Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry --WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html?referrer=email



By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; A01

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.

The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security." In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food. That last group now forms the category "very low food security," described as experiencing "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." Slightly better-off people who aren't always sure where their next meal is coming from are labeled "low food security."

The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent. The agency usually releases the report in the fall, for reasons that "have nothing to do with politics," Nord said. 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."

It is not likely that USDA economists will tackle measuring individual hunger. "Hunger is clearly an important issue," Nord said. "But lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it."

That 35 million people in this wealthy nation feel insecure about their next meal can be hard to believe, even in the highest circles. In 1999, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated. "I'm sure there are some people in my state who are hungry," Bush said. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry." Bush said he believed that the statistics were aimed at his candidacy. "Yeah, I'm surprised a report floats out of Washington when I'm running a presidential campaign," he said.

THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS....HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

[theHandpuppet]

1. Here's a 2006 Hunger Study from America's Second Harvest

http://www.hungerinamerica.org/

[yellowcanine]

52. Oh my. They use "Food security" instead of "Hunger" as a measure.

Are they sock puppets also?

[acmejack]

2. Dinners ready, who's food insecure?

[semillama]

19. Your response actually illustrates why the USDA needed a new term

I mean, I was hungry a few minutes ago, but then I had breakfast. I was definitely NOT food insecure.

I read the article, and I have no problem with the use of the term "Security". I see their point in the problems with using the word "hunger" - it's hard to define what you are talking about. In their new terminology, it's much easier to separate out the different categories under the Very High Food Insecurity index, and thus, it's that much easier to identify and address causes and even separate out issues of nutrition versus actual caloric deficits. Seems to me it really showed clearly that food insecurity is definitely an economic problem.

I may be the lone voice of dissent against the majority here, but I think that when you are trying to measure something scientifically, you do need more precise terminology. They aren't trying to sugar coat anything, they're trying to understand the phenomenon of hunger better.

[GirlinContempt]

20. Of course you want precise terminology

however, more and more these reports and wording seem aimed at lowering the perceived impact of the problem, rather than properly defining something. It's more important people don't think the problem exists.

[Quantess]

64. I'm not sure that "lowering the perceived impact of the problem" is the goal

It might be because, since malnourished people are often overweight, or even obese, it sounds odd to call them "hungry". A typical reaction might be to dismiss an overweight person who needs food, with, "you don't look hungry to me".

It's a little easier to believe that an overweight person has problems getting enough nutrition, than to believe they're hungry. Am I right?

[yellowcanine]

32. I agree, Food security is actually a better term but I can see why some

think that this is another attempt to fuzz up a sensitive issue. I know Mark Nord - the guy quoted in the article, and he is no right winger. He is a conscientious social scientist and would not allow anyone to impose a political spin on his findings.

[mcscajun]

95. "Mommy, I'm HUNGRY!"

"No you're not, dear, you're just experiencing a temporary instance of food insecurity. Now go to bed; maybe we'll be able to have some food tomorrow."

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[No Exit]

104. Help for the Food-Impaired!

We need to get rid of Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland--or at least make them SHARE.

[strategery blunder]

3. Yep, define away the problem, pretend it doesn't exist...

Kind of like how the * administration classified fast food jobs as "manufacturing" jobs... :eyes:

Then the problem can be safely ignored while * spews on how GREAT the economy is...

[MountainLaurel]

31. That is their way, after all

:grr:

[NOLADEM]

4. What the fuck do they call them, involuntary anorexics?

:shrug:

[Strawman]

34. We prefer the term "nutritionally challenged"

What a load of Orwellian crap. These Bush people are fucking evil.

[Nihil]

48. "Obesity challenged"?

:shrug:

[Quantess]

51. "involuntary anorexics" is misleading, since hungry, malnourished, people are often overweight.

Eating empty, starchy, calories does not satisfy all the body's nutritional needs. A hungry person might be living off stale hamburger buns covered in pancake syrup, if that's all they've got. A diet like that would provide calories, but nothing else. No one would guess they're hungry, because they're going to look well fed, but really they are malnourished.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

75. Malnourished works.

That's the gist of the problem.

[Quantess]

82. Correct. One can be "fat" and still be malnourished.

There's no excuse for anyone to be malnourished in the U.S.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. This should be on the front page of every newspaper

Shame on us.

[sugapablo]

17. You know, this wouldn't bother me at all...

...if they just, at the end of spending countless hours and money redefining everything, presented a solution to make sure no one in this country would ever be "food insecure" again.

[flamingyouth]

6. "Very low food insecurity"

Just string a bunch of words together and maybe people won't wise up to what it actually means: Americans are going hungry! :grr:

[OhioChick]

7. The US should be ashamed of themelves. n/t

[Vinca]

8. Food security? FOOD SECURITY??

THESE PEOPLE ARE FREAKIN' NUTS! (Yes, it's 7:55 a.m. and I'm yelling already.)

[Demeter]

9. I'm Sorry--Didn't Mean to Make You Yell!

Please realize that I severely edited the article to make it coherent--the original probably wouldn't have been able to hook you so fast.

[flamingyouth]

10. Yeah, it's not even 5 a.m. here and I was yelling too

Stories like this have that effect on us. x(

[AnneD]

16. Hell of a way ...

to start your morning...since we're in the same time have:donut: on me. Pretty soon they'll be declaring that real food. But then, with this admin-I really have to swear off the caffine-reading the headlines is enough to get me going. What a maroon-food insecurity!

