EXPLORING ILLINOIS FARMERS’ FOOD INSECURITY STATUS
BY
SARAH E. PITTMAN
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Food Science and Human Nutrition with a concentration in Human Nutrition
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2020
Urbana, Illinois
Master’s Committee:
Professor Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson, Adviser Associate Professor Brenna Ellison
ii
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the food insecurity status of Illinois farmers to help fill the gap in the literature. A review of the literature showed little to no research regarding food insecurity assessment of farm owners in developed countries using standardized measurement tools, but some research has been conducted regarding food insecurity status among farmers in developing countries, demonstrating that some farmers were food insecure. The purpose of this study was to examine if there were farmers in Illinois who were facing food insecurity. The “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey'' was developed and distributed by word-of-mouth to farmers in Illinois through Illinois Extension Country Directors, the President of the Farmers Market Association, and other key stakeholders via electronic mail. The electronic survey was completed online through Qualtrics, a survey platform service. Participants received a $15 electronic-gift card for completion of the survey. Thirteen Illinois farmers completed the food insecurity section of the survey in full. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics due to the small sample size (n=13) and non-normally distributed data. This study suggested that less than 8.0% (1 of 13) of Illinois farmers reported household food insecurity, lower than the current 11.1% average in the United States. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence and severity of food insecurity among farmers in Illinois and the United States and how food security status relates to their health status, income and any received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: Introduction………..1
CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature………...3
CHAPTER 3: Illinois Farmers and Food Insecurity Status……….7
Methods………7
Results………..9
Discussion………..…15
Conclusion……….…17
CHAPTER 4: Future Directions………..………..18
REFERENCES:……….20
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Although farmers and food producers currently grow and create enough food for the world to consume to meet basic calorie needs1 of every person on the planet, there is still a
prevalence of food insecurity not only in developing countries but in developed countries like the United States (U.S.) as well.2 Only a few studies conducted have applied standardized
assessment tools to evaluate food insecurity among farmers in developing countries. These investigations found that the individuals who produced food tended to be the ones who suffered the most from food insecurity.3 The United Kingdom (U.K.) Food Group also found that in
developing countries, the majority of hungry individuals were farmers in rural areas.4 In the U.S.,
there is a gap in the literature regarding the prevalence with which farmers and food producers experience food insecurity.
Food insecurity is defined as a person not being able to obtain enough food in sufficient quantity and/or quality.5 The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identifies four
dimensions of food security: access, affordability, utilization and stability.6 Although many
people think of food insecurity as a person being hungry, hunger and food insecurity differ by definition, one being determined by physiology and biology (i.e., hunger) and the other by interpersonal, environmental, and societal factors (i.e., food insecurity). Because hunger can be hard to measure, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) measures food insecurity to establish the prevalence of individuals who have compromised ability to obtain enough food. Food insecurity is determined by whether people can obtain enough food for a person to live a healthy, active life.3
In 2018, the USDA found that 11.1% (14.3 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some point throughout the year, which was lower than 11.8% reported in 2017.7 This
is still a major problem for so many Americans, because food insecurity is recognized as a major health crisis8. A paucity of studies exist regarding the relationship between food insecurity and
farmers in developed countries, including the U.S. and specifically within the state of Illinois. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of food insecurity among Illinois farmers. The lack of available information on food insecurity among farmers prevents
meaningful progress toward ensuring that those who produce the food supply are sufficiently food resourced. Thus, this was an exploratory study to measure the prevalence of food insecurity
2 among Illinois farmers to evaluate the prospects for future research on this topic. In this study, farmers were surveyed regarding food insecurity status, self-reported income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, self-rated health and health insurance coverage.
