I raise that is because, if we are 

going to really try to target strategies dealing with this, we need 

to know what populations we are dealing with. Because one strategy perhaps for, say, urban Chicago is going to be different from 

rural Arkansas. And so I think it is really important to try to focus 

down and take that 11 percent, 10.6 percent number that we have 

and really try to get those different groups, so we can target strategies. 

Mr. Carlson, from your standpoint, clearly we have increased 

funding for the program in the farm bill. But I know it is difficult 

for the Department here in Washington to make recommendations 

that would apply state by state, community by community. But I 

think one thing you could do would be to give us information on 

what kind of metrics should we be looking at and asking the states 

to provide to help us kind of focus in on these kind of individual 

strategies. 

Should the states be reporting information on steps to improve 

efficiency in the program, outreach and those kinds of things? Are 

we getting reporting data currently? 

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, sir, there is a significant amount of information available about both what states are doing and what they are 

achieving. We report every year on the rate of participation among 

people who are eligible for food stamp benefits by state. We have 

an annual report on the characteristics of the people who are receiving food stamp benefits. 

Many states have engaged in a variety of outreach activities to 

try to reach those who are eligible for those benefits, supported in 

many ways by the Federal Government itself. We are in the fifth 

year of a national media campaign to inform people about the 

availability and benefits of the Food Stamp Program. There are numerous flyers, brochures and other information out there. There is 

a toll-free hotline number. We have put out almost $13 million in 

grants to states and communities to help them improve access. 

89

So there is a significant effort underway and a significant 

amount of information about what is being achieved. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And clearly that is a big effort, but it is still not 

reaching far enough, because when a state like California claims 

that we have access—now, I don’t want to cast blame on the Department, because I don’t think the Department can do this alone. 

I think it has to be a top-down and a bottom-up effort. And I want 

to get into this aspect of it. 

But is the Department sharing best practices and information in 

that regard? Is this information that you are collecting, is it being 

used in a very thoughtful way to provide guidance to the states? 

Mr. CARLSON. We believe it is, sir. The agency has created an 

outreach coalition, consisting of partners here in Washington and 

across the country. Our regions work very closely with states 

across the country to ensure that information on best practices is 

available. 

And I would point out, if I may, that we agree wholeheartedly 

that more can be done and that more needs to be achieved. But in 

talking about the fact that only 2⁄3 of all the people who are eligible 

for benefits receive them, it is also important to understand that 

about 80 percent of the benefits that we could pay out if everyone 

who was eligible was participating in fact are being paid out. 

So we are doing a pretty good job. We, in partnership with the 

states and communities across the country, are doing a pretty good 

job of reaching those who are in greatest need. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you for your answer. 

Dr. Brown, in your testimony you spoke about we could come 

close to seriously ending this problem if we strengthen nutrition 

programs and, particularly, invested $10 billion to $12 billion more 

over current spending. We have taken that step in the farm bill, a little over $10 billion. 

But clearly, with today’s inflation, energy costs, everything else, 

that number is going to be higher. So, in a sense, we are chasing 

this on the expenditures, but it seems to me we still have a lot of 

inefficiencies. As we heard from the State of California, that even 

though the program is there, many folks aren’t accessing it. 

What else do you recommend besides the additional investment 

of dollars? 

Dr. BROWN. I actually have been sitting here impressed with the 

demeanor of each of you, your bipartisanship, your clear concern 

about the problem, both physicians and non-physicians and pretend 

physicians up there—or honorary ones, I should say, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that clarification. 

Dr. BROWN. So with the great respect that I have for you, and 

seeing you and hearing you, I want to say in response to that question that sometimes I think we make problems more difficult than 

they actually are. 

Other industrialized nations have virtually eradicated hunger. 

The percentage of hunger that we have in our nation, hunger, food 

insecurity, is excessively high compared to other western democracies. If we were hearing that our military members were going 

hungry, we would figure out a way to fix that in about a week. 

90

And they are not going hungry, except when they come back. We 

now are seeing soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan 

who are appearing in soup kitchens and food pantries across the 

country. That is a parenthetical statement. 

We do know how to fix problems, and we can end hunger in 

America, as other nations have done. 

The low participation rate, in my view, is not one of the bigger 

problems. And I will explain why. I am not saying it is not a problem at all, as you are suggesting. We want everybody who is needy 

and eligible to receive assistance. So let’s just stipulate to that. But 

we can increase the low participation rate, if we do several things. 