[EFerrari]

47. I'm glad Orwell isn't here to read this. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

11. "What the hell, I am eating like a king. Screw the proles." - Commander AWOL

"Can you poor people please shut up and sit down. You are such a pain in the ass."

- ChristoFaux Republicons

[Demit]

12. "I don't believe 5 percent are hungry."

I don't remember that tidbit. I wonder how widely that was reported at the time, about the guy running as a compassionate conservative you'd like to have a beer with.
Who dismisses an annually released report as being aimed at him politically. I know Molly Ivins had his number then, but surely other reporters covering his campaign could see what a sociopath he was?

[LynnTheDem]

23. It was widely reported, only no one listened. Texas is full of starving

Americans, full of poverty...and george W. Bush DENIED that anyone was hungry or poor in Texas.

he also denied the govt reports that listed TEXAS as the #1 most polluted state in the Union.

What george w bush doesn't like, george w bush simply denies out of existance.

[meegbear]

25. While gov, he also made changes to the poor and health care ...

Early in 1999, Bush declared that only children in families below 150 percent of the federal poverty level would qualify for low-cost health insurance through the federal program CHIP. Other governors, even conservative ones, set eligibility starting at 200 percent, but not the compassionate conservative himself. Setting eligibility at 200 percent would have cost the state about $189 million. Never mind that Texas is second only to California in the number of uninsured children.

Furthermore, while Bush was keeping children from receiving health insurance, he also gave a $45 million tax break to help the owners of "itty-bitty" oil and gas wells. As it turns out, most of the so-called itty-bitty wells were owned by Exxon.

http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-2000/mollyivins.html

[BootinUp]

13. But this is The Greatest Nation of all time...

"Those statistics are not credible." - George W. Bush

[Virginia Dare]

14. Lacking widespread concensus on what "hunger" should refer to...

it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it." One of the single most ridiculous statements I have ever read, bar none. They are playing politics with words while children go hungry. Mark Nord is a waste of our taxpayer dollars. :banghead:

[yellowcanine]

44. You don't know anything about Mark Nord. I do. He is a hard working

public servant and he puts in long hours coming up with these reports. And he is correct. There is no scientific consensus for the meaning of "hunger". On the other hand, it is possible to quantify "food security". Either you have enough money to buy enough good food for your family every day or you don't. It can be measured. Maybe you can only buy good food half the time or maybe you can buy good food only until the social security check and the food stamps run out. It can be measured. "Hunger" can't. Mark Nord knows a lot more about hungry children than you do, I would guess. He probably knows as much about them as anyone else in the U.S. In fact, he is a world authority on hungry children. That was an ignorant cheap shot on your part. Link to profile on Mark Nord. Look at the titles of the publications.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

[yellowcanine]

50. I would also add. Read some of his publications at the link I gave and then

you will see that you are wrong about Mark Nord.

[YankeyMCC]

15. But but...

the moral crusaders have kept homosexual people from getting married in most states!?

:sarcasm:

[angstlessk]

18. How many people die from 'food insecurity' daily?

10's of thousands per year, maybe hundreds of thousands die from 'food insecurity'? BIZZARE WORLD

[yellowcanine]

63. No, they starve or die of malnutrition because of food insecurity.

Food insecurity is the situation that results in hunger, starvation and malnutrition. Seems pretty clear to me.

[librechik]

21. I want to lock this guy up in a buggy apartment in the projects for a month

with nothing but a bag of flour, some salt, and 50 dollars in food stamps. Maybe he'll learn how to define hunger.

[yellowcanine]

62. That is a real cheap shot - here - read about Mark Nord and see if

you still think you know more about hunger than he does.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

If you click on some of the articles and read them you will get a better picture than your cartoon picture of Mr. Nord.

[librechik]

92. Cheap? OK, make it 60 in food stamps, and I'll throw in some margarine

but that's my last offer from the government commodities warehouse. I hear they quit handing out cheese.

Oh, and by the way I'd like to see Mark Nord try and feed three kids on food stamps and handouts from the food bank like I did for years. You bet I know more about hunger than he does.

[yellowcanine]

109. Cute but you are not actually making logical arguments. You are just

talking in cartoons. You may know more about hunger on an individual basis than Mark Nord. But he has a better understanding of hunger and food insecurity on a national and global scale. One doesn't have to personnally experience hunger to understand the condition. That would be like saying an epidemiologist could not understand how the flu spreads if he has never gotten the flu. That is nonsense.

[LynnTheDem]

22. "the number of (starving) hungriest Americans has RISEN over the PAST 5 YEARS"

Gee, how could that possibly happen under the Great bUsh Gawd?

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Well, look at the bright side.

At least one of George Bush's agencies has figured out a use for science:

"Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group."

:sarcasm:

God help us when if figures out that, scientifically, human skin can be used to make lamp shades, and human fat to make soap.

[warrens]

26. More screwing around with science

USDA is theoretically a non-political entity (although it rarely is). The Bushies have turned it into a bitterly partisan wing of the GOP. For instance, it knew that a cow that had tested positive early for BSE was positive, but put pressure on the lab to screw up the IHC test so they could call it inconclusive. Everyone knew it was positive, but USDA refused for six months to do a Western blot test on the animal or to allow a third party to examine the samples. Finally, Phyllis Fong, the USDA inspector general, seized the samples and sent them to England for testing. It came back positive.

