lily
11-16-2006, 03:13 PM
A National disgrace (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html?referrer=email)
Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; Page A01
The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But
they may experience "very low food security."
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 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.
Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. 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."
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."
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.
"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.
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."
I suppose with a little salt and pepper folks could put these words on their plate and eat it.
"very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description
for that group.
Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry
By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; Page A01
The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But
they may experience "very low food security."
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 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.
Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. 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."
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."
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.
"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.
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."
I suppose with a little salt and pepper folks could put these words on their plate and eat it.
"very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description
for that group.