SNAP, FOOD INSECURITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Food insecurity in the United States is definitely a thing, and here’s how the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines it:

“Food insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”

Further, the USDA decomposes the aggregate concept of food insecurity into two different levels— “low food security” and “very low food security”. That first level, low food security, consist of individuals who, as a result of not having sufficient resources, have to reduce the quality, variety, and desirability of their diet.

That latter category, “very low food security,” is even more severe and consist of persons who experience multiple disruptions in their eating patterns and who have to actually reduce their food intake.

If, on the other hand, you’ve got consistent access to sufficient, safe, affordable, and nutritious food— and, thereby, can lead an active and healthy life— well, then, you’d be considered food secure.

If you fall into that category of “food secure,” then you’re going to be able to thrive and actively participate in the commons in ways that your “food insecure” siblings can only imagine.

There really is something to be said for not having to worry yourself to death about whether or not you’re going to run out of food before you run out of month.

There really is something to be said about having the confidence that there’s going to nutritious grub on the table not just today but tomorrow—and even after that.

Consistent access to safe, affordable, and nutritious food ain’t nothing to be sneezed at.

There really is something to be said about not having to be stressed out about whether you’re going to have to the send the kids to school or bed without a meal.

But this, and more, is exactly the type of physical and mental angst that millions of households have to deal with.

Like most “bads,” by the way, food insecurity slams some groups harder than others. Black and Hispanic/Latinx households, for instance, tend to be twice as likely as White households to experience food insecurity: In 2020, according to report done by the Center for American Progress (CAP), one-fifth of Black households— and 17% of Hispanic/Latinx households— experienced food insecurity, compared to 7% of White ones.

Recent data indicates that, overall, there’s 34 million food insecure people in the United States, with 9 million children being counted amongst the food insecure.

And, then there’s these findings from a recent study by the Urban Institute: Between 2021 and 2022:

• The share of adults reporting food insecurity jumped from 20 to 25% (24.6%)

• The share of adults reporting the most severe form of insecurity— “very low food security”— climbed from 9.3% to 12.5%.

• The share of Hispanic/Latinx and Black families reporting food insecurity in 2022 was a whopping 50% higher than the share of White families reporting such insecurity.

It bears repeating that millions are mired in food insecurity and find it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to gain consistent access to the quantity and quality of food needed to flourish and function within the broader socio-economic environment.

SNAP, FOOD, INSECURITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

And this is precisely why I—and others— have not hesitated to openly express moral disgust at the way in which work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or what was previously known as “food stamps”) have been tightened as a partial “payment” for a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling.

The deal that was struck expands work requirements to now include so-called “abled-bodied adults without dependents” between the ages of 18 and 54, whereas previously the mandate was restricted to those “without dependents” and aged 18-50.

There’s a boatload of studies that demonstrate that work mandates do next to nothing to increase the employment or earnings rates of SNAP participants.

But, equally important, the doubling down on and expansion of work mandates will push some folk off the program and increase the numbers of people experiencing food insecurity (for example, see here or here).

And that, I believe, ought to be situated within the framework of human rights. Human rights are those right we have simply because we exist as human beings; they are those rights that are absolutely central to any meaningful recognition of human dignity and when access to them is denied or frustrated the possibilities of human flourishing are seriously truncated.

All human rights are indivisible and interdependent. Here’s how the United Nations explains it:

“All human rights are indivisible and interdependent. This means that one set of rights cannot be enjoyed fully without the other. For example, making progress in civil and political rights makes it easier to exercise economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, violating economic, social and cultural rights can negatively affect many other rights.”

These rights, by the way, don’t just include those of a civil and political nature but they also entail economic rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), for instance, states that “everyone has the right to a standing of living” that’s supportive of health and wellbeing— and that support includes, among other things, access to food,

Impeding people’s access to food is on par with impeding, say, their right to vote or their right to peaceably assemble in public. Political, civil, and economic rights are mutually supportive and, therefore, whenever any of these rights are violated, that violation must be publicly called out.

So, part of the deal about THE deal is that there’s compelling reason to believe that its implementation will ultimately lead to an increase in food insecurity, will ultimately place more people at risk of being (further) unable to enjoy a life that’s consistent with and supportive of human dignity—will ultimately, that is, deny a critical human right to some of our most economically marginalized citizens.

For lovers of social, economic, and racial justice, this ought to fill them with moral disgust and make them hotter than fish grease.