3
CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature
Farmers and Food Insecurity Status
A very minimal volume of research has been published regarding the relationship
between farm owners and food insecurity in developed countries. Research has focused more on showing the impact that these farmers have on feeding the population9, but research that analyzes
the food insecurity rates of the farmers producing this food has been lacking.10 There have been a
few studies completed in developing countries looking at this association though, in which investigators found that the individuals who produced the food tended to be the ones who suffered the most from food insecurity.6 The United Kingdom (U.K.) Group also found that in
developing countries, the majority of hungry individuals were farmers in rural areas.4 The
absence of specific knowledge on food insecurity among farmers in the United States (U.S.), specifically the state of Illinois, is of concern, due to the tremendous impact that food insecurity has on an individual’s health and wellbeing. Illinois farmers being food secure helps to ensure an adequate production of corn, soybeans and swine for the world to utilize, as Illinois is one of the leading producers of the aforementioned raw food materials11. Some research has been
completed regarding the relationship between food insecurity and farm workers in the U.S. One study looked at migrant and seasonal Latino workers in North Carolina and found that 48 of the 102 households included in the study (47.1%) were food insecure.12 Another study reported that
farm workers on the U.S.-Mexico border had a high food insecurity rate of 82% of households.13
And finally, one other study conducted in California found that 45% of farm workers were food insecure.14 Furthermore, these studies also indicated that households with children tended to have
a more severe food insecurity status.12,13 It is important to know whether or not these farmers are
food insecure to ensure adequate crop and meat production to meet the calorie needs the
population requires. This, in turn, has the potential to help prevent the cycle of more individuals becoming food insecure as a result of price increases due to supply reductions or shortages in the economy.
Challenges of Farming
Farming can be a challenging career choice as agriculture in the U.S. has relied so heavily on fossil fuel, water and topsoil or resources that are not permanently finite.15 Another
4 common challenge that farmers face is food waste. It is estimated that approximately one-third or 34 million tons of the world’s food goes to waste across planting, harvesting, storage, processing, transporting, selling and handling by consumers.15 Other factors involved in food insecurity can
coincide with household income. For example, in 2019 farm bankruptcies increased by nearly 20% from the previous year.16 There were nearly 600 ‘Chapter 12’ bankruptcies in 2019, close to
the number of farm bankruptcies recorded in 2011.16 States that were most affected were in the
Midwest, including Illinois, who ranked third, tied with nine other states. This was due in large part by recent changes in trade policies, where farms lost a major market with China.17 It is
suggested that these issues hurt primarily small-sized farmers, leading to the bankruptcies aforementioned.17 Although income is not the only indicator of food insecurity,18,19 it can
increase the odds of being food insecure.20
Farmers also are recognized to have a distinct pattern of specific health problems that differ from the general population.21 These can include: unintentional fatal injuries, certain types
of cancers, respiratory diseases, liver diseases and mental health disorders as farmers have a higher rate of suicide than the general population.21 Numerous studies have found that one of
every two farmers suffer from hearing loss.22 Farmworkers tend to contract tuberculosis at higher
rates than other workers in the U.S.22
Farms and Farmer Demographics
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there was a total of 3.4 million producers in the U.S.23 Of these 3.4 million producers, 64% were male and 36% female.23 These producers
were typically above the age of 35 years, as 92% of the U.S. producers were at least 35 years old, with an average age of 57.5 years. The majority of farmers were white (95.4%), with only 3% self-reporting Hispanic and 1.7% American Indian/Alaska Native race.23 The average net cash
farm income of operations in the U.S. was $43,053, only slightly lower than in 2012 at $43,750.23
In Illinois, there were 72,651 farms reported which was a 3% decrease in the number of farms since 2012 (116,417 producers in Illinois).24 Of these producers, 71% were male and only
29% female.24 Ninety-one percent of producers reported being over the age of 35 years and 99%
stated their race was white. The average net cash income per farm was $69,418 or 12% lower than in 2012.24
5
The Importance of Food Security
Because farmers provide the raw ingredients needed for the world to consume to achieve sufficient nutritional status, it is important to ensure that farmers are food secure and adequately nourished. Unfortunately, research has shown that farmers in developing countries tend to suffer the most from food insecurity and prolonged poverty.25 Farming is often a high-risk, low-reward
business, as many outside factors, including weather, lack of equipment and trade issues6 impact
success. Small-scale farms produce 70% of the world’s total food supply25 although most of
these small-scale farms are unable to produce enough food to sustain their own food security needs. This could be due to scarceness of land, lack of inputs or income.6 Many small farms do
not have the income to obtain the technology or equipment to increase their yield which can make it more difficult for them to compete with the crops being produced more efficiently and more cheaply on other farms. This may lead small-scale farmers to seek work elsewhere and/or move to bigger cities and abandon farming in developing countries and to seek primary work off the farm in the U.S.26 This puts many small farms and their farmers at risk of food insecurity and
inevitably, poor health.
