weasel-wording their way out of having to do work, again...

[acroyear]

Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry - washingtonpost.com:

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.

Ending Hunger - washingtonpost.com (editorial):

THE AGRICULTURE Department has taken what you might call the Scarlett O'Hara approach to Americans without enough to eat: It will never call them hungry again. Rumbling stomachs? Malnourishment? That's not hunger, the department says. It's experiencing "very low food security."

Mike the Mad Biologist:

Some are not happy with the Orwellian double speak:

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."

But we can hide the reality of hunger among our citizens, particularly if we don't believe it exists in the first place:

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.

"Even in the highest circles?" That should read "especially in the highest circles." If someone else's suffering is inconvenient to our economic and moral perogative, then we should just 'declare it' away. That's what aristocrats do.

Bush's America: Freedom is on the march, and apparently, hunger has cut-and-run.

pardon me while I go on with my "high food security"...

sheesh.

Comments

Occam's razor

[thatwasjen]

You won't usually find me defending this administration or discounting an argument that any change is politically motivated.

In this case, however, they're actually just catching up with internationally accepted terminology. Food security/food insecurity was coined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The phrases have been technically used worldwide for years, if not decades.

Re: Occam's razor

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

Food security/food insecurity was coined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The phrases have been technically used worldwide for years, if not decades.

That does not, however, make it scientifically accurate. "Inadequate caloric intake" I would buy. "Food insecurity" is like trying to put horse harness on a mule ... it is a prettied-up way of saying hungry, and it's ridiculous.

Re: Occam's razor

[thatwasjen]

"Food insecurity" is like trying to put horse harness on a mule ... it is a prettied-up way of saying hungry, and it's ridiculous.

Well, no, it says more than "hungry," acutally -- food security relates to prospects for long-term access to sufficient caloric intake. It allows the food organization to evaluate why people are hungry and how much work it will take to ensure they will no longer be hungry.

[alliesutherland.livejournal.com]

I can provide 5% of any state's "hungry" population in an instant, should Bush so desire. All that he has to do is look at children who are on the free lunch program in the poorest areas. I guarantee you that on days that they don't get the free breakfast and lunch at school (weekends, vacations), MANY of them do not get an adequate meal (or any meal) at home. I remember putting cans of tuna and boxes of mac and cheese with microwave instrauctions in backpacks for a lot of my former students.

And sure, there aren't a lot of hungry elderly people either, if you consider that there are a lot of them who buy canned pet food to eat because it's the cheapest meat "substitute." It happens more often than one would think.

I also love the fact that public commodity boxes for the poor/elderly mostly contain (highly processed) carbs (bad for diabetics, not to mention the general population) and very little protein (perhaps one jar of peanut butter or a bag of dried beans) or fruit/vegetables. There may be 3-4 cans if they're lucky.

I wrote about this in my blog as well

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

I was completely gobsmacked by the double-speak. Jeff summed it up nicely: "People with eating disorders have food insecurity; people who cannot by grocieries are *hungry.*"