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