Consequences of Food Insecurity on Health
Food insecurity has been shown to be highly correlated with poor health conditions, including diabetes, stroke, depression and other mental health problems, sleeping problems, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and heart disease.3,27 Children in food-insecure households are two
to three times more likely to experience anemia, and are twice as likely to have fair or poor health compared to their food secure counterparts.28 Food insecure adults and seniors also tend to
be in poor or fair health as well.28 One study found that older adults, regardless of food security
status, tend to not meet the recommended dietary allowances for eight nutrients. In addition, older adults who were also food insecure had lower intakes of all macronutrients as well as niacin, riboflavin, vitamins B-6 and B-12, magnesium, iron and zinc.29
At the heart of food insecurity is the issue of not having access to or the means to purchase any food, sometimes pushing vulnerable individuals into obtaining foods that have a long shelf life and/or that tend to be less costly like highly processed foods and fast foods. Foods that are higher in price tend to be whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables and lean proteins, which can be hard for food insecure individuals to purchase. Not having these items in one’s diet
6 could increase their chances of developing the aforementioned diseases and conditions, due to the limited micronutrient intake of the complex b vitamins, magnesium, iron, zinc and
calcium.27,29 While not eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins
increases the chance of developing adverse health conditions, once a person has developed these diseases and is also food insecure, can make managing their health problems that much more difficult.27 This is because managing a chronic health condition like diabetes or hypertension
may require doctors’ appointments, medications and/or a change of their diet, all of which can be an extra cost to the individual. This may lead to disease complications, which can lead to
increased hospitalizations, doctor visits and overall healthcare costs.27
Measurement of Food Insecurity
The USDA’s Household Food Security Survey Module was created in response to data that was conducted in the 1990’s with The Food Security Supplement which was a food security questionnaire that was supplemented with the Current Population Survey (CPS).30 In 1995
researchers developed the household food security survey module by using nonlinear factor analysis and other statistical methods to construct a scale that measures the severity of food insecurity in the participant’s home.30 This survey is a three-stage design with screeners to help
minimize respondent burden.7 The questions asked are about the participants food security status
within the last 12 months including questions about if they felt worried that their food would run out before they had money to buy more, and if they could afford to eat balanced meals at home. If the participant answered yes to having children in the home, they then would answer questions about if their child ever had to cut the size of their meal or if the child had to go hungry because there was not enough food or money for them to eat more.7 Households are still interviewed each
December through the CPS, in which about 40,000 households respond to the food security survey.30
7
CHAPTER 3: Illinois Farmers and Food Insecurity Status Hypotheses
It was hypothesized that:
• There would be a negative association between food insecurity and self-reported household annual income before taxes.
• There would be a negative association between food insecurity and receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
• There would be a negative association between food insecurity and self-reported health. • There would be a negative association between food insecurity and self-reported health
insurance.
Purpose
This study investigated food insecurity among Illinois farmers, along with SNAP benefits, self-reported health and health insurance coverage. The purpose of this study was to explore an understanding of the prevalence of food insecurity among those who produce crops within Illinois and factors related to food insecurity such as income, SNAP participation, health and health insurance. It was hypothesized that food insecurity would be negatively related to self-reported household annual income, SNAP participation, self-rated health and health insurance coverage.
METHODS
Sample Selection and Survey Distribution
For the current study, participants were recruited by word-of-mouth through Illinois Extension County Directors and Extension Educators who shared information about the study with local farmers. Eligibility criteria consisted of farmers aged 18 years or older, living and farming in the state of Illinois. Those interested and eligible farmers contacted the researcher who made the link to the electronic “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey” available. Farmers may have encouraged other farmers to participate. Participants constituted a convenience sample. Each interested farmer accessed the survey electronically via the Qualtrics survey platform. The survey was available for completion for 48 days and implied consent was provided by each participant. Participants were compensated for their time by receiving a $15
8 electronic-gift card to Amazon after completion of the survey. Participants provided an
electronic mail address to receive the gift card; this information was destroyed after delivery of the electronic-gift card. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Appendix A).
