Reader Dylan has brought me the good news that the Bush Administration, with its many failings, has a plan to wipe out hunger in America. Really. And I think they will carry it out. Really.
The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.
Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."
The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group. (WaPo)
There are an estimated 35 million Americans who have trouble putting food on the table for at least part of the year. Eleven million of them mistakenly report they are hungry at times. It is a significant public education challenge to teach them it's just "very low food security." This has not been easy for the experts, either:
Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."
Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation."
To measure hunger, the USDA determined, the government would have to ask individual people whether "lack of eating led to these more severe conditions," as opposed to asking who can afford to keep food in the house, Nord said.
Oh. I'm not sure I understand that last part, but I do get that there won't be anymore hunger in the US, just "very low food insecurity," defined as "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." The luckier ones are those just with "low food security," i.e., meaning they aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from. Lucky indeed.
In 1999 when Texas Governor George W.Bush was running for President he complained that the USDA that has consistently found his state the nation's hungriest was politically motivated. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said then.
Not only has he now conquered hunger in Texas but he has nothing to complain about for the midterm elections:
This year, when the report failed to appear in October as it usually does, Democrats accused the Bush administration of delaying its release until after the midterm elections. Nord denied the contention, saying, "This is a schedule that was set several months ago."
Several months ago. I guess that was before they knew the date of the election.
- Log in to post comments
It seems that measuring something like food security, along with measuring hunger, would be the best strategy.
The group of people with "very low food security" includes all people who are hungry, plus others who haven't yet felt health consequences beyond "the usual uneasy sensation." (whatever that means)
So there should be a larger number of people with very low food security, but by no longer specifying how many are also actually hungry (in the way it "should" be defined, described in the quotes), the hunger problem is masked.
Measuring and documenting both would be most illuminating, but also most damning.
"You're working hard to put food on your family." -GWB
I think this policy is very promising to world problems like: war (less secure environment), rootless people (having moved at least one time last year), poverty (not always to be expected income).
What a wonderful world this could be!
The joke during the Reagan years was that the adminstration was going to eliminate poverty by making it a federal program - and then cutting it!
Jesus changed water to wine; Reagan changed ketchup into a vegetable & Little George changes hunger into a word most folks with a growling stomach couldn't even define. This is the worst fu**ing administration I've lived through.
Seems to me that it would be a best practice to measure the amount of "MALNUTRION" in the U.S. rather than either "Hunger" or food "insecurity."
Quality of food available to people in the inner cities is not as good as it could be, and even the middle class has trouble eating nutritiously and well.
The whole system of food growing, processing, marketing, and delivery to people needs a good going over. Maybe everybody has access to as many calories as they might need, but they are not getting the nutrients they should have. Witness the large numbers of obese, and skinny people with bad complexions and lack of energy and ambition. A lot of that is due to poor diet.
Granted government acronymns are universally ludicrous and all of us make fun of them (I teach politics and my rule is never to take it serously or it will drive you nuts). Having said that beyond all the predictable republican bashing does anyone care to offer an empirical definition of "hunger" that might be useable in government statistics? I thought not. It is like trying to define how many people who are "sick" cannot get admitted to an ER. It probably IS useful to abandon a subjective concept like "hunger." Albeit 'food security' is silly, a more rational and empirically measurable concept respecting access to adequate nutrition is probably warranted to make better public policy.
pogies mom:
That's an excellent point. I notice confusion in that area often when there's discussion on poverty and welfare.
I am aware of what it costs me to eat food with reasonable nutritional value, versus what it costs to live off junk with lots of calories, and the simple answer is that it's significantly more expensive to eat even mostly right. It'd be double that if I tried to buy organic produce, or top quality meats, or whatever.
I knew people in college who'd try to live off $.99 value menu items at fast food places, and then supplement with vitamins, but it's truly no substitute for nutritious food. They knew it, and surely felt it (in addition to the hangovers), but they couldn't afford good food (or good beer, for that matter...)
So we're talking about people who not only cannot afford decent food, but can't even afford $1.50 for a 1500 calorie meal at a fast food chain. That's what "very low food security" is.
So where is Johnson when you need a new Great Society? The War on Poverty, the xxxx program? All of these idiots sitting around pontificating that we can win the war on hungerare as full of crap as Christmas Turkeys. I havent seen one less poor person, one less homeless one. I have from time to time seen MORE of them no matter who was in charge.
You must not be very old DeLuca. I can remember some seriously bad times during Carters Administration such as a 21% interest rate and unemployment higher than at anytime since the G. Depression.
Randy: You know Carter didn't do that in his few years in office. That was a legacy of the Johnson and Nixon-Ford folks, not to mention the Fed. If you want to spray bullets around the world and be the global cop, then that's what you get. There are a lot more poor people since Reagan than before. Clinton continued Reganesque policies and we see the results with Shrub and his gang of thieves.
pogies mom and Edmund: I agree with you.
I suggest an experiment to end the word games: Take away all food and access to food from Mark Nord and this entire administration, especially the USDA, for four days and then ask all of them individually if they were hungry or just feeling a little anxious about very low food security. Then please ask them after doing this just once if what they were feeling in their bodies fit this definition:a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation." Then ask them if they would like to continue this experiment for the potential rest of their lives, or could they come up with new semantics to describe their condition that would make it all go away.
Word games change nothing. We all know the definition of hunger, some more than others. Maybe the "hungry" need anti-depressants so they won't worry about low food security and then everyone, including the USDA, would be happy.
I grew up hungry - born in 58 - started high school living in a tent - 10 man tent - dirt floor. Bathed in a creek, did laundry in same creek, ate lots of beans and felt lucky to have them. I had 2 parents both uneducated but not afraid of hard work. They had 7 children to feed - my dad had his first heart attack in his 30's - mom did the best she could taking care of the family - she could use a chainsaw as good as any man.
I think you can take the mud slinging of politics and bake them over an open campfire - Neither party can fix all the problems for every one.
I know this much - my life is very much different today than my childhood was. My children and grandchildren do not know the feeling of hunger. They may not have had everything they wanted or even everything they have needed but they had enough.
Government is not meant to be everything to everyone. Society - you and me - we are to fill in the gaps. If you are really concerned with hunger in the US then do something about it - give food to those who need it whether through a money donation or canned goods to a food pantry.
Fishing, Well said and I couldn't agree more. I would much rather hear that kind of advice from this administration than the phony spin and wordspeak they put on everything. Kruger, today is my 46th Birthday (the Anniversary of Kennedy's death)and I bought my first house during those years you speak of, with a 16.5% mortgage. I paid 33 thousand dollars for a townhouse and refinanced a year later when the rates fell and the house appreciated by 75%. Fortunately, one can always refinance to a lower rate. The same can't be said about all the folks who paid too much for their house during the past years of low interest rates. My gripe with this administration is about honesty and integrity and even Nixon looks like a choirboy next to Bush's associates.
In the US,With an increasing amount of the corn crop (and other, rapeseed planting for ex) being diverted to corn/bio-ethanol (subsidised) food prices will rise, and make the situation worse. The rich will drive their bio-fuel SUVS and the poor won't even have the ugly calorific corn syrup. (Say..)
This process is already well underway (look at grains stocks, down, and not trivially, and not just for one year; price - up, now that is mostly for other reasons not related to ethanol) I guess the supermarket prices aren't affected yet. When it happens, it will be a shock, as it will be across the board.
Ana - Here's an interesting article on the topic you brought up, the new competition over corn and brought on by the ethanol boom which could end up raising food prices significantly.
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/172270/