[acmavm]

27. It just amazes me how these asses come up with all these

weasel words to cloud an issue. Everytime the truth startes to slip out about conditions, and I don't mean 'good conditions', in here the good old US of A, someone wants to throw the report out because they don't like the terminology.

[yellowcanine]

36. Did you read the article - no one is trying to "throw out the report" that I can see.

Mark Nord is neither an "ass" nor a right winger. He is a conscientious social scientist and he gave some good reasoning why "food security" is a better term than "hunger".


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."


It is not likely that USDA economists will tackle measuring individual hunger. "Hunger is clearly an important issue," Nord said. "But lacking a widespread consensus on what the word 'hunger' should refer to, it's difficult for research to shed meaningful light on it."

"In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food.


In other words, using the term food insecurity, one actually comes up with a larger number than using the word "hunger", because food insecurity now includes those who may not actually be hungry but they also aren't eating well because they can't afford to (for example, not getting enough fresh fruits and vegetables). High starch, fat and sugar calories are cheaper than calories from fresh fruits and vegetables. You might not feel hungry but you won't be healthy either, because you can only afford crappy food.

[acmavm]

37. Yeah, I read the damn article. And they are trying to muddy

the waters.

Hunger is hunger. It's a term that's worked for ever for the conditions of not being able get enough food, not getting any food, or not being able to afford food that constitutes a healthy diet. That is malnutrition of another sort.

You can think what you want, I don't give a damn.

It's like so many of the 'trendy' phrases people come up with for crap.

[Megahurtz]

60. It Doesn't Matter.

The term "Food Insecurity" minimizes and discounts the issue at hand.

Ya know, dupes the Stupes into thinking things are not so bad? :shrug:

[yellowcanine]

65. That is your opinion. Not mine. Read the articles written by Mark Nord and

see if you still think he is minimizing anything about hunger.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

[area51]

28. How very appropriate

for the 2nd Great Depression, with a horrific lack of jobs in this country, to simply define away hunger with words. This is the most un-Christian, pro-nazi administration to ever rule this country.

[praeclarus]

29. if you can't feed yourself, even 1 day of the year,...

... it is safe to say you are hungry.

An important component of propaganda is making
words meaningless. Newspeak if you like. Or doublethink.

They're not hungry, they're just food insecure fer fucks
sake.

This is the richest nation on the globe, there should
be no hungry people. End of story.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. What a crock of CRAP!! They just had to get in the term "security"

didn't they? What! Now Bush will be keeping people who don't have food safe from low food security?

"more scientifically palatable description for that group" :argh:

[yellowcanine]

39. Actually food security has been used for a long time. It has been used in conjunction with

hunger for years in these reports.

"In assembling its report, the USDA divides Americans into groups with "food security" and those with "food insecurity," who cannot always afford to keep food on the table. Under the old lexicon, that group -- 11 percent of American households last year -- was categorized into "food insecurity without hunger," meaning people who ate, though sometimes not well, and "food insecurity with hunger," for those who sometimes had no food.


In other words, using the term food insecurity, one actually comes up with a larger number than using the word "hunger", because food insecurity now includes those who may not actually be hungry but they also aren't eating well because they can't afford to (for example, not getting enough fresh fruits and vegetables). High starch, fat and sugar calories are cheaper than calories from fresh fruits and vegetables. You might not feel hungry but you won't be healthy either, because you can only afford crappy food.

[AliceWonderland]

41. Yes -- "food security" has been around for some time

It's widely used as a concept in development. Ideas of "human security" gained ground after the collapse of the Cold War system, which had ripped apart the social fabric of many developing countries where proxy wars were fought. The UNDP Human Development Report did a big thing on human security in 1994 -- it's all about taking the notion of security and broadening it so that it doesn't mean guns & bombs. Food is a security issue. Environmental degradation is a security issue. Human rights are a security issue.

It was intended expand a rigid and narrow understanding of "security."

[noonwitch]

33. It's hard to put food on your family!

I think this is more of a problem in rural areas than big cities-all big cities have soup kitchens and churches that give away food. In Detroit, we have churches in every neighborhood that have food pantries for the poor in the area. We also have the Gleaners program, which distributes day old bread that grocery stores and bakeries donate. My church does a canned food drive that we donate to an inner-city program, either Gleaners or St. Leo's. Urban poverty creates different issues, like housing and utility problems, but people can always find food. Rural poor families have to deal with a lack of food in addition to the other problems.

When I did my field work in college in 1985-86, one of the things I did was register people for and hand out government cheese and other staples. Do they still have these programs? We handed out the kind of stuff that could help people get by until payday-blocks of cheese, elbow macaroni, flour, butter, honey, sometimes cereal and powdered milk. This was in Kalamazoo, and we always had more food than we could give away. We were forever raising our minimum income in order to give it all away every month, and allowed anyone with a medicaid card to get it (which included a lot of middle-class seniors, too). All foster families were eligible, and those who were single adults on the former General Assistance program (mostly adults with mental health issues that didn't qualify for SSI)also were eligible. This was a good program, because it was food that would have been wasted by the USDA if it hadn't been given away.

