Assembly committees hold joint oversight hearing on food insecurity as state programs face federal uncertainty

The California State Assembly's Human Services and Agriculture committees held a joint oversight hearing on food insecurity, bringing together state agency leaders, researchers, farmers and food bank representatives to review programs that help Californians access nutritious food and to examine risks from proposed federal changes. Assemblymember Lee opened the hearing and invited the Agriculture committee cochair to join the panel.

The hearing reviewed how state and federal programs interact to reduce hunger, from CalFresh (California's SNAP program) and the Universal School Meals program to state-run initiatives such as the California Nutrition Incentive Program and the Cal Food program for food banks. Witnesses emphasized recent gains in participation and program infrastructure while warning that federal budget actions, paused federal commodity shipments and shrinking state grants could sharply increase need.

Why it matters: Witnesses from the Department of Social Services, the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Public Policy Institute of California and the California Association of Food Banks described a system of interlocking supports that move both benefits and market demand to producers. They warned that large federal proposals — including cuts to nutrition spending, changes to eligibility, and pauses of USDA commodity programs — would ripple through grocery supply, farm markets and food bank capacity and could increase hunger even as California has expanded its own investments.

Most speakers described California's safety net as effective but fragile. Tess Thormann of the Public Policy Institute of California summarized recent survey-based estimates, saying an estimated 1.8 million households (about 13 percent) experienced food insecurity in 2023 and that participation expansions during the pandemic reduced hardship. Alexis Fernandez Garcia, deputy director at the Department of Social Services, said CalFresh now serves millions of Californians and that participation rates have risen in recent federal reports.

Several witnesses highlighted state programs that both reduce hunger and support local agriculture: the California Nutrition Incentive Program (Market Match), farm'to'school investments, healthy refrigeration grants for corner stores, community food hub grants, and new urban agriculture and tribal food sovereignty programs. Secretary Karen Ross of the California Department of Food and Agriculture said, "We now have more infrastructure for that than we've ever had before," while farmers and food hub operators described direct sales to food banks and institutions that helped stabilize small farms during disasters.

Food-bank leaders raised immediate fiscal risks. Becky Silva of the California Association of Food Banks said state Cal Food funding will revert to a baseline of $8 million in the 2025—26 budget year after recent higher appropriations, and that federal programs (TFAP and the Local Food Purchase Assistance / Farms Together rounds) have been paused or canceled, producing canceled truckloads of commodity food.

Panelists urged several concrete steps for the Legislature and administration: defend federal nutrition funding and oppose policies that shrink eligibility or benefits; continue state investments that draw down federal matching dollars (for incentives, refrigeration and school procurement); improve language access and customer service for CalFresh enrollment; and expand market-building investments such as community food hubs and institutional procurement. Assemblymembers signaled interest in budget letters and legislation to preserve and expand several of the state programs discussed.

Looking ahead, witnesses said much of California's ability to shield families from hunger depends on federal funding levels and on continuing targeted state investments that both increase household purchasing power and create local demand for California-grown food.