Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

daniel1212 ^ | Nov. 22, 2015 | daniel1212

[daniel1212]

Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit. (Proverbs 12:17)

We see often such claims in the media such as that "millions in people here in American could be staring at an empty plate," "49 million people [approx. 1 out of 6 in American]...face hunger," "millions of Americans go to bed hungry," "1 in 7 people struggles with hunger in the US," (Feeding America) or "1 in 6 people in America faces hunger every day," (https://www.dosomething.org) or "50 million Americans—including 1 out of every 4 children—do not know where their next meal is coming from," (Huffington Post) or "For one in ten Americans, hunger is an everyday reality." (thehungersite.greatergood.com)

Yet these are misleading claims, often used to raise funds, which claims they can make because technically they can claim they are true, and they could claim even higher figures if they dared, for most every person experiences some degree of hunger every day, this being an everyday reality which precedes eating, versus a characteristic lack of not being able to obtain food. In addition, not knowing where your next meal is coming from can be due to having many places to choose from, and many stare at an empty plate before it is filled, especially seeing as Americans spend half of their food dollars eating out, (http://ushfc.org/about), spending $232 per month eating meals prepared outside the home, with the average cost for a meal per person outside the home being $12.75 vs as low as $2.00 per person for home-prepared meals. (http://www.thesimpledollar.com/dont-eat-out-as-often-188365/)

Forbes reports, In 1901, according to a 1997 Bureau of Labor Statistics study, the average family spent almost half of their budget on food. Just 3% of that went to meals away from home. Today, we only spend an average 13.3% of our budgets on food–but 42% of that money is spent in restaurants. But the cost of housing has increased 100% since 1960, so that the average American household spends about one third of their yearly budget on shelter, with low-earning groups tending to spend more proportionally on shelter than top earners. (http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/spending-income-level_cx_lh_de_0719spending.html)

Yet even the typical low-income individual ate nearly 30% of meals outside of the home in 2002. (http://www.nutrition411.com/content/thrifty-food-plan-tfp)] Moreover, according to the 2011-12 National Survey of Children's Health, families with the lowest incomes have the highest percentage of children who are overweight or obese. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/snap-child-obesity) Which is partly due to eating the wrong kinds of foods, and too often.

This is in stark contrast to so many "third world countries" where the problem of real hunger is a common reality, which many organizations work to combat. But going back to the subject of what can be called hype on hunger in America, one organization guilty of such claims (not all are) is Feeding America. In Sept. 2014, the New York Post carried an op-ed by written by William Benson Huber titled, Feeding America: ‘Public service' lies" in which he challenged their radio ad claim that "Why, in a country as rich as America, should I have to go to bed hungry?” Huber points to the basis for Feeding America’s claim as being from US Department of Agriculture surveys, which I examine below.

Huber states that Census polling asked "heads of households if any member of the family missed even a single meal, on one day a year, because of a lack of resources: Only 0.01 percent said “yes” — one out of 1,000. This is what US taxpayers should expect: We spend almost $1 trillion a year on state and federal safety-net programs for the 46 million people defined as living in poverty ($21,000 per individual, nearly $87,000 per family of four)." "Never mind that 35 percent of poor kids are obese." That millions of Americans go to bed hungry has no real support that I found and likely is specious extrapolation.

Huber finds that the Feeding America spots are distributed via the Ad Council, which the US Department of Agriculture is a major Ad Council client of. And "By feeding the false perception of rampant child hunger, the Ad Council is aiding and abetting the eternal bureaucratic demand for more studies, more personnel, greater influence and bigger budgets."* — http://nypost.com/2014/09/28/feeding-america-public-service-lies/

Another researcher asks, Is America Struggling with Hunger? (Jeremie T.A. Rostan, October 28, 2009 ;https://mises.org/library/america-struggling-hunger) and finds (excerpts):

The now-famous statistic comes from the annual Food Security Survey (FSS) of the United States Department of Agriculture.[1] ...

So, just how many Americans do face hunger? Well, households with "very low food security" have represented a consistent third of all food-insecure households in past years — around 4 percent of total households. Yet, this still does not mean that one in twenty-five Americans struggles with hunger...