Survey Design
Survey questions included preexisting valid and reliable questionnaires for food
insecurity (USDA 18-item Household Food Security Survey Module)31 and self-reported health
(SF-12).32 Investigator-designed questions, without tested validity or reliability, were developed
for SNAP participation and health insurance coverage. Demographic questions were adapted from the U.S. Census 2010 survey.33
Using the 18-item USDA Household Food Security Survey Module, participants
answered a series of questions about the food they were able to access and eat in their homes, for themselves and their family members. Responses to each question were ranked on a scale of 0= high food security status and 1=low food security status. Scores from each question were then added together to determine overall food security status, classified as high or marginal food security status, low food security status and very low food security status. A score of 0-1
indicated a high or marginal food security status, a raw score of 2-4 denoted a low food security and a score of 5-8 suggested a very low food security status.31
Using the SF-12, participants rated their perceived health on a scale of poor, fair, good, very good or excellent. The SF-12 is a short 12 question health survey derived from the SF-36, for adults at least 18 years old to determine their perceived health status and quality of life.32
Within the SF-12 survey there are questions that ask about if their physical and mental health has impacted their activity level and activities of daily living within the last 4 weeks. These
responses included: yes limited a lot, yes limited a little, no not limited at all. Other questions had responses of: all of the time, most of the time, a good bit of the time, some of the time, a little of the time and none of the time. Using computer analysis software the answers were scored to determine self-reported health status.34
9
The “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey”
The “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey” used in the current study was designed in 2019, and administered in 2020. During the time of data collection, a pandemic was underway (novel coronavirus, Covid-19); thus, responses collected may not have reflected those that would have been gathered under normal circumstances.
Survey Data Analysis
Data from completed surveys were exported from Qualtrics and included in analyses. Only descriptive statistics were conducted, due to the small sample size and non-normally distributed data.
RESULTS
A total of 36 surveys were opened and closed by the survey end date. Of these, four (11.1%) individuals chose not to participate, 19 (52.8%) did not complete the entire survey, and 13 fully completed the survey for a 36.1% response rate.
Demographic Description of Participants
Thirteen participants fully completed the U.S Household Food Security Survey Module as well as questions related to household annual income, receipt of SNAP benefits, self-rated health and self-reported health insurance. Table 3.1 includes selected demographic
characteristics of the 13 respondents. The number of responses from women and men were relatively equal, while racial self-identification (White, 100%), language spoken at home (Only English, 100%), and education level (at least College graduate, 100%) indicated a homogenous sample of respondents. The age range of respondents was 25 to 69 years. All respondents (100%, 13 of 13) earned an annual household income categorized as middle class for the U.S., with all but one respondent currently working part- or full-time (92.3%, 12 of 13).
10
Table 3.1: Demographics characteristics of participants who fully completed the “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey” (n=13)
Characteristics n (%a) Sex Female Male 6 (46.2) 7 (53.8) Age (years) 18 – 24 25 – 29 30 – 34 35 – 39 40 – 44 45 – 49 50 – 54 55 – 59 60 – 64 65 – 69 70 or older 0 (0.0) 3 (23.1) 2 (15.4) 1 (7.7) 3 (23.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (15.4) 2 (15.4) 0 (0.0) Race White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some other race
13 (100) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Language Spoken at Home
Mostly Spanish, but some English Mostly English, but some Spanish Only English Other language 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 13 (100) 0 (0.0)
11
Table 3.1: Demographics characteristics of participants who fully completed the “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey” (n=13)
Household Annual Income, Before Taxes (U.S. dollars) $0 - $44,999 $45,000 – $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 or above 0 (0.0) 2 (15.4) 1 (7.7) 6 (46.2) 4 (30.8) 0 (0.0) Employment Status
Part-time (less than 35 hours per week) Full-time (35+ hours per week)
Not employed
1 (7.7) 11 (84.6)
1 (7.7) Education Level, Completed
Grade school (8th grade or less)
Some high school (did not graduate) High school graduate (12th grade or
graduate equivalency degree)
Some college (AA/Associates degree or 1- 3 years without graduating)
College graduate (4 year college)
Some postgraduate (no advanced degree) Postgraduate degree 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (46.2) 2 (15.4) 5 (38.5) Marital Status Married Widowed Legally separated/separated Divorced
Never married – single
12 (92.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.7)
12
Table 3.1: Demographics characteristics of participants who fully completed the “Illinois Food Marketing and Food Security Survey” (n=13)
Number of People Living in the Home 0 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (53.8) 1 (7.7) 4 (30.8) 1 (7.7) 0 (0.0) SNAP, Receiving Benefits
No Yes
13 (100) 0 (0.0) Current Health, Self-Rated
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent 0 (0.0) 1 (7.7) 4 (30.8) 6 (46.2) 2 (15.4) Health Insurance Coverage
No Yes
0 (0.0) 13 (100)
aColumns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Household Food Insecurity
One participant was rated as having very low food security (7.7%, n=1) (Table 3.2). All other participants (92.3%, n=12) were rated as having high or marginal food security status. The household food insecurity prevalence rate was 7.7% (1 of 13) among these respondents.
