Which U.S. populations and regions face the highest risk of dying from hunger or related causes?

1. Who the data historically flagged: low-income households, children, seniors and people with disabilities

Longstanding federal and anti-hunger analyses show that poverty and program eligibility closely predict hunger: households with low incomes, children, older adults, and people with disabilities have consistently appeared as disproportionate recipients of food assistance and as groups at higher risk of adverse nutrition outcomes ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The USDA survey—until its termination—was used to track food insecurity by age and household composition, underpinning funding and program targeting for seniors and children ^{[2] [7]}.

2. Regions and communities with concentrated risk: rural pockets, urban neighborhoods and the DMV example

Geography matters: Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap highlights persistent county-level variation in food insecurity and shows that both rural counties and inner-city neighborhoods can face high rates of need ^[1]. Local reporting and region-specific studies—such as the Capital Area Food Bank’s 2025 Hunger Report—detail how layoffs and local economic shocks (for example in the Washington, D.C., metro area) can sharply raise the number of people at risk when job losses and benefit cliffs coincide ^[8].

3. Why the risk of death or severe health consequences rises where social safety nets fray

Food insecurity is linked to chronic disease and poorer health outcomes—cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental illness and developmental harms for children—which can increase mortality risk over time when combined with limited health care access and malnutrition ^[2]. Anti-hunger groups and researchers warn that cuts to program access, benefit interruptions (e.g., SNAP disruptions during the 2025 government shutdown), and reduced data visibility all increase the likelihood that fragile households will face life‑threatening consequences ^{[9] [2] [10]}.

4. Data gaps now blunt precise targeting and make mortality risk harder to measure

The USDA’s decision to end the Household Food Security Report removes the nation’s principal, detailed survey that parsed food insecurity by age, disability and household type, leaving policymakers without the best tool to identify which subpopulations are heading toward the most severe outcomes ^{[2] [3]}. Commentators, public‑health researchers and advocacy groups say this makes it harder to know whether increases in food insecurity are translating into rises in nutrition‑related deaths—those sources explicitly warn the cancellation will hinder evidence-driven responses ^{[2] [7] [10]}.

5. Compounding drivers: policy choices, economic shocks and food waste

Several reporting threads link policy shifts and economic disruption to worse food access. Advocates cite program uncertainty from government shutdowns and administrative decisions that have both interrupted SNAP and increased food waste in the supply chain, even as households struggle to afford groceries—conditions that intensify risk for vulnerable people ^{[9] [8] [3]}. Feeding America and others note that many people facing hunger are nonetheless ineligible for SNAP under current thresholds, leaving coverage gaps ^[1].

6. Two competing perspectives on the scale and measurement of risk

The USDA framed termination of the survey as eliminating a “redundant, costly” product and said it would use other datasets deemed “more timely and accurate” ^[3]. Public‑health researchers, anti‑hunger groups and journalists counter that the survey was the only comprehensive U.S. tool that measured hunger by key demographic traits and fear that losing it will blind policymakers to who is most at risk ^{[2] [7] [10]}. Both positions are documented in current reporting ^{[3] [2] [7]}.

7. What this means for assessing who is most likely to die from hunger or related causes

Available sources do not provide a direct, recent count of deaths from hunger in the U.S.; they do, however, identify where the systemic risks are highest—low‑income households, children, seniors, people with disabilities, regions hit by job loss or program interruptions, and places with limited health care access—and warn that reduced data collection impairs precise assessment ^{[4] [5] [8] [2]}. Researchers and advocates argue that without the USDA survey, policymakers will have less evidence to prevent hunger escalating into lethal outcomes ^{[2] [10]}.

Limitations: reporting focuses on food insecurity and systemic risk factors rather than direct mortality statistics; the sources here document rising hunger, program interruptions and the end of a key federal survey but do not supply a national tally of hunger‑related deaths ^{[2] [1] [3]}.