Second Helping: May 5, 2026

Your weekly must-read list for all things related to hunger, food security, inequality, and the like.

One of my goals for this publication is to build up other voices advocating for an end to hunger in our communities and in our world.

Each week, this series, Second Helping, will serve as your extra nourishment — an effort to develop the advocacy ecosystem by highlighting the best work I can find. I’ve been scouring Substack for other publications in this critical niche and I’m eager to share the excellent writers and content I’ve come across. Please feel free to pass along any other publications!

---

Affordability by the numbers: Help from friends and family
By Scott Fulford for Kitchen Table Economics

Informal social safety nets remain a primary survival strategy for Americans facing financial hardship, as highlighted in this article. In 2024, 24 percent of households received financial help from friends or family, but that figure jumps to 47 percent for those earning less than $20,000. While these ties offer a lifeline, the reliance on loved ones is a “double-edged sword.”

Providing assistance is now the third most common cause of financial distress, trailing only medical bills and auto repairs. This creates a cycle where one household’s crisis can destabilize an entire community. Even so, I maintain that cultivating your own “village” of friends and family, one built on collectivism, is a meaningful way for especially lower-income households to blunt the effects of inequality.

The Means-Testing Industrial Complex
By Luke Farrell for Can We Still Govern?

In this article, Luke Farrell explores how “administrative burdens” have become a lucrative business model for corporations like Equifax and Deloitte. As the U.S. shifts toward stricter means-testing for programs like Medicaid and SNAP, private vendors charge governments hundreds of millions to verify eligibility. Farrell argues these companies essentially “tax” the safety net, profiting from the very complexity that often prevents eligible, hungry, or uninsured Americans from accessing aid.

This is a drum I’ve been beating since I started this newsletter six months ago. Every dollar allocated to contractors to administer a program is a dollar that isn’t going to actually helping people.

Farrell highlights a troubling “Rube Goldberg machine” where data brokers exploit market dominance to hike prices, while contractors build error-prone systems that prioritize billable hours over functionality. To combat this, he proposes building public infrastructure, such as open-source eligibility software and state-run income verification, to simplify access and redirect taxpayer dollars from corporate profits back to human needs.

Two buses, three hours and 13 miles: how Americans in ‘transit deserts’ get groceries without cars
By Lela Nargi for RWAtimes.io

Many policy decisions can tangentially affect hunger in our communities. In this post, Lela Nargi examines the “transit fiscal cliff” threatening food access for 25 million Americans in transit deserts.

As pandemic-era funding evaporates, cities like Memphis and Providence are slashing bus routes, forcing residents without cars into grueling multi-hour commutes for basic groceries. For many, a simple trip to the store now requires navigating unreliable schedules, high delivery fees, or expensive ride-shares that devour limited SNAP benefits.

The article, which originally appeared in the Guardian, highlights how these “administrative burdens” and infrastructure gaps disproportionately affect the elderly and low-income households. When bus stops are removed, residents often pivot to local bodegas with higher prices and fewer nutritious options, worsening food insecurity. While some communities are trialing innovative fixes — like microtransit, taxi vouchers, and even scooter programs — Nargi argues that without prioritizing transit in urban planning, the safety net remains physically out of reach for the most vulnerable.

ICYMI

Carrots, not sticks: A proven alternative to SNAP ‘junk food’ bans
By Michael Prunka for Enough

This is the final piece on SNAP “junk food” restrictions in light of my state of North Carolina exploring such a policy. In this, I look into the incentive-based policies that actually achieve the objectives that food restrictions set out to.

One study of an incentive approach noted a 26-percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption — a meaningful improvement in healthy choices not observed in “junk food” bans. On top of that, the funds spent on these kinds of policies support local economies rather than being allocated to the IT contractors who help grocers comply with restrictions.

---

Thank you for reading. If this piece resonated with you, the best way to support my work is by sharing it. Every share helps grow this community of advocates committed to ending hunger and food insecurity in our communities.