13
Table 3.2: Household food security statusa of respondents (n=13)
Food Security Classification n (%)
Very low food security Low food security
High or marginal food security
1 (7.7) 0 (0.0) 12 (92.3) Food insecurity prevalence rate 1 of 13 (7.7)
aBased on the USDA 18-Item Food Security Survey Module.
SNAP Benefits
None of the participants or anyone residing in their households (n=0, 0.0%) received SNAP benefits in the 12 months before completion of the survey.
Self-Rated Health
The median for self-rated health was ‘very good’. Only two participants perceived their health as ‘excellent’ (15.4%, n=2), while six participants rated their health as ‘very good’ (46.2%, n=6), and four respondents self-ranked their health as ‘good’ (30.8%, n=4). Only one participant ranked themselves as being of ‘fair’ health (7.7%, n=1).
Health Insurance
All participants (100%, n=13) had health insurance at the time of the survey.
Food Insecurity Status by Annual Income and Health
One respondent who reported the lowest annual household income, before taxes, was classified as food insecure (7.7%, n=1), while the other respondent in this income bracket was classified as food secure (7.7%, n=1) (Table 3.3). Twelve of these participants who were all of middle class, according to income, were food secure (92.3%, n=12).
14
Table 3.3: Food security status by self-reported annual household income, before taxes, of participants (n=13)
Food Security Status
Self-Reported Annual Household Income (US$) $45,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more
Very Low Food Security
n (%a)
Low Food Security n (%a) High or Marginal Food Security n (%a) 1 (7.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.7) 1 (7.7) 6 (46.2) 4 (30.8)
aCells may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 3.4 displays the distribution of responses regarding self-reported health in combination with food insecurity status. The vast majority of respondents (84.7%, n=11) who perceived ‘good’ or better health were classified as having ‘high or marginal food security’. The one respondent who was categorized with food insecurity self-reported ‘excellent’ health (7.7%, n=1).
Table 3.4: Food security status by self-reported health among participants (n=13)
Food Security Status
Self-Reported Health Classification Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Very Low Food Security
n (%a)
Low Food Security n (%a) High or Marginal Food Security n (%a) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (7.7) 4 (30.8) 6 (46.2) 1 (7.7)
15
DISCUSSION
As farmers fundamentally contribute to food production and the food supply that the world consumes, it is important to know whether these individuals themselves are food secure. Currently, the literature is lacking in this area. Data from the current study revealed that there may, in fact, be farmer owners in the state of Illinois who are food insecure. The USDA found in 2018, that the food insecurity rate in the U.S. was 11.1%.7 While our findings indicated a smaller
percentage (7.7%, n=1) of farmers who were food insecure, this research was based on a very small number of participants. Due to the limited convenience sample, the hypotheses were unable to be tested. However, the findings provide some insights, as noted below, that may be beneficial to future research in this area.
The demographic characteristics of respondents in the current study adequately represent the population of Illinois farm owners. Participants in this study were all white (100%) with seven (53.8%) males and six (46.1%) females. This reflects Illinois farm owners based on the National Agriculture Statistics Service data which reported that 99% of farm owners were white with more male (71%) farmers than their female (29%).24 There were eight farmers over age 35
years (61.5%) in this study, and data from Illinois indicates that (92%) of farmers are over the age of 35 years.
Exploratory results from the current study suggest that income does not adequately explain food insecurity (i.e., no association between food insecurity and self-reported income). Respondents in the lowest self-reported annual income, before taxes, bracket were found to be classified as food insecure and highly food secure. This finding is consistent with that of
Nikolaus and colleagues18 who demonstrated that perseverance or determination as measured by
the Short Grit Scale was associated with food security, suggesting that other factors may modify the relationship between poverty and food insecurity.
