FDA Labels “Hungry” People “Food Insecure”

A Rose by Any Other Name . . .

The Folks at the US Department of Agriculture, have adopted a nifty new label for hunger: food insecurity. USDA sociologist Mark Nord, author of a new report, claims that the term “hungry” is not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey. They aren’t dealing with the traditional view of the state of being hungry. Instead, they want to understand how many Americans are insecure about finding their next meal.

Hm-m-m. This sounds a lot like people being hungry to me. When one child visiting a food pantry was questioned as to how he might describe hunger, he had little problem finding the words. He responded it felt like his stomach touched his back. Perhaps the FDA might consider stomach-to-back-contact ratios as a proper measure.

The categories and statistics follow below, and, if the numbers can be trusted, some improvement in food security has occurred. But need we say that even one stomach-touching-back child is too many? The fact that 3.2 million live in the United States of America suffering from very low food security remains an outrage.

So do something about it! Do just one thing to relieve the condition of hungry children in your city. And do it today and tomorrow and next week and next month. It will improve your feelings of security as well as theirs.

From The FDA Breifing on Food Insecurity

At times food security – These households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security.

• 11.0 percent of U.S. households (12.6 million) were food insecure at some time during 2005.
• Down from 11.9 percent in 2004.

Low food security – These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake, by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.

• 7.1 percent of U.S. households (8.2 million) had low food security in 2005.
• Down from 8.0 percent in 2004.

Very low food security – In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. In previous reports, these households were described as “food insecure with hunger.” For a description of the change in food security labels, see “What Is Very Low Food Security.”

• 3.9 percent of U.S. households (4.4 million) had very low food security at some time during 2005.
• Unchanged from 2004.

How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?

• In 2005, 35 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 12.4 million children.
• Of these individuals, 7.6 million adults and 3.2 million children lived in households with very low food security.

Children’s food security is affected to some extent in most food-insecure households (see the ERS report, Food Assistance Research Brief Importance of Children Nutrition Programs to Agriculture). However, children are usually protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security. In 2005, 606,000 children (0.8 percent of the Nations children) lived in households with very low food security among children.

Ed’s note:

George Carlin on Shell Shock

…Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, I’ll give you an example of that. There’s a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It’s when a fighting person’s nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and maximum. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

• In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.
• The second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock.
• Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison Avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It’s totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.
• Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, I guess it’s no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon.

[tags] FDA, hunger, food, insecurity, stupid [/tags]