following a global pandemic, declining employment rates, and emerging government policies, we are now at a stage where people are struggling to afford basic grocery items, a survey by lendingtree found. rising prices in the united states are interfering with basic aspects in americans’ day-to-day lives: energy, housing, transportation, and, concerningly, food. most americans are currently unable to achieve what the ludwig institute for shared economic prosperity classifies as a “minimal quality of life.”

stacy dean, the former deputy under secretary for the u.s. department of agriculture (usda) food, nutrition, and consumer services, warns that we are beginning to see our food freedom threatened by these changes.

through analyses of federal programs, testimonies before congress, and leadership roles in both federal and non-profit groups, dean has dedicated her career to ensuring that all individuals are provided nutrition assistance and proper food access. at present, she finds the effects of policy on our food security worrisome, especially for those at risk of having it stripped away entirely.

according to usda data, the supplemental nutrition assistance program (snap) served an average of 41.7 million people per month in fiscal year 2024; now, recent cost shifts are forcing states to pay a portion of these benefits, meaning a potential cut-down in eligibility for disabled, elderly, and poverty-stricken citizens in need.

a food policy leader with over 30 years of local and government experience, dean explains how these changes have significantly affected farmers, agricultural practices, people receiving food benefits, and the overall american population.

the interview below has been edited for length and clarity.

pilar gerena: the u.s. bureau of labor statistics reports that as of december 2025, food prices have increased by 3.1% compared to the previous year. what are some of the most significant effects of those cost shifts for consumers and producers?

stacy dean: i think it’s important to contextualize food inflation. this is not the only time we’ve experienced [it]. i think what’s different about this time is that it’s embedded in a broader context of basic costs of living.

what we’re seeing is the rise in prices being borne by consumers and producers. i think that for consumers, one [effect] is a general sense of unease. consumer confidence is really critical to growing the economy, and you are seeing that start to waver.

we see a lot of concern coming from producers for a number of reasons: input costs, tariffs, reduced demand.

when you have a deep concentration in markets — only four or five meat-packing companies, or two or three main fertilizer companies — you get incredible efficiency and typically better prices. but when you experience a disruption, it can really upset the market and cause change. and so the question is: how can you have both the value and benefit of efficiency but more resilience in the food system?

pg: do you think these tariffs, and the products that they’re affecting, will affect people’s nutrition as well?

sd: yes, tariffs affect imports and it depends on which items. we import a lot of wonderful fruits and vegetables from overseas countries, items that we can’t grow here. so anytime you put a food item out of reach, that’s a food security question and a nutritional security question.

i often keep my eye on those who are most vulnerable that have the least capacity to purchase food, and i think the snap cuts are one of my biggest concerns there.

pg: i did want to touch on snap, because that’s something that is currently being threatened pretty badly. according to the food research & action center, “for the first time, states will be required to pay a portion of snap benefits, while their share of administrative costs will rise from 50 to 75 percent. these cost shifts will force states to make impossible choices of cutting eligibility for families, veterans, older adults, and people with disabilities; raising taxes; or cutting other essential services.”

is there a possibility that in some states snap will be cut completely?

sd: so that was enacted in h.r. 1 [the one big beautiful bill act], which was the largest single cut to snap ever.

there’s this sort of existential threat which is that states may face such large penalties, where they’re required to put up money to participate in the program. and all states operate under balanced budget requirements, so the idea that they would have to come up with $100, 200 million with very little notice, they just don’t have the ability.

for 50 years, this program has been our front line of defense against hunger, we’ve had a national commitment. it’s been a point of pride that we don’t let fellow americans go hungry. and i think this congress took the first and unfortunately historic step to renege on that commitment.

we don’t actually know how it’s going to play out but i definitely think states are going to face an extraordinary challenge. 

pg: if snap were to be cut completely, what resources would people have available to them?

sd: well, let’s say a state decided to opt out. for every meal that a food bank provides, snap provides 12. so this idea that private charity could make up the difference i think is a misnomer.

there’s all this evidence about [snap] as an economic mobility tool, an opportunity tool, a health tool. it works. and the idea that we would revoke it from some of our citizens depending on where they live, [citizens] who are deeply vulnerable, is both values-wise worrying and it’s substantively worrying. it means higher costs for us in the healthcare system, a less mobilized workforce, and i just think it’s a very bleak future, a community without snap.

pg: president trump recently claimed that “grocery prices are starting to go rapidly down,” without citing evidence. just hours before, the u.s. bureau of labor statistics released data showing the largest monthly jump in food prices since 2022. when would we start to worry about basic food staples being just too expensive for us to afford?

sd: i think the issue is it’s not about any one particular thing: it’s about how the pieces come together. so, i can trade from eggs to something else, or i can trade from ground beef to chicken; but now we’re talking about food with my housing payment, with [increasing energy prices]. all of those things come together and it’s just under one fixed pot. 

pg: in what ways is this impacting lower-income families compared to everybody else?

sd: the reality is, [these families are] making choices every day about, “do i pay the heating bill?” or, “am i buying the groceries? can i fill up the car?” there’s a huge number of americans who are $400 away from disaster: the hot water heater breaking, the tire blowing on the car, whatever it is. that level of economic fragility just adds a lot of complexity to life and takes away a lot of opportunity, so we should be working to reduce the number of people in that circumstance, not stand by while it’s expanding. 

pg: where do you think we’ll be 10 years from now in terms of food security?

sd: i’d like to think that our engagement on food issues, food systems, our concern about where food comes from and its impact is very similar to sustainability 15, 20 years ago. that is a big part of how movements occur. and even though it might not be in the public consciousness yet, there’s all these different parts of the world that really care. i think the conversation is going to build.

these are issues that we face as a planet and as a people, and there’s a lot of joy and wonder in food and the food-related issues, but also some problems. and so i think we’re going to be in a different place because it’s a growing building movement; and when you have more people with you, you can be open to more possibility, and more innovation, and more creativity. so we’ll get there. there’s no alternative.