Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Op-Ed: “Call Hunger in America … Hunger, Not Very Low Food Security”
Op-Ed: “Call Hunger in America … Hunger, Not Very Low Food Security”
(“My Turn: Yes, There Is Still Hunger in America,” burlingtonfreepress.com, December 21, 2006)
Just before the holiday season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture eliminated the word “hunger” from the terms used in an annual report on hunger and food insecurity statistics to Congress, write Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, and Robert Dostis, a registered dietitian, executive director of the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger and a state representative in the Burlington Free Press, Vt. “This way of making ‘hunger’ disappear, unfortunately, does not reflect any change in the actual lives of the hungry – the seniors, parents working at low-wage jobs, disabled persons, children and others forced on a regular basis to skip meals, make the rounds of food pantries, or substitute cheap, low-quality foods for healthier foods. Now, suddenly, these people suffer only from ‘very low food insecurity,’” write Dostis and Weill. This “whitewashing” of language reflects a long-term trend in Washington of insufficient commitment to the issue of hunger and malnutrition in Vermont and nationwide. Hunger is solvable, and strengthening federal nutrition programs like food stamps, school meals, summer meals, and child and adult care meals is the best way to solve it, point out the authors. “Congress now has an opportunity to right the wrongs of a decade of turning its back on the hungry. It’s time for Congress to call hunger in America what it is: hunger, not very low food security” and to “fully support a strengthening of the Food Stamp Program in the 2007 congressional reauthorization of the Farm Bill.”
::Shelley
(“My Turn: Yes, There Is Still Hunger in America,” burlingtonfreepress.com, December 21, 2006)
Just before the holiday season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture eliminated the word “hunger” from the terms used in an annual report on hunger and food insecurity statistics to Congress, write Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, and Robert Dostis, a registered dietitian, executive director of the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger and a state representative in the Burlington Free Press, Vt. “This way of making ‘hunger’ disappear, unfortunately, does not reflect any change in the actual lives of the hungry – the seniors, parents working at low-wage jobs, disabled persons, children and others forced on a regular basis to skip meals, make the rounds of food pantries, or substitute cheap, low-quality foods for healthier foods. Now, suddenly, these people suffer only from ‘very low food insecurity,’” write Dostis and Weill. This “whitewashing” of language reflects a long-term trend in Washington of insufficient commitment to the issue of hunger and malnutrition in Vermont and nationwide. Hunger is solvable, and strengthening federal nutrition programs like food stamps, school meals, summer meals, and child and adult care meals is the best way to solve it, point out the authors. “Congress now has an opportunity to right the wrongs of a decade of turning its back on the hungry. It’s time for Congress to call hunger in America what it is: hunger, not very low food security” and to “fully support a strengthening of the Food Stamp Program in the 2007 congressional reauthorization of the Farm Bill.”
::Shelley
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Op-Ed - Maryland: USDA Should Reinstate Terms That Describe Existence of Hunger
Op-Ed – Maryland: USDA Should Reinstate Terms That Describe Existence of Hunger
(“A Hunger for Solutions,” baltimoresun.com, November 29, 2006)
This year, an annual USDA report on food access in America substituted terms “low food security” and “very low food security” for the two categories describing people who are suffering from inadequate access to food and previously were characterized as “food insecure without hunger” and “food insecure with hunger,” write Dr. Stephen A. Haering of the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future with his research partners Dr. Peter Troell and Dr. Shams Syed in The Baltimore Sun. “We agree that the survey used by the USDA focuses on the ability of households to secure food, not the actual existence of hunger,” but “the potential impact of this new terminology on public perceptions, attitudes and understanding, and on government policies, is profound,” they argue. “If our choice of language allows us to avoid seeing hunger for what it is, society will have less understanding, less motivation and less political will to undertake and tackle the complex problems at stake.” The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future focuses on issues of diet, health, food production and food systems. “Our work at the center … has led us to appreciate the difficulties involved in measuring complex human experiences such as food security and hunger,” the doctors write. “Until more accurate survey instruments are developed, the USDA should reinstate the phrases “food insecure without hunger” and “food insecure with hunger” to describe the state of household affairs with regard to food,” they insist and suggest that “every person who is hungry be counted in a way that everyone can understand.”
::Shelley
(“A Hunger for Solutions,” baltimoresun.com, November 29, 2006)
This year, an annual USDA report on food access in America substituted terms “low food security” and “very low food security” for the two categories describing people who are suffering from inadequate access to food and previously were characterized as “food insecure without hunger” and “food insecure with hunger,” write Dr. Stephen A. Haering of the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future with his research partners Dr. Peter Troell and Dr. Shams Syed in The Baltimore Sun. “We agree that the survey used by the USDA focuses on the ability of households to secure food, not the actual existence of hunger,” but “the potential impact of this new terminology on public perceptions, attitudes and understanding, and on government policies, is profound,” they argue. “If our choice of language allows us to avoid seeing hunger for what it is, society will have less understanding, less motivation and less political will to undertake and tackle the complex problems at stake.” The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future focuses on issues of diet, health, food production and food systems. “Our work at the center … has led us to appreciate the difficulties involved in measuring complex human experiences such as food security and hunger,” the doctors write. “Until more accurate survey instruments are developed, the USDA should reinstate the phrases “food insecure without hunger” and “food insecure with hunger” to describe the state of household affairs with regard to food,” they insist and suggest that “every person who is hungry be counted in a way that everyone can understand.”
::Shelley