...until 2005, the FSS divided food insecurity into "food insecurity without hunger" and "food insecurity with hunger." It then replaced those labels, without any change in their statistical definition, with "low food security" and "very low food security," respectively. Thus, the famous "one-in-eight" hungry Americans include all Americans living in households that, until 2005, were described as food insecure, but without hunger...

...activists obviously point out the case of children. Yet, a close look at the actual data reveals that less than 1 percent of households with children had very low food security among children.[5]...

...only 15 percent of households with incomes below the poverty line have very low food security.[7]...

Certainly, this constitutes a problem; even more certainly, the truth is far from the collective-emergency myth that "one in eight Americans is struggling with hunger."

Notes

[1] A brief summary is accessible at the US Department of Agriculture website.

[2] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, Economic Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 10.

[3] US Department of Agriculture.

[4] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 6.

[5] US Department of Agriculture.

[6] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 13.

[7] Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, p. 16.

[8] The criterion I use to classify households as "lacking economic resources" is the Poverty Line x 1.3 ratio.

Survey Questions Used by USDA to Assess Household Food Security, and findings

Below are questions and answers from the 2013 from the 2013 Household Food Security in the United States in 2013 Statistical Supplement (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf;) with my comments in brackets.

The findings are in italics, and which are the type likely to be declared by nutritional alarmists, without qualification, yet these (see p. 5), up to number 11, refer to the 5.6% of households judged to be "severely food insecure," and which figure is obtained based on if they reported six or more (8 or more if with children) food-insecure conditions at any time during the previous 12 months (pp. 4,10), although for three-fourths of these households, the conditions were recurring, experienced in 3 or more months of the year (p. 11).

However, the questions also seem to be purposely worded, with sufficient ambiguity, to obtain the highest alarmist numbers. See below. Moreover, as the report also states, while they reported multiple indications of food access problems and reduced diet quality at least once during the year, they typically reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake.

It is upon which that we see the misleading claims in the media.

1. "We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

99 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more.

[Meaning in the context of the survey, that 5.6% of households were worried (at least once — "ever") during the last year that their food would run out before they got money to buy more. Most any persons could say yes to this question, as worded, for it could even refer to not having enough money one day at the check out counter, or as being due to wanted to buy more pizza.

In addition, by that measure I lived in food insecurity all my childhood, as my parents had often to scrimp, and I remember being normally restricted to one cup of soda pop (at a nicket a quart) person week. Yet we ate balanced meals, with eating out being a rare treat to a burger chain which had 15 cent burgers (circa 1965), and were better fed than my shorter parents. Generations of food insecurity!

2. "The food that we bought just didn't last and we didn't have money to get more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

98 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get more. [Once again, this refers to whether 5.6% of households ever faced this during the past year. Most everyone with kids can say “yes” at least once during the year, even if not having enough money for another order of fries.]

3. "We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.

[Meaning for 5.6% of households if they "ever"faced this during the last year. And just how many low-income homes today know or try to provide balanced meals for their kids. “52% of Americans (that were polled) believed doing their taxes was easier than figuring out how to eat healthy.” (https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-american-eating-habits) Not being able to afford to eat balanced meals is likely is due to not knowing how to create meals from scratch, versus prepared foods.]

4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?

97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food.

[So it is an alarming statistic that even once during the past year 5.6% of households had to do this? And what is meant by skipping meals does not mean such had to go hungry for long, since often there are no meal times, and there may have to eat snacks until someone comes up with some money.

Yet two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three are obese (36 percent). — http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-trends/obesity-rates-worldwide. including 31.8% of children and adolescents being overweight or obese. — http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/obesity-in-the-us. Sounds like not enough meals are skipped or downsized.]

5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen--almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

89 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

[So all this needs to mean is that over the course of 3 months the size of a meal was downsized by 5.6% of households due to lack of money. Which could even mean skipping dessert = “food insecurity”.]

6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food?

95 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.

[Same restricted class even if once during the year. Which could mean they did not bring enough money when eating out, since even low-income households spend 30% of meals (approx. 1 out of 3) outside of the home. And considering that obesity rates are as high or higher among those on low-income, then what one thinks they should eat is often too much, or the wrong kind of food.]

