Posted on 11/22/2015 4:37:42 PM PST by 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."
[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 insecurityâ€.]
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/
how about only charging interest on loans to foreigners not family (which in Moses’ time was all the Israelites)?
Read it all. Thanks! Liberals sure would like to work to seduce such into thinking they were victims who deserved what others earn. Which this excludes charity, and the positive response to such, as it is considered a right to have what other's earn.
That is why the term "food insecurity" is used, with the crafty questions to make it a real problem, to justify the bureaucracy which needs it. Let private concerns do so, but which do not use hype, and show personal caring. .
Yes, yet as one facing hunger daily you must be insecure, and need to become dependent on the government.
I remember in the mid-2000s (the Bush administration) getting chased down hard enough by a census worker that I finally relented for a short series of interviews—and they were absurd, with loaded questions fishing for anything that could be construed as my suffering “food insecurity” at any time during the month. It was clearly a ridiculous push poll on the “issue”.
Sounded like the sort of thing I might have expected during a Democrat administration, but I guess it would make sense if it were for and driven by the USDA food industry types.
Really it is getting harder to tell the two parties apart all the time.
A homeless person in a major NE city can make serious money daily, though there are souls in need in different ways.
I assume that means we personally should not charge interest to family members? I’d go along with that, if I had money to lend. lol
that's what they want. Take the mark and vote Dimmicrap...
But choice, having left all, i lived in a church doing ministry full time w/ no pay, and sometimes we had no food but salt and pepper, but God would provide something. A casserole would be dumped into a lot of potatoes we bought cheap, to make it streacth. Baked our own bread, one packet of yet to 10 loaves. Praise God He was with us and brought us thru. But i still try to be very careful about spending money.
Yet they are related, as stated, '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."
I’m old. Growing up, Momma cooked beans & potatoes, biscuits, scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage. Repeat. I rode my
bike to the store down the road and bought a bit of candy
& cookies, 8 oz. cold drinks. We ate simple. Never went
hungry. - Today, a lot of people are making horrible choices
and having junk food all the time. - Be thankful for what
you have. That’s the ticket!
Keep at it and you would eventually become hungry, and so...
Really it is getting harder to tell the two parties apart all the time.
One just does things slower. But the evangelical church needs to focus on being a distinctive holy nation, and alternative to a decaying society, rather than hoping to a return of Mayberry.
Same here. Probably we all have dealt with hardship. I hope the experience taught my sons something about money: As the old maxim says, save for a rainy day!
The people I feel really sorry for, who I believe are really poor are the mentally ill.
2020 Household Food Security
in the United States in 2020 is here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/102076/err-298.pdf?v=6505.3
Questions Used to Assess the Food Security of
Households in the CPS Food Security Supplement are on p. 5
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.