Many elders will tell you that they will not bother applying for 

food stamps because of the limited minimum level or the bureaucratic hassles that they have to go through—having to come out of 

their homes, going to the office, and so on. Similarly, a lot of families get knocked off through what we in the social science community euphemistically refer to as ‘‘bureaucratic terrorism.’’ That is, 

if you call somebody back to the office enough times, you are asking 

them for such ridiculous amounts of detailed information or they 

have to take off work to come back, they are not going to be on the 

program. 

So, recognizing that what you are raising about the low participation levels is a legitimate thing to raise, I think that is not the 

main thing to raise. The main thing to raise are the minimum levels, figuring out ways that we can ease the bureaucratic requirements, while still maintaining the economic, financial integrity of 

the program and providing food stamps at a level sufficient enough 

to help people have enough to eat throughout the month. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. And the figures you gave us, the $10 billion to 

$12 billion over current spending, would that cover those bureaucratic changes? Or do you think it is going to take—I mean, you 

gave us the $10 billion to $12 billion. Let’s accept it is going to be 

a little higher because of inflation, fuel costs and everything else. 

Dr. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. That figure that you are basically citing, does 

that cover all these bureaucratic changes, or is it going to take 

more beyond that? 

Dr. BROWN. No, no. By the way, this figure came from the national anti-hunger organizations, including Mr. Weill’s organization 

and about 10 other national hunger organizations, Bread for the 

World and so on. 

We were simply looking at the system as it is and saying, what 

degree of further input—and all of that is not food stamps, but the 

bulk of it is—what degree of further input or expansion of existing 

programs could virtually eliminate hunger in the nation? And we 

came up with that figure. 

But if we do that, we also ought to take the steps that you keep 

asking questions about, about increasing the participation rate. So 

I don’t mean to minimize it. I am simply saying that is not the biggest issue. 

Mr. Carlson said, for example, that they are serving about 80 

percent of the need there. As a rule of thumb, that is fairly high 

for a Federal program, because you are always going to have some 

people who don’t want the program, who are moving, whatever. So 

91

for the WIC program, for example, it is a bit over that now, but 

everybody is pretty satisfied that we have high participation in the 

WIC program. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I appreciate your thoughtful answer. 

Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, if I could. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Dr. Cutts, you spoke on what you and your colleagues are doing at the medical center to help families learn about 

and begin participating in the Food Stamp Program. 

Tell us in more detail about what steps are being taken at the 

ground level in a hospital such as yours to really educate families 

on all these programs, whether it is the Food Stamp Program or 

WIC or other local programs. 

I mean, for instance, in my hometown we have a food bank. We 

also have a program called Meals on Wheels that takes care of the 

elderly that cannot get out. 

Do you have a formalized program in the hospital, an outreach 

program? 

Dr. CUTTS. Let me try and answer your question. 

In terms of the children, the young children who we survey for 

C–SNAP, part of that process with every family is to offer resources. And as that project was conceptualized, it was important 

to us that we not, as a colleague might say, ‘‘We don’t cure a fever 

by taking a temperature.’’ We are not just collecting data; we are 

doing an intervention at the time that the data is collected. 

So for that population, through the research we are doing an 

intervention. I think in the broader scale at this institution, it is 

a much harder question to answer. HCMC is a county-supported 

hospital. And like most county hospitals, which are dwindling, as 

you know, in number, the finances of that equation are extremely 

tenuous. Our social work staff has been cut and cut and cut. And 

I know I am not telling you something you wouldn’t be aware of. 

So I would ask you, whose responsibility and where does that 

funding come from to do what needs to be done to do an intervention such as the one you propose? It is a real concern. And I think 

it is going to take time, it is going to take money. And I think there 

are some ideas about how it could be done, and been trialed in various situations, that would be lovely to see funding to do locally. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I have a question for Mr. Weill. 

Since you are familiar with our budget challenges, as well as the 

new changes in nutrition policies we passed in the farm bill, could 

you comment on how much more funding do you think Congress 

should legislate? And then specifically, any additional funding that 

would be a PAYGO problem that would get scored for it? And if so, 

could you get 90 percent participation? Wouldn’t that cover a large 

portion of the remaining needs? 

Mr. WEILL. Well, I hope you are not asking me to describe in detail where the money is going to come from. 

I will say that the short-term stimulus that I and others on the 

panel talked about presumably wouldn’t be subject to PAYGO 

rules. In the long term, we need to invest what is needed to address this problem. Dr. Brown has given you an approximate figVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
92

ure. And I think that if we invested that much money, it would 

have a profound effect on the food-insecurity rates in this country, 

on the hunger rates, and a profound positive effect on schooling 

and health and health-care costs and so on. 

