It is getting hard to keep track. One minute the government tells us American children are suffering from record levels of obesity. The next, children are facing a hunger epidemic. Which horror story should you believe? Neither.
The truth is, 94.3 percent of American households are able to put enough food on the table every day to feed their families, and the vast majority of children living in these households are healthy and well-fed. Given the food shortages facing people in other countries, Americans are the envy of the world. According to the United Nations, 98 percent of undernourished people live in developing nations. Two-thirds live in only seven countries — Bangladesh, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
Advertisement
Why then the alarmist rhetoric carping on the state of nutrition for children in this country? Why the ubiquitous television advertisements imploring people to donate to these anti-hunger organizations?
The No Kid Hungry Campaign, for which Food Network personality (and girlfriend to just-elected New York governor Andrew Cuomo) Sandra Lee is a spokeswoman, has a noble goal — to fight hunger in the United States. Ms. Lee can be seen on a number of the campaign’s television commercials repeating the grim statistics that 17.4 million American households are “food insecure,” and 4.2 million of those families include children.
The imagery used in the advertisements is depressing. In one, a rail-thin child in faded overalls stares miserably into the camera, holding a placard with the words “I’m hungry” scrawled across it. Another relatively healthy-looking young boy’s poster reads, “I haven’t eaten today.” Yet another child’s sign says, “I got my dinner from a gas station.” The message of these commercials is clear. Kids are either starving or eating nothing but junk food. Another of the campaign’s spokesmen, Academy Award–winning actor Jeff Bridges, put it bluntly, saying Americans should be ashamed that one in four children live in households that are food insecure.
One in four? That’s terrible! Something needs to be done. But wait a minute: What does “food insecure” actually mean?
Food insecurity is a term created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its annual report on the status of hunger in America. Those watching these ads and hearing the alarming statistics likely assume the term is synonymous with starvation, chronic hunger, and substandard nutrition — and those pushing the anti-hunger agenda seem perfectly happy with this assumption.
But in fact, the USDA defines “food insecurity” as one of two situations: low food security, which is “reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet with little or no indication of reduced food intake”; and very low food security, or “multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.” No indication of reduced food intake? Disrupted eating patterns? This is hunger in America.
The most recent USDA report, “Household Food Security in the United States 2009,” states that 17.4 million households (or 50.2 million people) fit into one of these two categories at some point during 2009. Of these 17.4 million households, the majority — 10.6 million households — experienced “low” food security at some point during the year. That means these families were still able to “obtain enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake” but had less variety in their diets, participated in federal food assistance programs, and at times obtained food from food pantries. The remaining 6.8 million households (which include 5.4 million children) experienced “very low” food security, meaning normal eating patterns were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times.
Not just the phrase "food insecurity," but every single phrase of the USDA's jargon needs analysis. What does it mean that there was "substantial disruption of eating patterns"? That they worked through lunch without eating, or that instead of getting a plate of meat, starch, and vegetable they ate only meat, starch, OR vegetable? Did people intentionally miss meals because they were not able to afford to buy food?
What is "less food intake"? Dieting? Not snacking? Not getting breakfast, or lunch, or dinner, on a frequent basis, because they simply couldn't afford food? Does it mean a change in the plate, so that they consumed fewer calories per meal, or because they changed from eating a pile of fat-laden junk food or meat dinners to (healthier) lower-calorie home-cooked meals?
I don't believe any aspect of this USDA report. It is more likely simply another appeal for more of the modern socialist's excuse for policy---feed the nation, from the rich people's taxes; we'll concoct a rationale by using terminology that seems to mean something that bad.
One of the worst things we can do is to succumb to their loaded, concocted terminology. That only validates their Orwellian inventions, which is exactly what they want. If you must use terms like "food insecurity" to make your point, please enclose it (and its derivatives) in quotes to show clearly that we're not buying it.
As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details". You have to have the secret decoder ring to know what these people are talking about. The other commercial like the ones discussed here is the "Hunger" commercial. You know the one where one in six people are "living with hunger". I was appalled until I learned that the definition of hunger being used for the statistic was missing one meal in a 30-day period! I didn't realize I was living with hunger. I hate those commercials. It makes you wonder what other exaggerations are being used.
Reading this article it became clear to me that I grew up with "food insecurity". My diet was not varied to any extent. My Mom cooked either pancakes, oatmeal, cream of wheat or eggs for breakfast. Lunch was always a sandwich (peanut butter and jelly was king!). Dinner was chicken or beef, a vegetable (corn, carrots or peas) and potatoes (mashed or boiled). We had very little variety (nothing like the way my wife cooks!) hence had "low food security". Mom cooked what she liked to eat and she has a very narrow "taste zone". Was I or any of my family hungry? No, we ate very good and were pretty happy (except for peas, yuck!). I would say we were blessed. Now we know, variety isn't just the spice of life. Another Government statistic without meaning!
There is a problem but it stems from youngsters eating to much of the wrong food. Take a good look at who is a MacDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, CiCi's etc in the evenings. The problem is obesity not hunger among children. On the other hand hunger does exist is America; its among the millions of homeless. Again,look around at the shelters, under bridges, and overpasses, etc. Look at the problem of with homeless veterans; the hunger problems shouldn't be in America. Look at what the ethanol is doing; creating a food shortage worldwide, and higher food prices everywhere. Ethanol didn't help anyone but that's another story.
The idea that there is a hunger epidemic in the United States is a red herring that special interest groups carp so they can get money from the government. There has never been one incident of anyone dying of starvation in this country other than from those who voluntarily starve themselves. Indeed, there have been many stories of grocers donating food to charities and people who donate excess food to feed the hungry in this country. It's a shame that in order to curry favor with the government special interest groups have to slander their own country.
