Posted by Pamela on November 17, 2006
In Reply to: Re: Very low food security posted by RRC on November 17, 2006
: : : : Here's a brand new phrase for you - "very low food security" - straight from the USDA.
: : : : Okay Folks,
: : : : Correct me if I'm wrong, but this one takes the cake. Or, maybe I should quote whatever her name was, "Let them eat cake."
: : : : On the front page of the Washington Post today, there is an article titled Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry. According to this article:
: : : : Quote:
: : : : 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 "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 phenomena being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have have a measure of that condition." . . . Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group. (Emphasis added.)
: : : : End Quote
: : : : Nord, you beauraspeaking idiot, just walk down the street to 17th and K and you will personally witness the homeless and the hungry. And I have some anecdotal evidence that there is such a group as the hungry.
: : : : In front of our building on K Street and in the park across the street for many years, there are certain homeless people we call "the regulars." Over the years, when I've been asked for money by the regulars, I say "no, because you're probably going to spend it on booze, meth or crack, but I'll buy you something to eat. We can go to the Subway, Wendy's or Burger King, and I'll buy you whatever you want to eat." Until around two years ago, my offer was almost consistently refused. Over the past two years, I estimate I've spent around $500-$750 on fast food for these people and, damn it, you beauracrats can go to hell. Don't tell me that there are no longer hungry people in this country shamelessly in the name of science to sugar coat a national disgrace. Simply take a step out of your office and you will see hungry people in the parks and on the street.
: : : : If anyone here can top this idiotic beauracrat speak, please let me know.
: : : : P.S. Eat cake, you Nordy fool, I bet you are obese.
: : : You have to give him points for not using "calorically challenged."
: : Bob, very good, I did give him half a point for not using "dietically challenged," but then took it away as too ambiguous. Jonathan
: I would think "low food security" could include a larger group of people than "hungry". It could include people who get food in quantity but which is insufficiently nutritious. Also, people who have food today but whose outlook for the future is dim, e.g. people serviced by a soup kitchen that is failing, people on the verge of losing welfare benefits even though they don't make enough money to feed their family, etc.
Even so, "hungry or in danger of going hungry" would have done, although I take your point about people who are getting food but are suffering nutritional starvation. Pamela