In Detroit, Focus Hope (a charity) gives away the food and the demand is so high, that they have pretty strict eligibility standards. Families have to have children under 5 to get it, and they are usually given the choice of that or WIC. Most take WIC, because you get coupons that you can use in most stores.

[kineneb]

35. we qualify for USDA free food

as a member of the "food insecure" here is how it looks:

-I don't buy fancy cuts of meat; I search the weekly specials for on-sale hot dogs, chicken and hamburger, and freeze the extras. (Hubby cannot eat a vegetarian diet- he is a dialysis patient on a special diet, so please don't even bother with those suggestions.)

-The only fruit & vegetables I buy are in season and on sale; the rest come out of my garden or cans from the discount grocery. I check the specials for canned goods to put in the pantry.

-I go to the food hand out at the beginning of each month. We often get weird stuff, but sometimes there are really good things in the bag. It all helps in some way.

-I have had to visit the food pantry. It was not a fun experience, but we didn't have enough money to buy groceries and pay the bills. And I was working at the time (so much for work lifting people out of poverty).

--There is nothing more panic-making than looking at your budget and realizing that there is no money left to buy food. And if you are lucky, there are some cans and noodles around to make something. If you are not lucky, you go hungry.

[Gormy Cuss]

53. You are an example of why 'food security' is used these days.

There are a range of conditions where nutritious food is not affordable yet chronic hunger is not evident. When I worked on Federal anti-poverty initiatives there were very few chronically hungry people to be found but many who had skipped meals, lost weight, and hadn't seen a vegetable or quality protein on the menu in a very long time. If all of the food banks closed up shop there would be many more people who fell into the category of 'hungry' on a chronic basis.

[noonwitch]

105. What's bad is that so much food gets thrown away daily

like I said, in Kalamazoo, we could never give away all that we were given. Stores throw out fruit and vegetables every day that are still edible, just not as fresh as the store's standards.

I can be bad about it, too, as a single person. Every garbage day, I throw out food that I didn't eat from the last week. I throw all produce out on garbage day and start new. I buy a half-gallon container of milk, and never use it all before it goes sour. Chocolate never goes bad in my house, though.

[Solly Mack]

38. Because "going hungry" just sounds so negative I guess

Sheesh.Couching the ugly truth in less than ugly language.

[yellowcanine]

40. Did you read the article? It is more complex than that.

See my other posts. I am getting tired of repeating myself.

[Solly Mack]

42. Yes, I read it - and you can repeat yourself until you are

blue in the face if that makes you feel better about yourself (I don't care) - but that will still not change my preferring using language that speaks the truth plainly.

Missing meals because you can't afford enough food. Going hungry. Unable to buy food.Unable to buy enough food. Eating poorly because of having to choose between a roof over your head or food on the table. Buy food or pay bills.

I don't call crimes mistakes and I don't refer to lies as misspeaking. Going hungry is going hungry. Stark terms for a stark problem. There are varying degrees of hunger - but it's still hunger.


Have a nice day.

[praeclarus]

43. exactly right

And to yellowcanine, it is not complex. If you didn't have
food, it would be quite plain and simple all of a sudden.

[yellowcanine]

45. Actually most food insecurity isn't about having food. It is about not

having the right kind of food and for how many days of the month one can afford to buy the right kind of food. And what else one has to give up to put food on the table. And how many hours one has to work to put good food on the table. And what happens when one gets sick and can't afford medicine and so cannot work those hours. So yes it is complex. Nothing simple at all about hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity unless one is into black and white analysis/no grays. Hmm, sounds like our current president, no?

[praeclarus]

54. actually most hunger is about not having enough food...

... really quite simple. Whether it is none,
scraps got out of garbage bin, dog food, one day
of the week forced fasting, trading off other
necessities, eating at MacD's everyday which is
actually quite cheap but will kill you quick,
etc.

All equally unacceptable. I'll call it hunger,
you can call it "nutrionally challenged" or
"domestically deficient". Doesn't change a thing
except perceptions because it doesn't sound too
bad.

[AliceWonderland]

56. The poster was talking about food security

which *is* about more than hunger. Food security encompasses hunger, but goes beyond it: agricultural resources and how they're used/who uses them; how food is distributed; what decisions people have to make to get food (some of which you outlined); what environmental factors lead to supply uncertainty; what food is imported and what happens to food prices, etc. It's complex in that a lot of factors must be considered. You could have a community with a lower rate of hunger than others, but that still has food security issues.

[yellowcanine]

57. When/where did I use the terms "nutritionally challenged" or "domestically

deficient"? And where did I say that any of this was "acceptable? Setting up straw men to shoot down doesn't enhance your arguments. Hunger is much more than just not having enough food - as your own examples demonstrate, by the way. Like I said, nothing simple about it. Why don't you go to this link and read some of the actual articles that have been written by Mark Nord and then see how simple it is? Or you can just rest easy in your world of simple answers to complex problems.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

[Gormy Cuss]

61. The issue is the banishment of the term hunger, but the definition is clear.

Food insecurity as a term covers the broad range of issues with being unable to afford a sufficient supply of nutritious food. WaPo is correct that expunging 'hunger' from the report is another deflection from the reality of the level of poverty in the U.S., but the umbrella term 'food security' is better than the narrowly defined 'hunger.'

