Federal bureau-rats have a new euphemism for us when it comes to hunger. Instead of being “hungry,” you actually have “Very Low Food Security.” I guess that’s one way to erase hunger. Just like opening the borders completely eliminates “illegal immigration.”

US bureaucrats erase American ‘hunger’

The US government has tweaked its terminology in referring to the nearly 11 million Americans who face a constant struggle with hunger to refer to them as people with “very low food security”…But unlike last year’s report on hunger in America, which labelled families who don’t get enough to eat as having “food insecurity with hunger”, this year’s report referred to them as having “very low food security”.

The change in terminology has angered groups that fight hunger who say it is aimed at hiding a stark reality.

This confuses me even further. Considering obesity is at epidemic proportions (we all see it every day), where are these ‘hungry’ people? Is being hungry every now and then necessarily a bad thing? How is ‘hunger’ classified? Simply as not feeling full all the time? Really–just what does this mean? What are the parameters of what this one ‘hunger’ advocate is talking about:

“There are 35 million people in this country who are struggling with hunger, no matter what you call it,” he added. “And there is no way ultimately to obscure the fact that we’re an incredibly wealthy country with 35 million people who are struggling with hunger.”

Notice, the word ‘starving’ isn’t used by these people, because no one is starving in this nation. It’s also safe to say, in our culture of excess, that the definition of ‘suffering from hunger’ should be specifically defined. Because at the rate we’re going, it very well could be people who aren’t 20 pounds overweight.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. sue says:

    Not that there are not those truly in need in America……however, I often wonder who gauges these numbers and what they are based upon. For example, does being on WIC make you “hungry”? Once upon a time many years ago I was a single parent. The first thing anyone/everyone did was tell me how to get WIC. I never pursued it, even without child support. Why, because I wasn’t in true need. I qualified by government standards but in reality there was no desperate need. I was self supporting and in the AF. I smoked at the time. The way I saw it, as long as I was spending my own money on cigarettes, clothing for myself and other luxuries (adequate car included) I did not need government peanut butter. Unfortunately, I knew plenty of single parents (and some not so single) who did collect while still using their paycheck for weekends out, cars, etc. As I said, I know some people are in need but I think to some extent our society has become “in want”. I did take the gov’t up on one assistance offer (ironically, the one nobody told me about but I had to research on my own). I used any school grant they could give me and earned a college education. It always bothers me that we think quick freebie first when we see need. I wish more emphasis went into teaching people to free themselves from these catagories then finding new politically correct terms for them.

  2. helpunderdog says:

    Liberal depiction of American poverty is a myth! 30 years ago, as a kid, my family did not have: color t.v., microwave, cell phones, stereos, cable or satellite TV, a VCR nor a DVD player. We had a crappy black & white t.v. that you had to smack occasionally to correct the reception. My family was considered middle class. Sure there were others who had fancier electronics, but it never occurred to us, or my neighbors and friends that we were entitled to these things – that the government should give them to you. You worked for what you had.

    Here’s an excerpt from the article
    “Understanding Poverty in America”
    by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.:

    “Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers–to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

    For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America’s “poor” live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

    The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

    * Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
    * Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    * Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
    * The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
    * Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
    * Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
    * Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    * Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

    As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

    While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only 2 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

    Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

    Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

    The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

    In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year–the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year–nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

    Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

    While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.”

    Read the rest at
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

  3. AskMom says:

    As a lobbyist working on family law issues, I can definitely testify that father absence is a contributing factor in the limited amount of real child hunger that there is in America. And we do need to make a priority of getting parents to work. Ten years ago the welfare reform act did some of that; with excellent results so far.

    But in my experience the major issue, and one that is seldom honestly addressed, is DRUGS. A parent on drugs results in hungry children, regardless of actual income or welfare or food being given to the family, because cracked out, meth head parents aren’t thinking about food. For themselves or the kids. And good parents who are not using drugs will find a way to feed their kids. It is one of the prime human imperatives, as we see in famine situations where older family members will voluntary starve themselves literally to death so that the children can survive.

    There is a lot of food in America and an unbelievable number of caring people working to spread it around. Lack of food and lack of money are very seldom the real, ongoing issue.

    I listened once to the testimony of a 30 year volunteer for Catholic Family Services whose goal in life was to feed hungry kids. That’s all…..whatever it took, whoever got the credit, any way he could, he just wanted to see kids get three good meals a day.

    His words made it clear that there’s NOTHING a drug addicted parent can’t convert to drugs. Food stamps, donated food, vouchers, cash, quilts, toys, books, shoes and clothes. No matter who gave or distributed it and what “safeguards” we put in place, he claims drug-ridden parents will use it to get drugs. And their children will go hungry. Also cold, neglected, without medical care; socially, emotionally and intellectually stunted.

    When asked how we could stop hunger in America, his words were simple: If the hungry are able-bodied adults, make them work to eat. No handouts of any kind. And if the hungry are children whose parents refuse to work or are drug addicted, TAKE THE KIDS AWAY. Nothing else will get them regular feedings, attention and care.

    Period.

  4. Talkin Horse says:

    It’s an interesting commentary on our society that obesity seems more prevalent amongst the relatively poor; meanwhile the anorexic waifs are found with the relatively rich. (Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell are exceptions, but I think the statement is generally valid.) Historically, it was the rich who were fat and the poor who were skin and bones.

  5. helpunderdog says:

    ASKMOM, you couldn’t have said it better!

You must be logged in to post a comment.