LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 22, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Lock Up Washington

Rise Up or Die

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

California Man Sues Officers He Says Nearly Beat Him to Death

The Promise of a Courageous Al-Jazeera America May Be Fading

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Lock Up Washington
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued
Warming Climate Endangers U.K. Farming

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

USDA Eliminates ‘Hunger’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 16, 2006
oliver twist
reelmoviecritic.com

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to remove the word “hunger” from its

annual report assessing Americans’ access to food.  Those among us who sometimes go without food, a group that has grown consistently over the last five years, will now suffer from “very low food security.”


Washington Post:

Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. “The proposal to remove the word ‘hunger’ from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families,” said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. “We ... cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens.”

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.”

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.

Link

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By D.C. RUESCH, November 18, 2006 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The USDA has to deal with describing both the medical consequences and economic causes of lack of access to food.  Using the words “security” and “insecurity” is ridiculous. Those words are great ways to circumvent the real issue and create a picture of people with “insecurities,” as if they have an emotional problem or phobias instead of empty stomachs. It all comes down to economics.  No one goes hungry who has dollars for food.  That anyone in the wealthiest country on the planet does not know where their next meal is coming from or would have to choose between prescription medicine and food is an abomination.

Report this

By RRoth, November 16, 2006 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I hope everyone will try to exercise patience with the USDA.  There’s not a lot they’ve gotten right, the Food Pyramid, for example, so it won’t be long before their Phd consultants come up with a new label.  It’s the American way.  Not changing or coming up with something good and permanent would put several people out of work and we can’t have that.  It’s the government, for God’s sake.  Now, I’m feeling a little weak from low food security, so I gotta go.

Report this

By Barry Workman, November 16, 2006 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

and we actually PAY someone to come up with this BS.
“Food Insecurity” smacks of an overweight beltway bureaucrat.

Report this

By MARIAM RUSSELL, November 16, 2006 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DO YOU SUPPOSE THOSE CHILDREN AND OLD PEOPLE WHO DO NOT GET ENOUGH TO EAT WILL NOW GAIN WEIGHT AND NOT SUFFER FROM NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES NOW THAT HUNGER HAS BEEN RE-NAMED?

Report this

By felicity, November 16, 2006 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A number of years ago a resolution came before the UN which said that all human beings had a right to food.  The US and one other nation voted against it.  Ronald Reagan was president and Jean Fitzpatrick was our UN representative.

Apparently, even though this administration is dedicated to spreading American democracy across the globe, it’s not particularly interested in you surviving to enjoy it.

Report this

By LucysGranddaughter, November 16, 2006 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“very low food security”...hmmm….perhaps this is newspeak in yet another sense: does putting the word “security” into the definition make everyone think about the root of all of our problems, TERROR?

Report this

By CK, November 16, 2006 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did it occur to anyone that these millions of ‘hungry’ are mostly illegal immigrants who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place?  Texas at the top of the list…..duh?

They can’t get decent jobs because they are illegal and they can’t get on welfare for the same reason. That’s not an economic problem, it’s an immigration and border security problem.

The shame belongs to Mexico, not the United States.

Report this

By Parke, November 16, 2006 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You could say USDA really does still report “hunger,” but you just need to look in the right place.  My favorite statistic from this new report is not the prevalence of “very low food security,” which is getting all the attention.  It’s the simple question buried deep in appendix table A-1, where the interviewer just asks respondents if they were hungry but didn’t eat.

Report this

By Charlotte Fairchild, November 16, 2006 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kudzu is edible and covers 7 million acres of the United States. It is related to sweet peas. How do I know? Food insecurity. I was hungry, and found out I had free food surrounding me.

Report this

By Roger Drowne EC ( Earth Citizen ), November 16, 2006 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

See How to Live and Eat

With a Earth Ball Abode & Green House

Have Less Stuff and More Time 4 Lifes Trip

http://www.EarthBall.org

YO… It’s A Way of Life

HELP WANTED… 2 Create This Project
.

Report this

By Anchorite, November 16, 2006 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A GOOD HUNGER

“Hunger” as a single term
Begs another worse
The curse of pressure
Drawing nigh
The ever-dreaded “why”

Definition or description
Explanatory spam
Fuzzes up the intellect
Subverts the will of Man

So they skirt
The hardy work
Of quieting the pain
By ‘radicating any word
What fingers any blame

  ~ Anchorite

Report this

By C Quil, November 16, 2006 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since people are so distanced from their food supplies that they don’t know how food is produced, for those who have it it’s considered a disposable commodity. Tons and tons of perfectly good food is thrown away every day because they over-buy food, overload their plates, and if they don’t overeat, they simply dump it.

The abominably low minimum wage ensures that even if two people are holding down full-time jobs, they can’t drag themselves and a family above the poverty line. And women left alone to bring up families have even less chance. Poor nutrition in the early years of life causes problems for the rest of your life.

There’s no reason for this, and no excuse.

Report this

By Spinoza, November 16, 2006 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Have you ever debated a right winger?  There is no way to win.  I have even meet right wingers who have claimed there are no slums in America.  I have invited these people to just look down the streets along Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn.  Somehow they can’t open their eyes until the pass Flatbush Avenue going West. I guess people see what they want to see.  But I am all in favor of putting toothpicks in their eyes.

Report this

By kevin99999, November 16, 2006 at 7:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is shameful act by a government agency. Not only it does not address how to eliminate hunger in the wealthiest nation, it refuses to even acknowledge that millions of people in this country go hungary. I assume they are all GOP appointees and they are acting in form by trying to scam the public.

Report this

By mutterhals, November 16, 2006 at 7:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well they solved that problem. People can’t be hungry if there is no word for it. How very newspeak of them! War is peace, freedom is slavery, hunger is “multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” Orwell couldn’t have said it better himself. I go die now.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.