Ironically,it was conservatives who first objected to 'food security' as a measure because using the more limiting term 'hunger' painted a much rosier picture of life for the low income because it ignored the large number of people who are one step away from chronic hunger or who can only afford cheap filler food devoid of essential vitamins and good proteins.

[yellowcanine]

84. Exactly. Conservatives prefer the term "hunger" because the number of "hungry people"

will be SMALLER than the number of "food insecure" people. That is because food insecurity not only captures the hungry people today but also the people who might not be hungry but are malnourished AND the people who are at risk of being hungry or malnourished next week or next month.

[Miss Chybil]

46. And to Bush, it's all about his campaign

Everybody's faking being hungry just to steal a few votes from him. Not to worry, George, when people are starving they aren't likely to even be thinking about you.

[grilled onions]

49. How about a simple version?

Take a graphic, say a pancake and like symbols they use for hotels(****) they could put people on a list of five pancake stacks going all the way to no stacks at all. At a glance they could see that Joseph is a two stacker and Morgan is a four! At least with a food symbol the number of pancakes seems more to the point then all that insecure nonsense.

[Megahurtz]

55. Fucking Idiots!

:mad: Just like their outdated poverty-level scale. A person has to be making
below $600 a month to be considered poor (not taking into consideration the cost of living)
I guess that must be"very low MONEY security".

What about all those MONEY insecure households???:sarcasm:

Who the fuck are these people trying to kid with their bogus buzz-phrases?
They're nothing more than G.O.P.-style sugar-coated LIES!!!:argh:

[Javaman]

58. "We don't have a measure of that condition." -Mark Nord

What a colossal prick.

Let's call a spade a spade, the rich don't have a term for Hungry. The rest of us do.

This is the clearest form of trench mouth politics.

"Very low food security", WTF??????????? AKA hardly any food!!!!!you gigantic dumb fucks!!!!!!

ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate these people!!!!!!!!

[yellowcanine]

67. Is this the guy you hate?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

Click on some of the articles and read what Mark Nord has actually written about hunger rather than judging him on a couple of quotes lifted out of a newspaper article. Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter and been surprised/chagrined at what the reporter wrote and how he wrote it? I have. Read the reports that Mark Nord has written on hunger and food security in the U.S. and see if you still think he is a "colossal prick."

[pitohui]

83. these posters are not realistic about the interview process

a shitty writer or reporter could make mother theresa herself sound like satan -- sometimes by accident and lack of skill at clear writing, sometimes by mean-spirited intent

they're lashing out at the wrong person in their frustration

[yellowcanine]

85. Exactly. There is a fair amount of anti-intellectualism being expressed here

as well. People are attacking scientific language because it confuses them. Some of these words have precise meanings that enable scientists to communicate effectively with each other. It is really unfair to pick out a scientific term and try to impose a layman's understanding on it, which is kind of what this reporter did.

[gerrilea]

91. I have read through most of the posts here and I have to commend you.

Good job in explaining your positions and defending them...I too will get shot down for this but...I completely understand the "food insecurity" term and actually until reading these posts...I've lived my life in that "mode" of preventing my own "food insecurity"...

Not realizing the "new" terms being argued for or against here...it's not about not having any food to eat but what you eat...

There was one time in my life that I truly had no money, no job (I was laid off) and no food...it scared the hell out of me...I went hungry for about 5 days until my mother sent me money to actually buy food....

I've learned through the years that I need food to live, 1st priority...even a home to cook or eat the food in is not necessary...but the food is...I now have a pantry full of canned meat products and veggies..."just in case"...enough to last a little over 6 months...

AND I don't feel secure unless my pantry is full...I know the reality of not having food...The fear, self loathing, shame, for letting yourself get into this situation...

I JUST REALIZED that what you are saying is sooo much more acurate than being hungry...AND I SUSPECT THE REAL numbers of Americans who are or were in similar situations is even higher than reported currently...

Again, Good Job on your explanation and defense...I do understand the others that say being hungry is still being hungry and they are correct too...VARYING SHADES OF HUNGER...

One extreme...having food yet malnurished...and the other extreme...no food or resources to get food leading to starvation...


THERE'S MY TAKE ON THIS...EVERYONE IS RIGHT...FOR DIFFERENT REASONS...YET YOUR POSITION DOES LEAD TO A HIGHER AND MORE REALISTIC NUMBER OF US BEING INCLUDED IN THE REALITY WE ALL FACE...

HUNGER IN AMERICA...For shame on all of us...

:hippie:

[bkcc]

59. This shouldn't come as any surprise.

Not from the people who brought us the "Clear Skies Initiative" and "No Child Left Behind."

This is truly bureaucracy and big government at its worst.

Sickening.

[Trillo]

66. Now we know how well Bush's vaunted tax breaks have

worked out.

about 12% of Americans are <strike>the PC term for</strike> hungry.
about 12% of Humans worldwide are hungry. (some 850 million, IIRC)

We Americans are so much better off living under "homeland security" than others elsewhere.

[yellowcanine]

68. "Food security" has been around a lot longer than "homeland security". It is a

standard social science term for measurement of the access to having enough food/or the right kind of food. Only "PC" if you insist on making it so.

[closeupready]

70. Most Americans can't place Denver on a map

of the continental US. Those same people are going to know what "food insecurity" means?

