Hungry in the US? No,suffering from "very low food security"

Whatrian?

Er...my sense is that food security is a newer language common throughout the aid/development community

Well, gee willikers. Nice work, deb. I'm going to award myself donkey's ass of the month on this one.

Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."

Dlowan, I think you've missed the point.

I may be off base. Correct me if I am.

But, I also see a difference between the UN referring to food security / insecurity around the world in terms of famine, flood, drought, poor soil, regional war...

And, the USDA referring to food security/ insecurity in terms of individual households.

They appear to me to place the blame in different places. Food insecurity in the US by individual households conjures unemployment, laziness, leaches on society as we can see from some earlier posts here. No mention is made of the national economic / employment situation, the attack of 2001, a horrendous hurrican season in 2005, etc.

dlowan wrote:

Er...my sense is that food security is a newer language common throughout the aid/development community

blatham wrote:

Well, gee willikers. Nice work, deb. I'm going to award myself donkey's ass of the month on this one.

Blatham, dont be too hard on yourself quite yet;

Dlowan, I think you've missed the point.

From the quote in my original post:

Quote:

Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."

Ie, the new thing here is not the introduction of the term "food insecurity"; that was present in the old label (""food insecurity with/without hunger") already as well.

The new thing is that they have now stripped the "with hunger" part and replaced it by merely attaching "very low" to the "food security" label.

With that, I'd say we are firmly in euphemism territory.

Cycloptichorn:

Quote:

The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.

I would disagree with you. People have the ability to take care of themselves. If someone isn't doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. I don't worry about them because I do what I need to do to care for my family. If they have time to steal, then they have time to work. If they aren't working, then they need to fix that. There are programs to help and they need to use what is there and not resort to crime. Break into my house and it will be the welfare of mine before the welfare of yours any day.

I have enough to worry about without worrying about others. Most people in bad shape with money and life are there through their own poor choices in life.

Make your bed and you have to sleep in it.

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn:

Quote:

The thing about the hungry is, no matter whose fault it is that they aren't eating, it is all of our problems; because a hungry man will steal a loaf of bread before he starves to death, and a dozens loafs before his kids starve to death. Poverty and crime affect all Americans, and therefore it is something we will all have to work together to solve.

I would disagree with you. People have the ability to take care of themselves. If someone isn't doing what they need to do to care for themselves and their families. I don't worry about them because I do what I need to do to care for my family. If they have time to steal, then they have time to work. If they aren't working, then they need to fix that. There are programs to help and they need to use what is there and not resort to crime. Break into my house and it will be the welfare of mine before the welfare of yours any day.

I have enough to worry about without worrying about others. Most people in bad shape with money and life are there through their own poor choices in life.

Make your bed and you have to sleep in it.

I take it you've never gone without food to the point of true hunger, Baldimo.

food insecurity without hunger"

POVERTY? NOT A PROBLEM:

So the reporters at McClatchy [..] plunged into the dark cavities of the Census Bureau, and pulled out a stunning statistic: "Nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty"--a category that includes individuals making less than $5,080 a year, and families of four bringing in less than $9,903 a year.

That number, by the way, has been growing rapidly since 2000.

The article itself hits the usual refrains--noting that the United States spends less on anti-poverty programs than any other industrialized country outside of Russia and Mexico--but I found this bit near the end quite striking:

The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10 percent of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003--the latest year available--and that only 36 percent received food stamps. Many could have exhausted their eligibility for welfare or decided that the new program requirements were too onerous. [..]

I doubt those are the only reasons for the low participation rates.

As David K. Shipler reported in The Working Poor, welfare agencies spend a great deal of effort dissuading people from applying for assistance. They'll ask single mothers who come in a few perfunctory questions and then--illegally--refuse to give them an application. Or they'll design "Kafkaesque labyrinths of paperwork" that turn any attempt to obtain benefits into a full-time job. Anything to ease pressure on state budgets.

Luckily, the Bush administration has taken note of all this and proposed to... eliminate the Census's Survey of Income and Program Participation, so that nosy researchers can no longer figure out how many eligible families are receiving assistance. Problem solved!

• but not to worry: the Bush administration is planning to eliminate the Census program that measures how many of them do -- so we soon no longer wont be able to know about this problem.