Socio-political indicators of food insecurity
A study of 24 US states
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15095695 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rishika Chakraborty (0000-0002-9319-6131, George Washington University, corresponding author), Katelyn F Romm (University of Oklahoma Health Sciences), Katelyn Romm (0000-0002-9552-0732, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center), Cassidy R Loparco (0000-0003-4206-4179, George Washington University), Ya-Ting Yang (0000-0002-0155-8490, George Washington University), Y Tony Yang, Carla J Berg (0000-0001-8931-1961, George Washington University), Carla Berg (George Washington University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-18 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-26 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Health Nutrition (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1368-9800 • E-ISSN: 1475-2727 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1368980026102353 |
| PMID | 41883134 |
| OpenAlex | W7140905373 |
| Language | EN |
Objective: Food insecurity (FI) prevalence has increased globally, including the United States (US), and disproportionately affects certain subgroups (e.g. women). Both food-related and non-food-related sociopolitical indicators may impact FI rates; however, these associations are underexplored. This study assessed select state-level sociopolitical indicators among states with higher and lower FI rates compared to the national average. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: US Participants: We identified 25 states representing lower (n=18) and higher (n=7) FI prevalence compared to the 2021-2023 US average (12.2%) and used national data sources to characterize 16 sociopolitical indicators (selected via prior review) across 3 categories: 1) proximal to FI (related to food access/income/resources), 2) inequality (contributing to disparities), and 3) tobacco/alcohol/cannabis regulation (may exacerbate/perpetuate financial constraints). We described each indicator and explored their associations (using t-tests or Fisher’s tests) with state FI status (high vs. low). Results: For proximal indicators, low-FI (vs. high-FI) states had greater food environment scores, nutrition assistance program participation, minimum wage, and insured individuals. For inequality indicators, low-FI (vs. high-FI) states had narrower gender wage-gaps, greater racial equity, and more protective policies for sexual/gender minority populations and abortion rights. For substance-related indicators, low-FI (vs. high-FI) states had higher cigarette taxes and more likely had comprehensive smoke-free laws, legalized nonmedical cannabis, and provisions for expunging/pardoning prior cannabis-related convictions. Conclusion: Low-FI states had more sociopolitical indicators aimed at improving food access, financial resources, equality, and substance use-related regulations. Findings highlight the importance of adopting a holistic, sustainable, multilevel approach to effectively address the broader determinants of FI
Food security · Food supply · Food systems · MEDLINE · Multilevel model · Food Safety and Hygiene · Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations · Organic Food and Agriculture
| Highly cited | No |
|---|