That term sounds more like it's describing potential crop failure/distribution problems, or something bureaucratic like that.

[yellowcanine]

71. Well that is our loss isn't it? Should we "dumb down" the public discourse

because we have such a crappy educational system and people would rather watch "American Idol" or spend their time IMing each other rather than occasionally reading a book or newspaper? Sorry, I don't think so. I have posted a link here numerous times for people who have been mouthing off about Mark Nord to actually go to his profile and read some of what he has written. So far no one has bitten that I can tell. We would rather get outraged by something we really don't know anything about than read something that might actually make us think. DU isn't as bad as FreeRepublic on this point but sometimes one would be hard put to tell the difference if the references to the OP were removed. This has just about done it for me and DU. I happen to know Mark Nord and I know how hard he works and how much he cares about poor people all over the world. The guy is a walking service project. Yes he gets paid for his USDA work and he uses standard social science jargon in describing it, which doesn't always come across so well in a newspaper article. The way some people are willing to just trash someone they know nothing about other than a couple of quotes in a newspaper article that may or may not be in the context of what the guy actually said (I have been interviewed for newspaper articles and believe me, I didn't like the guy they were quoting when I read the actual article) just really discourages me. I would like to think that the folks on DU are a little more willing to dig into things in an intellectual way that the nuts over at FreeRepublic. Someone prove that for me please.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

Lots of articles there by Mark Nord about hunger and food security if anyone is interested.

[closeupready]

72. This is not about Mark Nord.

If you, as a member here, say he is a great guy, I believe you. I have no reason not to.

This is about, rather, speaking in terms which are ineffective at getting the salient point across to people who can do something about it, i.e., voters.

Is it unfair to demand clear and concise language from our government? They are supposed to serve the public, as it is, not the other way around.

[yellowcanine]

77. Hmm, for "not being about Mark Nord" he has taken a lot of direct hits here.

Furthermore, I don't want you to take my word for it. Go and read what Mark Nord has written rather than judging his ability to communicate in "clear and concise language" based on an article written by a reporter. His articles are written in plain English. One can easily understand them if one wants to. Mark IS serving the public. Go to the link I gave you, read some of the articles, and then tell me if you still think it is "the other way around." How difficult a concept is this anyway? The article was written by a reporter. Reporters often write quotes that make the person being quoted look bad. Sometimes they do it on purpose (which is what I think happened here), sometimes it is accidental. If you want to find out what someone thinks, you don't read an article that quotes them, you read what they themselves wrote. Criticising someone for not communicating clearly based on a quote or two in a newspaper article is damn unfair, imo.

[closeupready]

69. I agree that it is shameful

to sugarcoat such a basic problem - hunger. "Food insecurity" may be a valid new concept in social science, but it must not supplant the condition which most of us understand as "hunger". To do so is to confuse the issue and diffuse blame.

[yellowcanine]

73. "Food Insecurity" is hardly a new social science concept. Has been

around at least since the 1880s. If that is your definition of "new", ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Famine_Codes

[closeupready]

76. Does hunger in the US not exist, then?

Is that the argument? Or if not, is it a concept that has outlived its usefulness?

[yellowcanine]

79. No that is not the argument. Go read Nord's articles if you want to know

what he says about hunger and food insecurity in the U.S.

One more time.....horse, meet water.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

[daleo]

74. North Koreans can be hungry

Americans only experience "very low food security" along with "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake."

See the difference?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

78. I can understand the need for a different term...

Most of us are hungry at last a couple of times each day. And there are many living below the povrty level who have food to stave off hunger; but the food is inadequate to meet their nutritional needs.

But I wonder why they refuse to use the term "malnutrition"? Does it sound too ugly? Too unAmerican?

[Jack Rabbit]

80. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

-- Bob Dylan

These people are hungry and we don't need a bureaucratic whore for the Bush regime to us that.

If Mr. Nord thinks "hunger" is "not a scientifically accurate term" than instead of butchering the English language with a term like "low food security" that only a bureaucrat could love, he might try "malnurished," which might get more to the point.

[yellowcanine]

81. Who are you to call Mr. Nord a "bureaucratic whore"? Have you read anything he has

written about food insecurity or hunger? Instead of taking cheap shots at someone you don't even know why don't you read what he has written if you really care about the issue and are not just popping off based on a couple of quotes in a newspaper article?

Since when is using the language standard to a scientific discipline "butchering the English language"? The term "food insecurity" has been around since the 1880s. Used by the British, no less. Is that English language enough for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Famine_Codes

The word is malnourished, by the way. To answer your question, one can have low food security without being malnourished. They do not mean the same thing. To use them as synonyms would thus be "butchering the English language."


Link to articles by Mark Nord, if you have any interest in actually knowing what he says on the subject.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AboutERS/Bios/view.asp?ID=marknord

[Megahurtz]

90. Hungry people don't care about "scientific terms"or "intellectualism"

and there's nothing scientific or intellectual about lacking food in this this Country. And believe me yellowcanine, if you were one of the hungry people, you would not give a damn. Now if you want to talk economics, and outsourced jobs, lack of health care, and lack of Social Programs, then that's a different story. Mark Nord may be an okay guy, but this is not about him and not about science.
Holy Crap, you're way off the subject by now.