The lack of participants receiving SNAP benefits prevented further exploration of this variable and its association with food security status. Moreover, based on self-reported annual income, all participants were regarded as middle class and ineligible for the SNAP program. Even at the lowest self-reported annual income ($45,000-$49,999) found in the current study, a concurrent status of ‘very low food security’ would not qualify a household for SNAP benefits, as income requirements to receive SNAP in a two person household are $27,912 per year.35 This
16 of the SNAP food assistance program. Efficacy of SNAP-Education has been demonstrated in rural areas, where most farmers in Illinois reside, and combined with environmental factors such as food resource management, food pantries, recreational facilities, and socioecological support, food insecurity can be mitigated.36 Further evaluation is warranted for these associations.
Although the sample size prohibited an evaluation of the association between food insecurity and self-reported health, it was interesting to note that there was one respondent who was classified as very food insecure, but yet, self-rated health status as ‘excellent’. In contrast, one highly food secure participant self-rated health as ‘fair’. This may have been due to demographic differences among respondents or other factors not measured in this study. Though it is generally accepted that food insecurity is highly associated with poorer health status and outcomes,8,37there are
other contributing factors to health status outside of food access, affordability, acquisition, and intake.
Although health insurance coverage was mandatory in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate, this was repealed in 2019 so there was no longer a tax for not having health insurance.38 Even so, it is interesting to note that 100% of participants stated that
they had some kind of health insurance at the time of the study. Further investigations with larger pools of participants would be necessary to adequately explore this association.
Limitations
Limitations of the study include having a small sample size as this can lead to
inaccuracies in the data, as a small sample size may not accurately represent the population. In addition, the use of some untested (for validity and reliability) questions in the survey and the unusual environmental conditions of 2020 (i.e., COVID-19) are limitations to this study. Moreover in 2019, the Midwest had a devastating year with weather in terms of rainfall and flooding. Particularly, small farms were the most impacted.40 Adverse weather conditions caused
farmers to delay or never plant their crops. Planting late also meant harvesting late.41 This stands
as a limitation of the study, as it may have impacted self-reporting of income and other variables included in the current study.
17
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between food insecurity and associated factors related to financial status and security and health. The current state of literature is lacking in observing the relationship between farmers, food security, financial security and health status. Although this is one of the first studies on food insecurity among farmers in Illinois, there will need to be future studies to determine accuracy and prominence of the nature and impact of food insecurity on Illinois farmers.
18
CHAPTER 4: Future Directions
Food insecurity is a national and worldwide health crisis where individuals with many different backgrounds, education, ethnicity and careers struggle to put food on the table for themselves and their family members. This impacts their health in many different ways, by not being able to purchase the necessary food they need to eat to prevent or control chronic health conditions such as diabetes, kidney disease and/or mental and sleep health. This cycle can continue as decreased health status can impact the ability to work in the fields to produce their crops to sell to their communities or companies. This in turn lowers their income, which makes buying food even more difficult, potentially decreasing their health even more rapidly.
The importance and purpose of this research includes filling the gap that the literature and then eventually being able to understand the frequency of farmers who are food insecure and learning the best ways to help these individuals and their families. Establishing the prevalence of food insecurity among this group of people would allow communities to better estimate the need to educate farmers on opportunities for assistance, including SNAP and Women Infant and Children (WIC) benefits, food pantries and other food resource opportunities. Having farmers that are food insecure could exacerbate challenges of farmers aforementioned, which could decrease the viability of small farms.
More studies need to be done to look at the correlation of farmers and food insecurity in developed countries like the United States, as well as, continued research looking at the
prevalence and impact of food insecurity among farmers in developing countries. These studies should include more exploratory research across a larger population, with more diverse
demographics, income levels, farm sizes, etc. to learn the trends that food insecurity has among farmers in the United States. Large surveys should be utilized to learn more about farmers’ food security status, with an established survey like the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module as well as questions asking about income, health status, SNAP and WIC benefits, household size, farm acreage, farming products, location or zip code, etc. These additional questions need to be verified and reliable. Other studies could be completed via in person interviews or through an electronic video call in order to get further information from participants. This would allow more specific answers from each participant in order to truly understand their food security and health status. These studies could include a blood test and other health status indicators to look at their
19 health status in order to determine if they have chronic health conditions, instead of just relying on their stated perceived health.
