Rising numbers of Montanans are securing emergency food from food banks across the state, primarily because of the soaring costs of food and fuel.

Through September, more than 162,000 Montana households visited food banks, up from about 154,000 a year ago, said Peggy Grimes, executive director of the Montana Food Bank Network, based in Missoula. That’s the highest number since 2005.

“Everybody is aware of the fact that emergency-food needs are just skyrocketing around the country,” Grimes said. “We’re seeing a huge increase in Montana.”

For example, the Gallatin Valley Food Bank has seen a 44 percent increase in users this year. At the Flathead Food Bank, 306 families now stop by weekly for emergency food supplies, up from 185 a year ago. In Billings, Family Service has seen a 54 percent increase.

In Missoula earlier this month, a local food pantry open Saturdays ran out of food because so many people were in line.

“Over the holidays it’s quite high,” Grimes said. “Several of the food pantries are having to cut back over the holidays. They are giving only the turkeys, not the full meals. It’s becoming a very serious problem statewide.”

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 9.5 percent of Montana’s population, or nearly 91,000 people, lived in households struggling with hunger or “food insecurity” from 2005-2007. The USDA uses the term “food insecurity” to describe households that struggle to afford enough food.

Of those, 3.8 percent lived in households the USDA said had “very low food security.” People in that classification had more severe hunger problems and cut back or skipped meals on a more frequent basis. This includes both adults and children.

These trends are outlined in the latest two-year report, “Hungry in Montana: Factors contributing to Emergency Food Needs” by the Montana Food Bank Network, based in Missoula, and its advocacy arm, the Food Security Council. It included a confidential survey of 342 food bank clients from Hamilton, Helena, Kalispell, Plains, Ronan, Roundup and Wolf Point.

It found high food and fuel prices were the major reason people obtained emergency food, said Kate Bradford, the network’s public policy director. Other factors were low wages, fixed incomes, utility costs, unemployment, health care costs and housing costs.

Nearly 63 percent of those surveyed reported having had to choose between buying food or fuel, about 58 percent between food and utilities, nearly 50 percent food and rent and nearly 44 percent between food and medicine.

Bradford said food banks saw many more people on fixed incomes, older and often living in rural areas.

“They also saw a lot of people with higher income,” she said. “That’s an indication of the newly poor or people laid off or impacted by the cost of food and fuel. That’s a change we saw this year.”

Another new trend is people stopping at food banks more frequently, Bradford said. Each food bank has its own policy, but most allow people to visit weekly.

“If someone comes two or three times, often they won’t be turned away,” she said. In some cities with multiple food pantries, people visit different ones in the same week.

The survey found that 50 percent of urban food bank clients and 57 percent of Indian reservation clients had skipped meals at least once a week so someone else in their family could eat, Bradford said.

Of the food bank clients with children, the survey found more than 12 percent of clients said their kids sometimes skipped meals.

To stretch their limited budgets, food bank clients often bought less nutritious food, such as higher-fat meats and cheeses, high-fat and high-salt snacks, white bread and artificially sweetened beverages, Bradford said. They said they would prefer to buy more nutritious items, include more fresh fruits and vegetables, but costs were prohibitive.

Bradford said it found a number of food bank clients weren’t aware of summer food programs available for children in some communities, but sometimes the people were located 30 miles away. The network is working the Office of Public Instruction to increase participation and not require children to travel to another town.

Another challenge is trying to make food bank clients aware of other government nutrition programs and to get them enrolled. One is the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program.

The survey found households enrolled in SNAP were less likely to have to choose between food and fuel, rent and utilities and were less likely to skip meals, Bradford said. They also were more likely to be enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, and Children, better known as the WIC program, and school lunch programs.

She said the Food Bank Network is working with its member agencies to train them to help clients apply for SNAP.

Figures show 61 percent of eligible Montanans are enrolled in SNAP, a program that brings $90 million in federal funds to the state’s economy, officials said.

“People need to understand that these are nutrition programs, not welfare,” said Minkie Medora, chair of the network’s Food Security Council. “There are a lot of people who have this fixed idea that public food assistance is just another welfare giveaway. The danger of this bias is that hungry people hear it and don’t apply.”

Instead, they think it is easier to go to the food banks, she said.

The bias against SNAP clients is not as prevalent as it has been in the past, but still exists, she said.

“People with this bias should spend a week with a low-income family and see how they’re struggling,” Medora said. “They are people who are trying to do the right thing. There are almost no cases of abuse.”