Why does hunger cost so much money?

Emma Landgraf Special Projects Associate, Food Initiative United Way for Southeastern Michigan

Do you ever open your wallet and find that $542 has gone missing?

Well, probably not. I’m guessing most of us don’t carry that much cash at once. But, as the holidays roll around, many of us are paying closer attention to how much money we’ve got and how much we can spend. Every dollar has a purpose. What’s interesting is that Americans spend that $542 each year without even realizing that they’re doing so.

So, where does that money go? Hunger. According to a study released by the Center for American Progress and Brandeis University, the total cost of hunger in 2010 came to $167.5 billion, or $542 per person. Michigan alone added $5.51 billion to the hunger bill.

As you try to wrap your mind around such a staggering number, you’re probably wondering what $167.5 billion represents.

Instinctually, when people think about the cost of hunger, the first thing that may come to mind is the amount of money it takes to feed hungry people. Every day, food pantries, kitchens and shelters serve hundreds of thousands of meals to people in need. Federal nutrition programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), give millions of people an opportunity to purchase food they otherwise couldn’t afford. However, charity costs related to hunger only added up to $17.8 billion, or a little over 10% of the total hunger bill. Federal nutrition programs, which cost $94 billion per year, weren’t even factored into the $167.5 billion total.

The vast majority of the hunger bill total stems from the consequences of hunger, many of which we never think about.

For instance, a hungry person is much more likely than a non-hungry person to suffer from a wide array of health problems, such as headaches, stomach aches, nutrient deficiencies, and colds, and they are more likely to be depressed, anxious, or suicidal. Such high prevalence of illness leads to enormous losses in economic productivity from earlier deaths, missed workdays, and decreased ability to carry out everyday tasks. Costs related to illness added a total of $130.5 billion to the hunger bill.

Hungry individuals are also likely to suffer from poor educational outcomes. Hungry students are more frequently absent and disruptive than their peers, and are more likely to repeat grades or drop out of school altogether. Not finishing school means they will earn, on average, $260,000 less over their lifetime than someone with a high school diploma or GED. Poor educational outcomes and reduced lifetime earnings accounted for $19.2 billion of the hunger bill.

Unfortunately, hunger is an extremely complex issue, so there will probably never be a day when we don’t have to spend a dime to try and solve it. We spent $167.5 billion in 2010 because our food system is not functioning well enough to keep everyone fed. Large portions of our population are food insecure, meaning that they don’t always have access to affordable and nutritional food resources.

The good news is that there are a number of ways to spend each of our $542 more efficiently, and perhaps spend a little less in upcoming years.

The more we address hunger through the lens of systems change, the less we will need to spend on the consequences of hunger. We can redirect our resources to increasing participation in child nutrition programs, such as the School Breakfast Program and the Summer Food Service Program. We can invest in creating more food sector jobs in the state of Michigan. We can expand the number of sites providing fresh produce and other groceries at affordable prices. When the cupboards are bare and the refrigerator is empty, every person should not only have the resources to buy the food they need, but also know how to get that food easily. If we have accomplished that level of food security, then our resources will have been well-spent.

So, you may not find $542 in your wallet this year. But, if we start addressing hunger in a more efficient and comprehensive manner now, you may begin to see a return on your investment in years to come. And a thriving southeastern Michigan community is something we can all strive for.