Hunger among U.S. children skyrockets in 2007
cnn.com
cnn.com
I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I did find this telling stat:
"In his research, children taking the recommended daily allowance of vitamin and mineral supplements for three months learned 14 different academic subjects at twice the rate of children given a placebo. In more than 1 million children given a good breakfast and lunch at school, academic performance improved by 16%, and 76,000 suddenly were no longer 'learning disabled.'"[1]
Maybe someone else here knows more about the truthfulness of this than I do...
[1] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51...
I'd love to read more about the weight issue if you can recall where you read it. The notion turns on its ear the stereotype of kids laying around the house eating Doritos all summer.
The problem is it's fairly easy to not notice or to ignore mild malnutrition. There is a huge dropoff in health and mental development if your kids don't eat right or eat enough, even if they are not obviously starving.
First, reread the article and not what it actually says. It summarizes, paraphrases, and offers characterizations like:
* "struggled to feed themselves adequately"
* "struggled with hunger"
* "predicted the 2008 numbers will show even more hunger because of the sharp economic downturn"
* "increases in the number of hungry people"
...and so on. But notice that whenever actual statistics are cited, they all refer to something called "food insecurity," which is a technical term defined by the FDA.
Now, consider the title of this article, published in 2003 in the Journal of Nutrition, which is an established, peer-reviewed journal run by scientists instead of politicos:
Food Insecurity Is Associated with Increased Risk of Obesity in California Women
here's the abstract: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/4/1070
I'm not claiming that the US doesn't have poverty-related social problems. In fact, one of those problems is obesity, as numerous independent studies have confirmed. There's plenty of room to discuss what should be done about obesity among the poor. But they aren't getting fat because they don't have enough to eat.
In closing, dear reader, I present a few unrelated facts for your amusement:
* One of the federal government's largest discretionary expenditures is farm subsidies.
* The most heavily subsidized crops are corn and soybeans.
* The largest single donor to federal election campaigns is Archer Daniels Midland, which sells products derived from corn and soybeans.
* Midwestern states (which grow corn and soybeans) are disproportionately influential in the Senate, whence farm bills often originate.
* The FDA, which doles out the farm subsidies, is also responsible for measuring hunger and assessing nutritional requirements. Nutritional recommendations made by the FDA affect what you can buy with food stamps.
* Food consumed disproportionately by the poor contains disproportionate amounts of corn and soybeans. This is thought to be one of the main reasons why obesity is more common among this group.
I went out of my way to reject that idea explicitly. I was afraid that if I didn't, someone would hear me saying "we should focus on the problem of obesity, which is real, instead of hunger, which is not" and accuse me of being a heartless bastard intent on screwing the poor.
Here's what I said:
I'm not claiming that the US doesn't have poverty-related social problems. In fact, one of those problems is obesity, as numerous independent studies have confirmed. There's plenty of room to discuss what should be done about obesity among the poor. But they aren't getting fat because they don't have enough to eat.
I'm really at my wits' end here. Can you tell me what kabuki I have to perform in order to be perceived as someone interested in living in a better society than the one we have now?
Ads by Google 5 Tips for a Flat Stomach I fought with excess belly fat for years until I found this 1 trick. www.TruthAboutAbs.com
If this was about how kids were only eating junk food I'd understand - but no food at all?
All other "meals" start north of $5, plus tax.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad...
Typical question:
"In the last 12 months, since last November, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?"
If you answer in the affirmative for 3 questions or more, you're food insecure.
I answered the test honestly. I score 3 points and have, accordingly, "low food security" which is reported as "food insecure" (i.e. struggles with hunger).
Don't feel too bad for me -- I am a professional engineer and single 20-something. Life is fine, thank you.
At the moment, I have $200 in my pocket and nothing in my checking account. If the $200 does not last until payday (the 25th), I will eat ramen and rice instead of pizza and ribs. This happens a handful of times a year. (I could have the ribs if I raided my emergency fund or used credit but, really, swapping expensive for cheap for a day or three just doesn't strike me as an emergency.)
I don't think most advocates would consider me food insecure.
They probably would have when I was growing up. My family had some rough times, money was tight once in a while, things got stretched to last another day, once in a while we went without juiceboxes. It wasn't a Dickensian tale of horror, but it is pretty squarely within the intended meaning of "food insecure". Which convinces me the metric is not worth as much as some people think it is.
By asking to talk to members of the Libertarian Party, you're refusing to talk to the subset of libertarians who can make compromises, and deal with the moral ambiguities that exist in the real world. There are some well-meaning people in the Libertarian Party, but mostly you're asking for compound-dwelling wackos.