And so I think we are all agreed that the two most essential 

things to be done are to increase benefits across the board to more 

adequate levels for all beneficiaries in the program, as well as increasing the minimum benefit again—and we appreciate that the 

Committee did that in the farm bill, and that is an incredibly important step forward—and to improve access and get participation 

rates up around 90 percent, which, as indicated, as you know, is 

close to the best one can do in these programs. If that costs in the neighborhood of $10 billion to $15 billion a 

year and PAYGO rules are still in effect next year, there are many 

places, obviously, to find that money. I would point out that the 

program spends a considerably smaller portion of the Federal budget or of the gross domestic product than it did 20 years ago, before 

there were some program cuts in the 1980s and 1990s—or maybe 

30 years ago—before there were program cuts, before other changes 

reduced spending on the program as a share of the economy as a 

whole. 

So we are talking about, in a sense, restoring strength to the program and restoring the program as a spending mechanism as a 

share of the economy to where it was a while ago, not adding vast 

new sums that this country has never spent before or contemplated 

before. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And one final question, and I am going to throw it open to any 

one of you that would like to answer the question or try to attempt 

to answer the question. 

As we look at the need for food stamps and benefits and access 

to it, and we have explored some ideas, and trying to be cost-effective, too, at the same time, and allowing individuals to participate, 

and knowing the responsibility of the Federal and knowing the responsibility of the state and local communities and others. I know 

that there is a cost factor here, but have we ever utilized mobile 

social workers when we talk about seniors and others that are not 

even applying for food stamps that can go to their location instead 

of someone having to go to a county agency to apply for food 

stamps? 

Have we tried that both at the Federal or state, utilizing mobile 

units that can go out there with social workers to try to get people 

that are eligible to apply for food stamps, since we have a high 

number of people that are going hungry? 

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there have been a number of efforts in that direction. The one that comes immediately to 

mind, perhaps not exactly what you are describing, but a program 

in the State of Michigan known as MI CAFE, where workers are 

periodically outstationed in senior centers, elderly housing and so 

forth, places outside of the normal welfare office where people 

work, live and play. 

I think what we learned from much of that experience is that it 

can be effective. It can also be relatively inexpensive. And it really 

reinforces the notion that, in many instances, having information 

93

about potential eligibility and benefits is not enough, that many of 

these populations require more intensive, hands-on assistance in 

order to understand what the program rules and requirements are, 

in order to obtain the benefits they are entitled to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Would anybody else like to——

Mr. MANALO-LECLAIR. Yes, I would also like to mention a promising strategy in California, and it also goes back to address some 

of the earlier topics of stigma in the program. 

In California, both in the Central Valley and in Los Angeles, 

there have been mobile units that have gone to community health 

clinics, where people are receiving services, but also there has been 

tremendous efforts to enroll people in various health care programs 

such as our State Children’s Health Program as well as Medicaid. 

And with this effort, it works very well in terms of going to 

where needy people are, but it also helps remove the stigma, because food stamps, if they are seen more as a health program, the 

working poor is more receptive to it. 

And so, this is clearly an outreach strategy, but one of the other 

things I mentioned earlier is the need for improved access. If we 

can do more work, both at these mobile locations but throughout 

the state, of connecting people who do get health care services so 

that food stamps become sort of add-on, a nutrition benefit that 

supports the health investment that we are making through programs like Medicaid. If we can do more to align those programs 

and connect them, I think we could do a much better job of removing stigma, reaching those working people who are struggling in 

our state. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Weill? 

Mr. WEILL. There is more and more outreach and prescreening 

being done by food banks, by anti-hunger advocates in the community, in public housing, by health providers, by earned income tax 

credit organizations. So a lot of prescreening is being done that 

tells people whether they are probably eligible or not, and roughly 

for how much. 

And what has been found is that when people learn how much 

they would be eligible for—when they don’t know, they tend to estimate low. When they find out how much they would be eligible for, 

even though it is not adequate, it surprises them on the high side, 

and they are more likely to apply. And then the actual processing 

is done by state employees. 

I would just add, there is an interesting model in New Orleans, 

in Louisiana, at Kingsley House, a program called Walkers and 

Talkers, that goes door to door doing both Medicaid and SCHIP 

outreach and food stamp outreach that has been very, very successful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Shepard? 

Dr. SHEPARD. Yes, there has also been interesting work with 

other behaviors that are stigmatized that might be useful here, 

with people who have drug or alcohol problems, where there is a 

similar goal of trying to engage them in treatment. An approach 

that has been very promising there is called response-driven samVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jul 24, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-42\51220.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
94

pling, in which members of that community recruit their own 

friends and colleagues and, in some programs, get incentives. So 

perhaps a person might get a bag of groceries for bringing in somebody else who proves to be eligible for this program. 