7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn't eat, because there wasn't enough money for food?

66 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.

[Which again, covers the span of an entire year. And besides being beneficial to health if occasional, this hunger can happen because one did not have enough money with them at the time. The question also does exclude eating out.]

8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn't enough money for food?

45 percent reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.

[Same restricted class, and even if once during the year. Yet how many went to bed hungry, or needed to lose weight (69% of all Americans), or simply lost weight for a day?]

9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food?

29 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.

[I find it very hard to believe that even 29% of adults in 5.6% of households went a whole day without food for any reason in the last 12 months, at least in any major city, and had zero money even for a snack, or could not find any food.

As with other responses, the honesty factor is an issue, especially in dealing with how much good one does (most people exaggerate how often they attend church for instance) or how much they suffer.] It is also very hard to believe that going without food for a day would be detrimental, especially for the 68.8 percent of adults which are considered to be overweight or obese (35.7 percent) — http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx]

10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen--almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

23 percent reported that this ha d occurred in 3 or more months.

[Even more hard to believe. At least in the city, one can obtain food daily without any money. Just one program for senior, Meals on Wheels, is estimated to serve about million people.]

(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)

â–º The following is from the statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2014, AP-06 9 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1896824/ap069.pdf) referring to all households (except rich households which did not indicate any problems with food access in response to questions 1+2).

11. "We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food."

15.5% said they did so.

Which refers to anytime during the year, and simply does not necessarily translate into a lack of money for good food, as home-cooked meals are low cost. Likely for many (not all) this answer largely refers to eating snacks due to wasting money before on eating out and or otherwise buying prepared food. Or just eating too much. The first two possibilities are consistent with the findings that modern Americans in general spend less time in food preparation, with an approximate halving of time for women (1975-2006) and only slightly more than half spend any time cooking on a given day. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639863/) That, combined with the abundance of readily available low-cost food (snacks, etc.) and advertisements geared toward children for them (and characteristic lack of structure and child discipline) means that much money is wasted on junk and or prepared food.

Today, relying on only a few kinds of low-cost food means they do so at the end of the month or week, because after the cable TV bill and eating out there was not enough to buy steak. “Americans spend half of their food dollars eating out.” (http://ushfc.org/about), spending $232 per month eating meals prepared outside the home. (http://www.thesimpledollar.com/dont-eat-out-as-often-188365/) And the typical low-income individual ate nearly 30% of meals outside of the home in 2002. (http://www.nutrition411.com/content/thrifty-food-plan-tfp)]

â–º News stories:

*Consider the disturbing tale of Feed The Children, an Oklahoma City organization that has a long, controversial history. The non-profit takes in roughly $1 billion annually in cash and in-kind contributions, making it one of the nation's largest charities. The charity's claim that it spends 91% of donations on programs likely makes donors assume that the charity is doling out 91 cents worth of food for every $1 raised, but that claim is completely misleading, said Laurie Styron, an analyst with the American Institute of Philanthropy, which examines the finances of some 500 large national charities and sponsors a charity rating service at charitywatch.org.

When you take out the fudging, AIP says this group spends less than 25 cents of every donated dollar feeding children. Roughly 65 cents of every dollar is spent raising money, largely by running heart-rending radio and television advertisements and sending out direct-mail appeals, according to AIP's analysis. Feed The Children has plenty of other problems too, including a legal dispute between its board and founder Larry Jones, who was recently ousted...

Feed The Children spends $20.7 million on administrative expenses, including six-figure salaries for Larry Jones ($234,937); Frances Sue Jones ($187,052) and Larri Sue Jones ($166,320), according to Charity Navigator. But, with reported contributions exceeding $1 billion, these expenses account for less than 2% of Feed The Children's budget...(Charities Fake Their Numbers to Look Good" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charities-fake-their-numbers-to-look-good)

Feed The Children Paid Founder $800K

By Mark Hrywna - May 30, 2013

Feed The Children (FTC) has paid its estranged founder $800,000 as part of a legal settlement reached in January 2011.