Ideally, with a larger sample size and normal distribution of data, more statistically significant analyses can be used to determine the trends and significance of the data.
20
REFERENCES
1. Appendix 2. Estimated Calorie Needs per Day, by Age, Sex, and Physical Activity Level - 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines | health.gov. Health.gov.
https://health.gov/our-work/food-nutrition/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines/guidelines/appendix-2/. Published 2020. Accessed July 5, 2020.
2. Collin, R. and Martin, P., 2012. Introduction To World Politics, An: Conflict And
Consensus On A Small Planet. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. 3. Lloyd JL. From Farms to Food Deserts: Food Insecurity and Older Rural
Americans. Generations. 2019;43(2):24-32.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=138019379&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed October 29, 2019.
4. UK Food Group (2010). Securing Future Food: Towards Ecological Food Provision. Royal Leamington Spa: UK Food Group.
[URL:http://www.ukfg.org.uk/Securing_future_food.pdf].
5. J. N. Jere and P. Ndayizigamiye, "Analysing the Relationship between the Use of ICTs and Food Insecurity in Smallholder Farmer Households," 2018 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa), Gaborone, 2018, pp. Page 1 of 6-Page 6 of 6.
6. Mura MN. The discontented farmer : state-society relations and food insecurity in rural Tanzania. 2015.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsndl&AN=edsndl.oai.union.nd ltd.org.bl.uk.oai.ethos.bl.uk.690483&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed October 29, 2019.
7. USDA ERS - Food Security and Nutrition Assistance. Ers.usda.gov.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-security-and-nutrition-assistance/. Published 2019. Accessed November 19, 2019.
8. Craig Gundersen, James P Ziliak, Food Insecurity Research in the United States: Where We Have Been and Where We Need to Go, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Volume 40, Issue 1, March 2018, Pages 119–135, https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx058 9. Satterthwaite D, McGranahan G, Tacoli C. Urbanization and its implications for food and
farming. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2809-2820. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0136
10. Bezner Kerr R, Kangmennaang J, Dakishoni L, et al. Participatory agroecological research on climate change adaption improves smallholder farmer household food security and dietary diversity in Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 279:109-121. Doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.004.
11. Facts About Illinois Agriculture. Www2.illinois.gov.
https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/agr/About/Pages/Facts-About-Illinois-Agriculture.aspx. Published 2020. Accessed July 5, 2020.
21 12. Quandt S, Arcury T, Early J, Tapia J, Davis J. Household Food Security among Migrant
and Seasonal Latino Farmworkers in North Carolina. Public Health Rep. 2004;119(6):568-576. doi:10.1016/j.phr.2004.09.006
13. Weigel MM( 1 ), Armijos RX ( 1 ), Ramirez Y ( 1,2,3 ), Hall YP ( 2 ), Orozco R( 3 ). The household food isnsecurity and health outcomes of U.S. -Mexico border migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 9(3):157-169. Doi:10,1007/s10903-006-9026-6.
14. Wirth C, Strochlic R, Getz C. HUNGER IN THE FIELDS: FOOD INSECURITY AMONG FARMWORKERS IN FRESNO COUNTY. California Institute For Rural Studies; 2020. http://lib.ncfh.org/pdfs/7338.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2020.
15. Swan N. Five Major Challenges Facing North American Agriculture. Seedstock.com. http://seedstock.com/2012/04/18/five-major-challenges-facing-north-american-agriculture/. Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.
16. The Verdict Is In: Farm Bankruptcies Up in 2019. Fb.org. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/the-verdict-is-in-farm-bankruptcies-up-in-2019. Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.
17. Sherman E. Here’s The Crushing Truth About American Farmers Under Trump’s Trade War. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/12/27/trump-china-tariffs-farmers-subsidies/#7a2f73ea5b39. Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.
18. Nikolaus CJ, Schierer M, Ellison B, Eicher-Miller HA, Gundersen C,
Nickols-Richardson SM. Grit is associated with food security among US parents and adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2019;43(1):207-218. doi:10.5993/AJHB.43.1.17. 19. Tacoli C. Editorial: The urbanization of food insecurity and malnutrition.
ENVIRONMENT AND URBANIZATION. 31(2):371-374. Doi: 10.1177/0956247819867255.