So a model like that might provide double duty of both being a 

relatively inexpensive way of bringing people in, because you are 

not paying them except when they are successful, as well as providing some additional help to members of this community for 

doing this extra service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And one final question—I am going to call on Mr. Boustany—is 

we have increased on the farm bill and allowed veterans and our 

military personnel now—and maybe statistics that would tell us 

how many of our military personnel are actually utilizing food 

stamps. And hopefully that we can do a study there, too, as well, 

to see if it is cost-effective, are they utilizing it, and to what extent 

are the military personnel utilizing food stamps that they are eligible for? 

Are there any numbers that have been done at this point in reference to the military? 

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, the information we have in answer 

to that question is relatively old, but the Department of Defense 

has done periodic examinations of military personnel and their utilization of food stamps. My recollection is, the last time they looked 

at this, they estimated roughly 10,000 to 12,000 service members 

qualified for and received food stamp benefits. 

That was a number of years ago, so the situation may have 

changed. But I don’t believe we have more current information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Weill, did you want to——

Mr. WEILL. We did an estimate of the number of veterans who 

received benefits about a year ago, and I am trying to remember 

exactly what it was. It was well in excess of a hundred thousand 

at any given time. We will provide that to the Committee, because 

I don’t trust my memory on the exact number. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. 

Mr. Boustany? 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few more questions, and then perhaps a comment. 

A couple of you just made note of some best practices that are 

very useful and interesting. And that is, how do you bring a service 

closest to the person or family in need? And that is more of what 

we need to get from you, so that we can share that type of information. 

I recently partnered with our State Secretary of Health and Hospitals back home in my Congressional district to hold SCHIP enrollment programs. And we got the press to participate so that the 

impact was outside the room, as well, and urged businesses, 

schools, churches to get the word out. And it has been very successful. And I intend to hold one in each of the parishes—we have parishes in Louisiana instead of counties—I am going to hold one in 

each of my parishes. The two have been very successful so far. 

I think you rightly point out the linkage between nutrition, 

health care, education and workforce. These are linked. And one of 

95

the things I have tried doing in my hometown, and I want to expand this effort, is to get all the nonprofits together and ask them 

to coordinate their efforts. Because a lot of them are duplicating efforts and actually spending money in duplicative ways, whereas I 

think, if they coordinated efforts, you can leverage what you have. 

And, actually, the byproduct of that is greater than the sum of the 

parts. And that is something that perhaps might work in different 

communities and states. 

I guess the final challenge is, how do we structure a layered safety net? Because today we have focused on the Federal program, but 

how do we bring these nonprofits into the equation, our churches 

into the equation, to make sure that we do have a structured safety 

net so that perhaps no family goes hungry? That may be the mechanism by which we get beyond that 80 percent participation and 

get close to 100 percent participation. 

So if anyone wants to comment on any of those. I guess it is really not a question, but I just wanted to throw that out. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Brown? 

Dr. BROWN. Congressman, I am glad that you raised those 

points, in particular the last point. Because I have often heard, in 

talking with Members and also various Administrations—and because I go back a while, I am talking about Democratic and Republican Administrations—and I have heard people talk about the public-private initiative to reduce hunger in the nation. And I think 

that it is important to remember that, while we do need that public-private initiative and the type of activities that you have just 

suggested and other Members have suggested in terms of outreach 

and pulling people in and so on, that our goal is not to create more 

and more charity in America. It is to have a nation where we need 

very little charity at all. 

We don’t want to become or continue to be a nation of soup kitchens and food banks. That is not really America. That is not what 

our aspirations are all about. 

And while it is much more productive in terms of nutrient efficiency to feed people through food stamps, and also does a lot more 

for their own integrity, our goal isn’t even to have a nation where 

we have more and more people on food stamps. 

We want to have a nation where people can be independent, selfsufficient and feed themselves in their own homes from money that 

they earn in the marketplace. That is the long-term goal. 

But the first thing we ought to do is to have a vision of our society where we don’t have this enormous charitable sector, because 

we have expanded programs, they reach people adequately. And 

then we can begin working on those economic issues that pertain 

to employment and wages and so on, so that we can start decreasing the food stamp roles as well. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. But, Dr. Brown, I am deeply troubled by the fact 

that we have 35 million Americans who—we really haven’t made 

a dent in that. It seems to be a constant and slightly growing figure. 

And so I would submit that we have to look at all the possible 

tools available. And this great country has a strong tradition of 

charitable giving. So I wouldn’t just shove it aside. I think it is an 

important component. And I do think it helps to get beyond the 

96

stigma question that most of you have pointed out that is a barrier 

to the Federal program working. 