The settlement was for an undisclosed sum and paid last year, but appears on the latest tax filing for the Oklahoma City, Okla.-based charity’s fiscal year ending in June 2012. The $800,000 payment to Larry Jones was reported as “other compensation” and described in the tax information form as a severance payment. — http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/feed-the-children-paid-founder-800k/

[daniel1212]

Note that I am not against poor people, which the Scripture command to remember, and that we are to give according to the grace of God we have realized, without we could not even breath.

But which is that of helping those truly in need, out of compassion for the afflicted truly victimized, as well as mercy those who created their own mess, so that they may be motivated toward betterment and being a blessing themselves toward others, above all by turning to the Lord Jesus from sin, and becoming born again by faith in Him.

But which is not that of fostering a welfare state by seducing souls into a victim-entitlement mentality, that they are victims of a system that rewards merit, as instead of that, and charity from them, the victims have a right to the same benefits others earn, which is thus to be progressively taken from them.

This was essentially the psychology the devil worked to seduce Eve with, with the devil presenting himself as her advocate, to the end that by heeding her, the devil would gain power. Which is what he sought when he fell from grace, presuming by self will to ascend to God's throne.

Being cast down he seeks power by proxy, whether it be a Stalin presenting huimself as a savior from the capitalists, while in reality he and his puppets alone obtain the benefits he seduces the people with to gain power, or modern day liberal elites, who ultimately presume to dictatorships.

I got a bit carried away on that, yet the manufacturing of crises is instrumental for this and for liberals to obtain greater power, and or to justify themselves as morally superior due to the higher moral level which their alarm over such things as Climate Change and hunger exhibits, for which they obtain funds by deception and or at the expense of the public.

This does not mean there i am opposed to helping the poor, including with food, as one who would be considered poor myself, and who has lived, by God's grace, for 22 years (without gov. welfare) in a very low-income, multi-ethnic high population density Eastern city with one of the in the US. And who, thanks be to God, is blessed to be able to dispense (and eat some) privately donated surplus food, with prayer and gospel tracts.

About 28% of food in America is thrown away, and the Lord gathered up even the fragments that remained after feeding 5,000+ souls. (Jn. 6:1-13) And for that reason alone (no waste) food distribution should take place, as part of showing the grace of God. And there are some widows and poor people who are in need, yet American poverty is not that of the 3rd world, and in 1901 over 50%of household income was spent on food, as compared with les than 14% today. It is the cost of housing that has risen exponentially, partly due to increase in government.

But I am against characteristic exaggeration and misleading deception by certain propagandists who have made a business out of dealing with this largely manufactured crisis. As with "Climate Change," there is a lot of money in hyped alarminism, both in the degree such is increasingly occurring, if at all, and the detrimental effects.

Which are asserted with fervor by certain organizations seeking funding for feeding America and many supporters of such, even if done by a minority of charitable feeding organizations. See http://www.charitynavigator.org to research charities.

There is also the issue of increasing gov. control, and besides thing like banning large soda sales, as well as donated food from going to city missions (NYC), a bill was recently introduced which would ban smoking in all gov. subsidized housing nationwide. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/nyregion/public-housing-nationwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html?_r=0) While smoking is harmful and the intent may be good, once the government can do that then were would it end?

[rlmorel]

It is my opinion that we do not have any level of real malnutrition in this country.

We may have nutritionally deficient people who also happen to be poor, but I believe that would be due more to poor choices when using the resources provided to them to obtain food, rather than an insufficiency of resources.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his excellent book “What’s So Great About America” had a passage about a conversation he had with an acquaintance in Bombay who, when asked why he wanted to go to America, said: “I really want to move to a country where the poor people are fat.”

It is 100% undeniable truth that an American poverty is far, FAR different that an Indian, African, or just about any other kind of poverty, and not in a worse way.

[Rex Anderson]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[RoosterRedux]

Most poor people in America are blubber-butts. They are poor spiritually, not financially.

They get lobster on their EBT cards. I eat beans while they are eating lobster.

But that's OK. I like beans.;-)

[rlmorel]

A typical (and I might add, Alinskyite) way of handling poverty for the left, is to simply re-define it to include more people. Or to define what hunger is.