"Food insecurity" is an incredibly stupid term and in very bad taste, and it obviously offends a lot of people. I could care less who said it, I care about what it is that was said. I do care that this "buzz-phrase" was endorsed by a Government Agency. I think it's a very demeaning and an appropriately ReThuglican-like discription of something that is what it is:

Hunger and Poverty!!!

Why must everything become so bloody complicated??? :shrug:

It's simple!!!

[yellowcanine]

97. Not a "buzz phrase, " food insecurity" is a standard term in social science and has been

for years. I am sorry you think it is a stupid term and in bad taste but that is the way it is. It is not a government agency that endorsed the use of this word, it is a scientific discipline. No one is banning the use of the word hunger - what has changed is it is no longer used as a measurement - because in the opinion of a scientific panel it is not quantifiable and it is a possible CONSEQUENCE of food insecurity, not a measure of it. No there is nothing scientific about the fact of hunger but it is possible to measure food insecurity that can lead to hunger. THAT is quantifiable and predictable, and thus scientific. Mark Nord and the other USDA scientists are only reporting on what the situation is and they are trying to follow good science in making that assessment. Why do you want to make that a bad thing? Read the article. You will see that they are reporting embarrasing things about the U.S. - not covering up things.

If it is not about Mark Nord and not about the science why do people here keep attacking him and the science? You called him a "fucking idiot", I believe. Or was that a different Megahurtz?

[Gormy Cuss]

86. He's not the only one who thinks it's not scientifically accurate.

From a politically neutral public policy perspective it is beneficial to categorize the problem as precisely as possible, and the word 'hunger' alone doesn't do it. Is it important to know how many people are hungry all or most of the time as opposed to people who are hungry occasionally? The latter group could be addressed by a modest relaxation in Food Stamps/EBT eligibility and have a low cost to the government. Those who are chronically hungry need more assistance, probably in the form of subsidies on housing, health care, child care, job training, and other living costs.

That said, the motive for eliminating the term in Nord's report may have been politically driven by someone higher up in USDA.

[badgervan]

87. More bush Semantics

Now we can add "food insecurity" to "Clear Skies", "No Child Left Behind", and other carefully researched bush administration labels of obviscation - all used to cover up the true meaning and aims of the government departments responsible.
Just more bush bureaucratic bullshit. Its up to us to expose these labels for the dangerous manipulation of the facts that they represent, and to expose the bush appointees and agencies responsible for covering up serious, and very real, problems. I still think that the "Clear Skies Initiative" is their best effort. What a crock.

[Gormy Cuss]

88. It's very easy to counter administration spin on this.

From the WaPo article"

The report found:

_ There were more people with very low food security _ those who are worst off. The number was 10.8 million, up from 10.7 million in 2004.

_ There were 24 million people with low food security, down from 27.5 million in 2004.

In plain English, there were about 100,000 more Americans who were experiencing hunger in 2005, while there was a modest improvement for those who previously had struggled with having enough resources for nutritious food. Whether that improvement comes as a result of a better economic state or from some other source, such as the growing reliance on food banks to bridge the gap, is unclear. What is clear is that too many Americans are struggling with a basic human need.

[yellowcanine]

93. Actually the move to drop "hunger" was a reccomendation of a scientific panel.

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."

In other words, the panel suggested that hunger is a potential CONSEQUENCE of food insecurity rather than
a measure of food insecurity. Thus it makes sense to measure food insecurity in a quantitative way while it may not be possible to actually quantify hunger. Accept it or not, it sounds to me as if USDA was following the science here rather than bending the science to fit some political agenda.

[Jack Rabbit]

96. It's still a bureaucratic term; it still masks the human suffering involved

At your link in response to my post points out, the term food security was the creation of the British colonial government in India; that was not just a set of bureaus, but one implemented for the express purpose of subjugating the popular will of the Indian people to the interests of the European establishment.

What is worse was to take a common word like scarcity and give it a legal definition like (in this case) "three successive years of crop failures".

My choice of words directed at Professor Nord was unfortunate and, if he is reading this, I apologize for the personal attack. Nevertheless, food security is a cold, lifeless term being used to describe human suffering. It's a little bit like calling a body bag a human remains pouch. That's what the government calls them now. Fortunately, human remains pouch hasn't caught on with the public.

We are talking about people who are hungry or in danger of being hungry. You may call it what you like, as long as it does not cause the consumer of your words to forget what it is.

[yellowcanine]

98. What you are really objecting to is defining human suffering in a quantifiable way.

If you can't quantify something like hunger or food scarcity, you can't measure it. And if you can't measure it, how do you know how bad it is and if it is getting better or worse? Sure there is something "cold" about assigning scientific terms to human suffering. But would you rather have no way to study it or have no precise terminology that allows it to be quantified - and thus gain some understanding that otherwise would not be possible? Would you throw out a term like "food insecurity" that social scientists have been trained to use and understand just because it is "cold" and was first used by a colonial British administration? Quantification is always dehumanizing and "cold". Social Security numbers are dehumanizing and "cold". Should we get rid of SS numbers and use names instead? Names are so much "warmer", don't you think?

By the way - your example of "human remains pouch" is sort of a red herring, don't you think? I fail to see any analogy there.

[Jack Rabbit]

99. Response

By the way - your example of "human remains pouch" is sort of a red herring, don't you think? I fail to see any analogy there.

