Project:
Food Insecurity or Poverty? Measuring Need-Related Dietary Adequacy
Year: 2001
Research Center: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Investigator: Currie, Janet, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Steven Haider
Institution: Department of Economics, University of
California, Los Angeles
Project Contact:
Janet Currie, Professor
UCLA Department of Economics
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1477
currie@simba.sscnet.ucla.edu
Summary:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture monitors the food
security of U.S. households through an annual survey
that contains questions about behaviors that signal an
inability to meet food needs because of financial
constraints. The survey has been conducted annually
since 1995 as part of the Current Population Survey
(CPS) and has been adopted, at least in part, by many
other surveys. Numerous researchers have used these
questions to analyze a variety of topics, with reports
published in medical and public health journals. An
advantage of the questions is that they are relatively
inexpensive to administer compared with biomedical
measures or dietary recall.
Several recent studies examined the validity of the
food insecurity questions. These studies examined how
the questions are correlated among themselves (that is,
their internal validity) and how the questions are correlated
with demographic characteristics, household
characteristics, and dietary outcomes (that is, their
external validity). Generally, these studies found the
food insecurity questions to be correlated in expected
ways with both internal and external factors. For
example, using the Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by Individuals, one author found that in households
reporting insufficient food, most household members
had a significantly lower intake of most vitamins and
minerals than members of other households. One
exception was that preschoolers in food-insecure
households did not suffer from low consumption.
The authors assessed the empirical content of the food
insecurity questions, advancing the literature in several
directions. First, rather than simply examine whether
the food insecurity questions were correlated with
other factors, they focused on how well they were
correlated. The standard poverty measure serves as a
useful benchmark for these purposes because it has
been used extensively and can be computed from
many different data sets. Second, this report used a
unique dataset, the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey III (NHANES III).1 In addition to
the dietary recall information collected in other data
sets, NHANES III collects and analyzes blood from its
participants. Thus, the authors could examine measures
of diet adequacy from individuals of all ages
without recall or proxy bias. Third, the authors examined
how the correlations between the responses to the
food security questions and dietary outcomes varied by
age. This last point is particularly valuable, given that
standard food insecurity questions make distinctions
by age. For example, one distinction between the
CPS’s two most severe categories of food insecurity
rests on whether children are skipping meals.
The study found that the responses to the food security
questions are correlated with the diets of older household
members but are not consistently correlated with
the diets of children. In contrast, poverty is consistently
related to the diets of preschoolers. Among
adults, poverty and food insecurity questions are good
predictors of diet. However, poverty may be a better
overall predictor of diet quality, since it is more
consistently related to a range of dietary outcomes
than the food insecurity questions.
Although the focus of this research was related to
measurement, it is important to note two substantive
aspects of the study’s findings. First, individuals in
poverty tend to have different dietary outcomes even at
the basic level of vitamin deficiencies and anemia.
This finding is true for most age groups in the population,
including the youngest and oldest, the two particularly
vulnerable age groups. Second, the study reveals
several underlying behavioral issues. For example, it
found much variation by age in the relationship
between poverty and dietary outcomes. Adult dietary
outcomes are more correlated with poverty than are
child outcomes, and dietary outcomes of younger children
are more correlated with poverty than are the
dietary outcomes of older children. It is likely that
parents protect their children from the effects of
poverty to the extent that they can and that older children
have more opportunities to supplement their
consumption outside the home. It would be useful to
have a better understanding of these protective family
behaviors.