20. Galvin G. Food Insecurity in America Tied to Prices, Poverty. U.S. News. https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-05-01/food-insecurity-in-america-tied-to-food-prices-poverty). Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.
21. Demos K, Sazakli E, Jelastopulu E, Charokopos N, Ellul J, Leotsinidis M. Does farming have an effect on health status? A comparison study in west Greece. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(3):776-792. Published 2013 Feb 26. doi:10.3390/ijerph10030776 22. Kirkhorn S, Schenker M. NASD - Human Health Effects of Agriculture: Physical
Diseases and Illnesses. Nasdonline.org. https://nasdonline.org/1827/d001772/human-health-effects-of-agriculture-physical-diseases-and.html. Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.
23. 2017 Census Of Agriculture Highlights Farm Producers. USDA NASS; 2019.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farm_Producers.p df. Accessed July 18, 2020.
22 24. 2017 Census Of Agriculture State Profile. USDA NASS; 2017.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profi les/Illinois/cp99017.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2020.
25. FAO - Wolfenson, K.D. (2013). Coping with the Food and Agriculture Challenge:
Smallholders’ agenda, Preparations and outcomes of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (RIO+20). Roma, April 2013.
26. IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroad. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Global Report. Island Press. 27. Gunderson C, Seligman H. Food insecurity and health outcomes. 2017.
28. Gundersen C, Ziliak JP. Food Insecurity And Health Outcomes. HEALTH AFFAIRS. 34(11):1830-1839. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645.
29. Lee JS, Frongillo EA Jr. Nutritional and health consequences are associated with food insecurity among U.S. elderly persons. J Nutr. 2001;131(5):1503-1509.
doi:10.1093/jn/131.5.1503
30. USDA ERS - History & Background. Ers.usda.gov.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/history-background/#scale. Published 2020. Accessed July 6, 2020.
31. U.S. HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY SURVEY MODULE:. USDA; 2012:1-12.
32. 2002. SF-12 Patient Questionnaire. [ebook] Medical Outcomes Trust and QualityMetric Incorporated, pp.1-3. Available at:
<https://www.hoagorthopedicinstitute.com/documents/SF12form.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].
33. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed June 24, 2020.
34. Interpreting The SF-12.; 2020:1-20.
http://www.health.utah.gov/opha/publications/1996hss/sf12/sf12hi1.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2020.
35. Dhs.state.il.us. 2020. IDHS: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - SNAP
(10/01/2019). [online] Available at: <https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30357> [Accessed 23 June 2020].
36. Rivera RL, Dunne J, Maulding MK, Wang Q, Savaiano DA, Nickols-Richardson SM, Eicher-Miller HA. Exploring the association of urban or rural county status and
environmental, nutrition- and lifestyle-related resources with the efficacy of SNAP-Ed (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education) to improve food security. Public Health Nutrition. 2018;21(5):957-966. doi:10.1017/S1368980017003391.
37. Knol LL, Robb CA, McKinley EM, Wood M. Food Insecurity, Self-Rated Health, and Obesity among College Students. American Journal of Health Education.
2017;48(4):248-255.
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ 1145091. Accessed July 18, 2020.
23 38. Eibner C, Nowak S. Elimination of Individual Mandate Penalty | Commonwealth Fund.
Commonwealthfund.org. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/understanding-impact-elimination-individual-mandate-penalty. Published 2018. Accessed July 18, 2020.
24
APPENDIX A: IRB Letter
Notice of Exempt Determination January 21, 2020
Principal Investigator Sharon Nickols-Richardson
CC Sarah Pittman; Kati Rudin
Protocol Title Food Marketing and Food Security Among Illinois Farmers
Protocol Number 20524
Funding Source Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Review Category Exempt 2 (iii)
Determination Date January 21, 2020
Closure Date January 20, 2025
This letter authorizes the use of human subjects in the above protocol. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) has reviewed your application and determined the criteria for exemption have been met.
The Principal Investigator of this study is responsible for:
• Conducting research in a manner consistent with the requirements of the University and federal regulations found at 45 CFR 46.
• Requesting approval from the IRB prior to implementing major modifications.
• Notifying OPRS of any problems involving human subjects, including unanticipated events, participant complaints, or protocol deviations.
• Notifying OPRS of the completion of the study.
Changes to an exempt protocol are only required if substantive modifications are requested and/or the changes requested may affect the exempt status.
