The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."
...
...the USDA [report] 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."
I can't believe "security" is a word that's being applied to people Not Eating. I'm totally gobsmacked.
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."
Let me make it simple: when people do not have enough food- they are hungry.
Take this:
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."
The thing about belief, in all practical terms, is that doing so does not make what you believe the truth. Truth comes from facts. Knowledge and belief are not interchangeable.
And neither is "low-food security" and "hungry".
The silver lining to this new phraseology is that hunger is now a security issue. And one in which this administration has royally lost the battle.
Food banks in central and south Texas, (as I know from experience), cannot afford to feed people on a week-to-week basis. If you go to a food bank (restricted to your zip code/district), you can't use that bank again for 90 days. you have to apply for food stamps. Occasionally, food stamps will be authorized immediately. Otherwise, you have to get an appointment to prove your neediness in front of a robotic social worker. If you have a family of four, low enough on the income scale, you may get $200/mo to supply them with food.
Please someone tell me how the math on that works out? Treating "low food security" with high sugar/bad carbs/no protein/no fruit& veggies (because that's what you can get on that paltry sum) is no way to ensure success in either the class room or in the war against childhood obesity.
Comments