So I am just simply saying that we have to have—we ought to 

make use of a coordinated, layered effort to reduce hunger. Because 

that is ultimately the goal. And one way or another, somebody is 

paying for it, whether it is the taxpayer or charitable contributions. 

To my mind, as long as we are taking care of the problem and 

doing it as efficiently as possible, I think that is my measure of 

success. 

Dr. BROWN. Yes. Congressman, the last thing that I want to do 

is get rid of that charitable sector right now, because these are the 

people who literally have their fingers in the dike. I am saying, but 

what is our longer-term vision, a decade or 2 down the road? 

Speaking of stigma, I can tell you that one of the worst things 

is to watch a family take their children into a soup kitchen to feed 

them. I mean, think how dehumanizing that would be for any of 

us to have to do that. They are grateful for the food, they are very 

grateful for the food, but it feels awful to have to go into facilities 

like that. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. No, I have been in soup kitchens, and I understand that. And, of course, my time at the Charity Hospital in New 

Orleans, where we treated the poorest of the poor, gave me plenty 

of experience with the difficulties we had with postoperative patients who we discharge and there is nothing out there to provide 

for them. So I am very, very sympathetic to all this. And, ultimately, what we want to do is to try to take care of the problem. 

And I guess the bottom line is I am disturbed by this 35 million 

figure, that we just haven’t seemed to have found a way to reduce 

that. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Boustany. 

And, yes, you are correct in terms of trying to find the solution 

to reduce the hunger here in the United States, not only the 35 

million or potentially even more now that are losing their jobs and 

foreclosing and have lost—and the high gas prices. It is either we 

pay now or pay later. And the burden is on our taxpayers to address this particular problem. 

And, hopefully, we can find effective ways to provide the kind of 

assistance, because, in the long run, it is going to help both the 

public and the private sectors that are both impacted in terms of 

our costs, and our schools, too, as well, that are impacted. So we 

look at hospitals that are impacted, with the problems that are 

there, along with the physicians and other individuals. 

So, in closing, before we adjourn, I would like to thank each of 

you for participating in today’s hearing, on your thoughtful testimony. Your knowledge and research will, I hope, be used by Congress to find the best policies and solutions to end hunger in America. That is, hopefully, that we can do that. We can look at short 

and long range to take care of many of the people that are there, 

too, as well. It will also help make us more aware of both economic 

and human effects on hunger in our own communities and neighborhoods. 

And, again, I want to thank each one of you for your testimony 

here today. 

97

And then I will allow Mr. Boustany to have a closing statement. 

And then I will, before adjourning, read some little comments. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a good 

dialogue. I appreciate your thoughtful approach to all this and the 

efforts you are making. And I found this a helpful start for us here 

in Congress, as we try to deal with this difficult problem. 

And so I look forward to working with Chairman Baca as we try 

to dig into this a little further and to continue to work with you. 

And I congratulate you on the great work that you are doing in the 

trenches. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. In a bipartisan fashion, even though he is here 

right now, I will allow Mr. Moran to either make a statement or 

ask a question at this point. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I just would like to indicate that my absence from this hearing 

does not reflect my interest, but the schedule on the House floor. 

And I appreciate the opportunity to read the testimony of the witnesses that you all have heard from this morning. 

These are important topics. And I appreciate the attention that 

this Subcommittee is giving to the issue of hunger in the United 

States. 

I am also grateful that one of our other subcommittees in Agriculture held a hearing last week regarding hunger issues in the 

world. And I think it is important for this Committee to recognize 

its role not only in farm and agricultural policy but in the nutrition 

aspect of our jurisdiction. 

So I thank the Chairman for his interest in this topic, and I am 

glad to join him here briefly, both he and the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Boustany. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moran. 

With that, before we adjourn, under the rules of the Committee, 

the records of today’s hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and supplement the written responses 

from witnesses to any questions posed by Members of the panel. 

With that, the hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

98

99


11042046
100


11042047
101


11042048
102


11042049
103


11042050
104


11042051
105


11042052
106


11042053
107


11042054
108


11042055
109


11042056
110


11042057
111


11042058
112


11042059
113


11042060
114


11042061
115


11042062
116


11042063
117


11042064
118


11042084
119


11042065
120


11042066
121


11042067
122


11042068
123


11042069
124


11042070
125


11042071
126


11042072
127


11042073
128


11042074
129


11042075
130


11042076
131


11042077
132


11042078
133


11042079
134


11042080
135


11042081
136

Æ


11042082