They do it so they can spit out statistics to say things like “One quarter of all elementary school children go hungry every day” which means we need more money for school breakfast, school lunch, or school dinners for disadvantaged children.

This is their alternative to actually creating jobs that can be held by men and women who are part of families, which they are actively trying to destroy.

[A_perfect_lady]

Most of our “poor” are obese. This makes me pretty suspicious of their maudlin claims.

[goodnesswins]

Do they ask them when they last cooked rice and beans...from scratch?...or carrots?

[rlmorel]

I have posted this picture before: This supermarket is just two miles from my house (I have actually seen this very same picture posted in many threads and even on other web sites):

I understand most normal people would like to help out those less fortunate in some way, even to the point where I could even condone using tax dollars to help.

But what this sign implies shows that the system is so far out of whack that it should either be shut down completely or scaled back and restricted so dramatically that this sign would be completely unnecessary.

I would not have as much of a problem with using EBT to only purchase bread, eggs, butter, flour, cheese, milk, etc.

But to be able to use it to purchase steak, lobster, beer, cigarettes, and so on, is an insult and abomination.

[rlmorel]

I spent a very short time in India about 45 years ago as a kid...my dad walked us around New Delhi most of the night because we didn’t have a hotel room (to save money, we were coming home from an overseas posting).

I had lived in the Philippines and seen some degree of poverty, but nothing even remotely like what I saw that night.

And even back then, there was not that level of poverty ANYWHERE in this country.

As Americans, most of us have no idea what real poverty is. That is good, but it makes dishonest people (like liberals) attempt to drum up poverty any way they can...and they do.

[Organic Panic]

Walk through the poorest neighborhoods and you will see the fattest people you’ve ever seen.

[goodnesswins]

We have pizza places advertising EBT card acceptance...heck..
Don’t fast food places take them?

[PGR88]

I’m not against poor people either, but I HATE being propagandized and lied to.

I have stopped giving to charity - unless I know EXACTLY where my money is going. Is it even being used for good purposes? Food banks for already obese people, change at the super-market cash register, “Green” organizations collecting door-to-door - I will do NONE of it.

People in America are now ruled by emotion and superficiality, and lack wisdom.

[dsrtsage]

Isn’t the definition of poverty the bottom 15%? So mathematically 15% of the population will always be in poverty even if the poorest person of that 15% has a house made of solid gold and an army of 4000 servants

[PGR88]

As Americans, most of us have no idea what real poverty is.

I too have spent a lot of time overseas, China, Vietnam, India, SE Asia.

I agree with you 100% - Americans don't have a clue. I will only add the point - true poverty (as you saw in India) also is a result of extreme social, economic and political oppression, which Americans also can not fathom.

[Chode]

85% of those going to bed hungry are prolly children whose parents are too drunk or stoned to cook and feed them of expect them to feed themselves and if there isn't enough food on the house it's cause the money was spent on booze and drugs cause the hoodrat parents don't look like they've ever missed a meal and prolly ate the food intended for their children too

the other 15% are prolly older folk on fixed income that have to chose tween food and prescriptions

[mrsmith]

Food stamps is money that people spend on products that pay to advertise in the media.
So the media makes money by telling us we need a lot of food stamps.

In a ‘bread and circus’ the ‘circus’ is paid to support the ‘bread’. And the ‘bread’ is paid to support the ‘circus’.

[PCPOET7]

when I hear that a parent has to make the decision on whether to feed themselves so they have the strength to work or to feed there kids and not have the strength to work and not be able to feed there kids at all then I will believe someone is living in poverty. I am the poor in this country but I have never lived in what I call true poverty and I doubt most people in this country that are poor have lived in poverty.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The BLM Trump Heckler guy and the Trump Food Stamp guy are proof that it’s a myth.

[rlmorel]

"...true poverty (as you saw in India) also is a result of extreme social, economic and political oppression..."

Even I take that for granted and miss that point, which is an important one.

[rlmorel]

During the depression in this country, there were indeed people who made that choice, eat myself to keep up my strength to work, or let my growing kids eat.

As chode said in his post, I’ll bet there are some elderly who have to make the choice between food and meds.