No, it don't think it's a red herring. My subject is use of language to disguise real-life horrors. In that respect, human remains pouch and food security serve the same purpose. If there is any difference, it is that human remains pouch was a very deliberate attempt to obfuscate and food security may be inadvertent.

That being disposed . . .

If you can't quantify something like hunger or food scarcity, you can't measure it. And if you can't measure it, how do you know how bad it is and if it is getting better or worse? Sure there is something "cold" about assigning scientific terms to human suffering.

You don't need to condescend me about social science. I have a degree in polisci. I know how to use statistics.

As for social security numbers, they are much more useful for keeping records than one's name. I know this because I worked as a computer programmer for over 25 years. Names change (especially a woman's); SSNs don't. Of course, it doesn't matter what you feed into a computer for data storage. Computers aren't human. If you get frustrated because your code's not working, the computer is too dumb to help. He just blinks his cursor at you.

I still don't call my friends by their social security numbers.

What bothers me is that when scientists become so concerned about how precisely they are measuring an object, they often lose track of what it is that they are measuring in the first place or why it is important. So we are no longer studying hunger because that is too narrow a term to describe what it is we're measuring; we need a term for a broader phenomenon like food insecurity. How precise to draw a black-and-white straight line through the gray areas where straight lines don't exist.

So we separate the truly hungry from those on the margins of poverty (do we now call them the income insecure?), each of whom passes in and out of hunger depending on whether he gainfully employed at any given moment.

And each of whom has a name, a face, a warm body, a mind and a story to tell. That is what makes conecern about hunger and poverty important.

[yellowcanine]

100. Didn't mean to condescend. But when you take such umbrage at a standard term

such as "food insecurity" - an accepted term in social science - just google it if you don't believe me - what was I to think? If you understand statistics then you should understand the need for quantification of suffering in order to study it. By the way, it was a statistical panel that recommended dropping the term "hunger" in favor of different levels of food security. It is not really accurate to call scientific panels that advise government agencies "bureaucrats" - they are groups of peer selected scientists, some university, some industry, some government. It is also not accurate to refer to a government scientist such as Mark Nord as a "bureaucrat" as many here have. Bureaucrats manage agencies, government scientists do research and prepare reports on their research.

[badgervan]

106. Depends....

... on the political leanings of the "scientific" panel, or who is funding them. These days, when you have paid "scientists" claiming that global warming is a myth, you should always check out the origin and the backing of these "scientific" panels.
Hungry means hungry. And government scientists can be bureaucrats at the same time. This is just another attempt by the bush backers to muddy up the true meaning of going hungry.

[yellowcanine]

107. These are peer selected panels. That gives them independence.

Scientists who have axes to grind generally don't get unto peer selected panels. In the event one or two get through, they would be outvoted by the others on the panel. Your analogy to global warming skeptics is misplaced. To say "hungry means hungry" is just idiotic. If I haven't eaten for 5 hours I am hungry. But that is not the same thing as a kid who hasn't eaten properly for a week. The kid who has not eaten properly for a week has food insecurity. Me, I just need to take the time to eat.

[Anakin Skywalker]

89. Hungry Americans Just Want Freedom Fries Like the Rest of This World.

By golly, BushCo. will deliver! Hell, it will even force feed the Freedom Fries to ya like what it did to Iraq!

So all you hungry peeps the world over, get ready to stomach Freedom Fries, delivered to you neo-con style!

[mcscajun]

94. I could just SCREAM! "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake."

Hungry! Starving! Malnourished!

This damned obfuscating wordsmithing propaganda nonsense is ten orders of magnitude worse than "Ketchup as a vegetable". What's wrong with good old American Plain Speaking ENGLISH!?!?!

We know what -- it tells the unvarnished truth in a way BushCo and its corporate masters find unpalatable as they wash down their butter-topped porterhouses with the finest vintage wines.
:grr: :grr: :grr: :mad: :mad: :mad: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[NMMNG]

101. But of course,

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, then running for president, said he thought the annual USDA report -- which consistently finds his home state one of the hungriest in the nation -- was fabricated.


GWB constantly claims any report that makes him look like the incompetent ass he is is "fabricated". :eyes:

[DarkTirade]

102. I've 'gone hungry' in the sense that I couldn't afford to put food on my table

for about a month of my life... all the while I was walking every day looking for a job. I lost 15 pounds in one month just because of the walking and the scrounging and sometimes just plain not eating food every day thing. Summer after my first year of college. Suddenly no financial aid like I'd had during the school year, but I also lived in an area with crap public transportation and insane amounts of urban sprawl, so it was hard to find a job that I could get to. Ended up getting one that was about a 40-45 minute walk away, but I had to take it because that's all I could find.

[SemperEadem]

103. When my stomach growls, it's saying HUNGRY

that is the correct term, not some multi word, watered down pseudo-scientific name to make it more palatable to the "Disney" brains who consider it too vulgar to use the correct, to-the-point term.

[yellowcanine]

108. And if you have food in the house you can eat. So you were hungry but you did

not have food insecurity. The kid who doesn't eat properly for a week is not only hungry, he also has food insecurity. You both were hungry, but the term doesn;t quite capture the difference between the two of you, does it?

[JerseygirlCT]

110. You know what? I don't care what they call it. What's revolting is

that more than 1 in 10 Americans is without sufficient food.

Our priorities are whacked.