How Americans Really Eat During an Economic Downturn

As the possibility of a U.S. recession looms, social media users have been busy predicting the downturn by pointing to so-called “recession indicators.” On TikTok, some cite the rise of “Skinnytok,” a subculture that glorifies eating less. Others point to supermarket displays of canned goods, reports of growing frozen pizza and spaghetti sales, or even the popularity of small bottles of liquor. Historically, skipping fries with fast-food orders has also been seen as a sign of economic trouble.

But experts say the reality of how Americans eat in hard times is more complex. The way people adjust their diets during a recession isn’t fully captured by viral memes or eye-catching statistics. Behavioral shifts often run deeper than a few quick substitutions at the checkout counter.

Less eating out

Barry Popkin, a University of North Carolina professor whose research focuses on long-term dietary trends and nutrition economics, tells Food & Wine that the most significant recession-driven shift is where Americans buy their food. When wallets tighten, people spend less at restaurants, fast-food chains, food trucks, and other service providers — and more at grocery stores.

During the 2008 Great Recession, the change was dramatic. According to a 2018 study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, household spending on “food away from home” — meals purchased from restaurants and other food service businesses — declined sharply. Between 2006 and 2010, it fell by 18%, and it didn’t rebound to pre-2006 levels until 2016.

This shift was consistent across socioeconomic groups, suggesting it wasn’t only about affordability but also about time. “For example, if someone loses their job, they might have more time to gather ingredients and cook a meal from scratch,” Popkin explains.

Sticking to the same foods

While recessions push people to cut down on restaurant meals, the types of foods they buy at the grocery store don’t change as much as many might assume. Popkin notes that during the 2008 downturn, core food purchases remained fairly stable.

Take frozen pizza, for instance. Though it has been flagged as a “recession indicator,” Popkin argues that it accounts for too small a slice of overall food purchases to reliably track economic health.

“ You do find a subset of people moving to cheaper food of the same sort,” he says. “But that’s a tiny subsegment of America that was really affected. It may be a few million, but it’s not tens of millions.”

Overall, most households stick to familiar foods and ingredients. What changes is the balance between convenience and labor. “What they were buying just shifted to more labor time at home — more cooking-time prep required — versus getting ready-to-eat [foods], ready-to-heat, takeout, and so on,” Popkin says. “It’s not a change in the quantities of, let’s say, eggs or flour or sugar — it’s just where they’re purchasing.”

The health impacts of recessions

A major consequence of eating fewer meals out is a shift in nutrition. Restaurant and takeout food is often less nutritious than meals prepared at home, and the 2008 recession coincided with a measurable improvement in Americans’ diets. USDA data shows people consumed less saturated fat and cholesterol, while fiber intake increased. Fast food, sugary snacks, and soda all became less common in the average diet.

However, Popkin and his colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health suggest these healthier habits weren’t actually caused by the recession itself. Instead, Americans had already begun making more nutritious choices as early as 2003, partly due to public health campaigns. Efforts to promote whole grains, reduce sugary drink consumption, and highlight the dangers of added sugars were beginning to pay off.

Still, the long-term health impacts of a recession are far from rosy. While a temporary drop in fast-food consumption might look like a silver lining, losing income altogether changes the story dramatically.

“Going from high income to middle income, there’s minimal impact [on eating] except a little bit of luxury,” Popkin explains. “What we’re really talking about is going from working to not working, living off of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid and so forth, and then it’s drastic.”

SNAP cuts and future strain

The government food assistance program SNAP is a lifeline for millions of Americans. But even with help, making ends meet is difficult. As of 2025, the average SNAP recipient gets about $6.16 per day for food. According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 61% of recipients report that the cost of nutritious ingredients remains a barrier to eating well.

Now, changes in federal policy could make that struggle even harder. President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, set to take effect on October 1, includes cuts to SNAP that will reduce benefits regardless of whether a recession actually takes hold. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.4 million fewer Americans will receive SNAP benefits each month through 2034.

The true impact may be far broader. The Urban Institute estimates that 22.3 million U.S. families could lose some or all of their monthly benefits. For those households, the question isn’t whether to swap takeout for home cooking or pick frozen pizza over fresh. It’s whether they’ll have enough food at all.

The real indicator

So while TikTok trends and grocery-store displays may make for catchy recession chatter, they miss the bigger picture. What really defines how Americans eat during economic downturns isn’t a quirky food fad — it’s whether families have the resources and support to keep food on the table.

In that sense, the truest “recession indicator” isn’t in the frozen aisle or the drive-thru window. It’s in the lives of millions of households, stretching every dollar just to make it to the next meal.