kathimerini.gr
US Government Ends Annual Food Insecurity Data Collection
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Saturday that it will cease annual data collection on food insecurity, citing the process as "overly politicized" and "unproductive", ending with the October 2025 report covering 2024, the last year of the Biden administration.
- What is the immediate impact of the USDA's decision to halt food insecurity data collection?
- The immediate impact is the absence of future annual reports on food insecurity in the US. The October 2025 report, covering 2024, will be the last. This prevents ongoing monitoring of the prevalence of food insecurity, previously measured at 13.5% of households in 2023.
- What are the USDA's stated reasons for ending data collection, and how do these relate to the current political context?
- The USDA claims the data collection process is "overly politicized" and "unproductive". This decision comes after the election of Donald Trump, who has overseen an administration that has challenged existing data and statistics, seemingly to support a narrative of economic success despite slowing growth and job creation.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of halting this data collection on understanding and addressing food insecurity in the US?
- The long-term consequence is a diminished ability to track and address food insecurity effectively. The lack of data will hinder evidence-based policymaking and obscure the true extent of the problem, potentially leading to inadequate resource allocation and ineffective solutions. The absence of data could also allow for a narrative detached from reality to take hold.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents the USDA's justification for ending the data collection without significant counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The framing emphasizes the USDA's claim of the data's 'excessive politicization' and 'uselessness', potentially downplaying concerns about the implications of ending the data collection for understanding food insecurity. The headline, if present, could further reinforce this framing by focusing on the USDA's decision rather than the potential consequences for monitoring food insecurity.
Language Bias
The USDA's statement describes the data as "excessively politicized" and "useless." These are value judgments and not objective assessments of the data's quality or utility. Neutral alternatives could include stating that the data collection process was subject to political debate or that the USDA conducted a review that resulted in a decision to discontinue data collection. The article also uses phrasing suggesting that the data contained "biased inaccuracies" to create a "narrative that is not representative of what is really happening," which are subjective interpretations.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential consequences of eliminating the food insecurity data. Missing is an analysis of how this decision might affect policymakers' understanding of the issue, the allocation of resources for food assistance programs, or the ability of researchers to study trends in food insecurity. The perspectives of organizations or individuals concerned about this decision are absent. While brevity might justify some omissions, the lack of discussion of the impact is a significant oversight.
False Dichotomy
The USDA's statement presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that the data is either 'excessively politicized and useless' or perfectly accurate and useful. This ignores the complexity of data collection, which often involves compromises and room for improvement rather than being strictly either valid or invalid. The framing also creates a false choice between the USDA's assessment and the reality of food insecurity, presenting the official stance as the definitive truth.
Sustainable Development Goals
The US government's decision to stop collecting data on food insecurity directly undermines efforts to monitor and address hunger. The rationale provided by the USDA, citing the data as "overly politicized" and "unuseful," ignores the critical importance of this data for informing policy and resource allocation to combat food insecurity. The discontinuation of data collection will hinder efforts to accurately assess the prevalence of hunger and track progress toward reducing it. The claim that poverty is decreasing and wages are rising, while ignoring slowing economic growth and declining job creation, further casts doubt on the government's commitment to addressing food insecurity.