I can tell you two things about hunger in the US.
First; most of the people, like almost all, who have food insecurity in our small town, (15,000), have an illegal drug problem.
Second; our church is handing out much more food this year than ever before, and our food bank is empty sooner than ever before.
You should see the people who come for food, you would realize instantly that we have a severe underclass problem in this country, and drugs are responsible. How we get this underclass to stop abusing themselves, and our generosity, is an insoluable problem. At least it's a problem I do not have any answer to. A few weeks ago we had a 20 month old baby die from drinking bleach. This baby of a 14 year old was growing up in a meth addled family, and hadn't been fed that day. This little boy found a mug with bleach on the kitchen table and drank it. The bleach was to be used "cooking" meth. The child died at the hospital.
As responsible adults, we must pay attention to the drug problem in this country. Child hunger is just a symptom.
Where I am (west coast college town in an otherwise agricultural setting, not the big city) it does indeed seem to be the case that most of those who claim to be in need of food, and who show up at the soup kitchens and pantries, have a drug problem. Judging from body weight, most of them are hungry only in the sense that if they spent more money on food, then they couldn't buy drugs.
Other recipients of largesse are those who came to the USA "to feed their families" which they did not have until they got here. Believe me, they are not skinny.
Then there are a number of elderly people, not infirm, who say they don't have enough to pay for food, prescription medicines, and rent. That's another topic, often discussed at NRO.
But what bothers me are the mega-meals that seem to be all one can get at restaurants nowadays. Squish that I am, I don't like leaving piles of food on the plate, and it can't be given away. I am tired of seeing a dessert menu that has only "decadent" items that are "a meal in itself."
O NROniks, may I ask: In the NYC area, is it still possible to get a reasonably priced meal that includes a small salad (iceberg lettuce, of course), a little meat, a little starch, and a cooked green vegetable, followed by a scoop of Jell-O for dessert? Or am I showing my age?
Indeed, if missing the occasional meal makes one a victim of hunger, then I must be a poster boy for the campaign: Given the size of the mega-meals (I often eat out) I must skip other meals, or be bloated. Please help.
More seriously, we cannot really judge hunger by who shows up at soup kitchens and pantries, since those will be adults. If there is genuine hunger among the children, it will be nearly invisible to all but their school teachers.
Thank you Julie for this illuminating article. I've been saying that these ads just don't make sense. Between school lunches and food stamps I don't see how anyone in this country would be starving.
I propose that the gvt abolish school meals altogether and, if needed, provide more Food Stamp relief. There could be monthly meal plans included with the Food Stamps for a month of healthy "home feeder" menues for a month of breakfasts, lunches and dinners. This would place the responsibility for nourishing their families back in the laps of the adults who created the families.
I once recieved a questionaire from our local school, the question was regarding my 2 children "Do you feel hunger more than once daily?" Of course I asked they answered,"sure" (they were growing, you know). Later, I found out they were entered into the 'hungry child drive'...thanks for great article
‘’ Imagine not having enough money to buy food. It is reality for more than 300,000 people in northwest Ohio. Many local agencies are working to help those who need it most.
The Toledo Northwest Ohio Food Bank distributes four million pounds every year. ‘’
The above was published Monday, December 17th 2010 in the Toledo, channel 13, ABC web site, and a similar over-the-air advertisement on local television.
And this same Toledo Northwest Ohio Food Bank considers its ‘’ Population in service area………815,377’’ ,so over 1/3 do not have enough money to buy food.
Is there anyone out there who believes this?
bobbezza:
Unbelievable! But so believable. My 11 year old is constantly hungry. He eats anything he can get his hands on. He also grew 2 1/2 inches last year and plays football, basketball, and baseball.
I can't afford to go get fast food and leftovers are lunch the next day or reshaped into a new dinner the next night.
Goverments are purposefully misleading us. Charities/celebrities are jumping on the bandwagon and cheering for the wrong team (Hunger in America is the problem, according to these folks, rather than Drugs in America).
The real problem is illegal drugs, which no one seems to be interested in battling anymore. Our neighbors, families, and the next generation are being screwed up by this self-abuse, and it barely receives any news coverage.
10 years ago I ran our church's food bank and we were the largest in the state. I still contribute food and visit with the workers. Some of those I served 10 years ago are still using the food bank as their grocery store. These are generally the "refugees".
There are a lot of desperate cases. There are a lot of people who seem to think it's their due. We provided/provide beans and rice among canned foods, cereals, breads, eggs and meats. I can't tell you the number of people who turn their noses up at the things like beans and rice that need some kind of cooking. We used to find the bags of beans and rice discarded in the church lobby. Nobody knows how to cook anymore, they want processed foods. It's very sad.
If I were in charge of the schools, I would mandate home ec for every 8th, 9th and 10th grade (before they drop out). It would consist of cooking, nutrition and diet, home repair, rudimentary car repair, and financial things like how to manage a budget, credit card usage, checking account usage.
We are graduating (or not) generations of idiots who know nothing of how to fend and provide for themselves. Just as the schools are really not, some of the national hunger agencies are not "for the children".
Bandmom, I could not agree more! I have a very similar experience with food programs. But home ec should begin in kindergarten, not waiting until middle school, when the pattern is already set.
Substance abuse of parents IS the big issue. Of course it is not the children's fault. Sadly, the food programs designed to reach out to the kids still goes to the parents. Where it can be sold, traded, or just thrown down for the kids to make of what they can. This, too, I have seen first hand.
One only has to look around to see that obesity is a problem. But obesity is also a form of malnutrition. I do not know the answer, I wish I did.
