3 ms·

I guess I didn't explain clearly: In paragraph two, the article explains that the USDA defines "low food security" as a episodic reduction in the _variety_, no

I guess I didn't explain clearly: In paragraph two, the article explains that the USDA defines "low food security" as a episodic reduction in the _variety_, not the quantity of food. 5 paragraphs later, the article says these same people are going hungry during parts of the month. Which one is true? They can't both be. As for the Premium Southwest Salad - well, meeting your daily calorie requirement with that dish versus the Big Mac costs just over twice as much. ( http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Budgeting/Fast-Food-Fixes-What-You-Really-Pay-For/?page=2 http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Budgeting/Fast-Food-Fixes... - Big Mac is on slide 8 )

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I think you are conflating "low food security" and "very low food security" (the article probably should have been more clear on this point). http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm As for "meeting your daily calorie requirements", we are discussing people who are already exceeding them. Such people can either a) consume less and save money or b) consume the same dollar quantity of food, but substitute low calorie items for high calorie items. I.e., a person getting 2500 cals/day who needs 2000 can either go from 5 to 4 big macs + more money, or go from 5 big macs to 4 big macs + 1 salad.
- stellar678 16y ago
  Alright, fair enough. I think the article also conflated the two in service of its hyper-focus on individual responsibility to the exclusion of factors like food accessibility. But it does suggest policies to help people make better-informed choices about their food consumption instead of simply throwing more aid money at them. That sounds reasonable. Would you agree with the premise that the government has had huge impacts on the quality and variety of food available (I'm talking subsidies of commodity crops here), and therefore shares some of the blame for the fact that the American version of "hungry" is "overweight and under-nourished"?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I think you are conflating "low food security" and "very low food security" (the article probably should have been more clear on this point). http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm As for "meeting your daily calorie requirements", we are discussing people who are already exceeding them. Such people can either a) consume less and save money or b) consume the same dollar quantity of food, but substitute low calorie items for high calorie items. I.e., a person getting 2500 cals/day who needs 2000 can either go from 5 to 4 big macs + more money, or go from 5 big macs to 4 big macs + 1 salad.

stellar678 16y ago
Alright, fair enough. I think the article also conflated the two in service of its hyper-focus on individual responsibility to the exclusion of factors like food accessibility. But it does suggest policies to help people make better-informed choices about their food consumption instead of simply throwing more aid money at them. That sounds reasonable. Would you agree with the premise that the government has had huge impacts on the quality and variety of food available (I'm talking subsidies of commodity crops here), and therefore shares some of the blame for the fact that the American version of "hungry" is "overweight and under-nourished"?