Friday, September 12, 2014

The ‘Food Insecurity’ Hoax

By James Bovard

According to the U.S. Agriculture Department, American households suffer far more “food insecurity” than do families in Angola, Mozambique and Pakistan. The USDA uses different standards to gauge domestic and foreign “food security,” but neither measure make senses. Still, that technicality will do nothing to deter politicians and pundits from demagoging the hunger issue.

The Agriculture Department reported Sept. 3 that 14.3 percent of American households — 49 million people — suffered from “food insecurity” last year. This number is little changed from last year despite the fact that the federal government is now feeding more than 100 million Americans.

The USDA defines food insecurity as being “uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food” at times during the year. Most of those USDA-labeled “food insecure” did not run out of food; instead, they reported “reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” with “little or no indication of reduced food intake.”

If someone states that they feared running out of food for a single day (but didn’t run out), that is an indicator of being “food insecure” for the entire year — regardless of whether they ever missed a single meal. If someone felt they needed organic kale, but could only afford conventional kale, that is another “food insecure” indicator. If an obese person felt they needed 5,000 calories a day but could only afford 4,800 calories, they could be labeled “food insecure.”

Read the rest here.

1 comment:

  1. As with practically everything coming out of Washington, the real motivation is bigger bureaucracies and bigger budgets for the paper-pushers.

    If these parasites truly cared about the poor, they'd realize that the voracious public sector is responsible for the lousy economy, the crappy job market, and the general impoverishment of its people.

    End the welfare state and the moral hazards it creates. The economy would flourish, and no one would go hungry.