4 ms·

Visualizing the World's Food Consumption

40 points by illdave 15y ago

mc32 15y ago
If food is relatively cheap in the US (>7% of income) why are we so poor† at making sure everyone is fed to a certain modicum? †http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
- hugh3 15y ago
  Mostly a combination of (a) that article being largely made-up BS to exaggerate the size of a problem that barely exists (i.e. by using ridiculously broad categories for "food insecure" and a measurement methodology which involves cajoling people into agreeing that they are indeed "food-insecure") and (b) the fact that a few people are terrible at making life decisions and somehow manage to prioritize some variety of stupid crap or another (drugs, alcohol, gambling) over feeding themselves and their families. Talking about "one seventh of households in the United States being food insecure" is a complete joke, when there's people in those orange countries that really can't get enough to eat.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    >that article being largely made-up BS to exaggerate the size of a problem that barely exists it is not a "problem that barely exists" for the children [or the other dependents] of these few from the (b)
    - hugh3 15y ago
      Sure, problems can "barely exist" while being significant for the statistically small number of people whom they effect. Rhinoceros attacks, for instance, are "barely a problem"... unless you're one of those poor unfortunates who is suffering from one. Fun fact: wikipedia has a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_due_to_rhinoceros_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_due_to_rhinocer...
      - VladRussian 15y ago
        >Sure, problems can "barely exist" while being significant for the statistically small number of people whom they effect. sounds like you do think that 10%+ (food insecure) or 3%+ (food insecurity with hunger) of US population is "statistically small number of people". Who'd care about 30M+ (10M+) of people who "are terrible at making life decisions and somehow manage to prioritize some variety of stupid crap or another (drugs, alcohol, gambling) over feeding themselves and their families" and their children! Or may be you just not aware about the facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Food_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Fo...
  - mc32 15y ago
    I understand that there are people who make poor decisions. Nutrition, however, since it's so relatively cheap and one of the most basic needs, I think should have a safety net even for those who, thru their own fault, lack access to such. I know there are food programmes and soup kitchens --but those suffer from poor funding. I mean, I feel that we should make sure everyone has access to balanced nutrition (not talking gourmet --just good nutrition) regardless of why they might not be able to afford it themselves.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      I know there are food programmes and soup kitchens --but those suffer from poor funding. I mean, I feel that we should make sure everyone has access to balanced nutrition (not talking gourmet --just good nutrition) regardless of why they might not be able to afford it themselves. Fair enough. Well, if that's what you believe then I wish you well in your philanthropic endeavours. How much are you thinking of donating?
    - typicalrunt 15y ago
      Yes, there are food programmes and soup kitchens, just like they existed decades before. It seems that the problem isn't going away, so I have to make the assumption that maybe it's something wrong with the food programmes and soup kitchens? On a certain level, when you are babying people and doing things for them, those people learn to depend on you and not learn for themselves. Initially those programmes were setup for the hardest hit people as a /temporary/ solution, but now it seems to have become a permanent one. Just like lunch programmes at schools to feed kids. They shouldn't exist because it teaches the parents that they don't need to think about feeding their children something healthy every day of the year. It puts the onus on a school system which is usually lacking in funds, so it makes decisions not solely based on children's health. By allowing the school system to feed their child, parents have extra income to spend on...what? In the Bronx, my wife was seeing 6-7 year olds arrive to school hungry (breakfast and lunch programmes were provided) but had the latest Timberland shoes and name-brand clothes. It's sad, but people these days need to be educated about eating and parenting.
thenextcorner 15y ago
Everyday I'm stunned about the low quality food we get served in the US. Walking through a supermarket, reading labels, all processed food is too high in calories, includes corn syrup and loads of sodium. Ever wondered why a wonder bread can stay good for 2 weeks? Yikes!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- julsonl 15y ago
  Either you're being sarcastic, or you have no idea how third-world country food is like (and I grew up on one of those countries). People are tremendously lucky here, and I'm not kidding.
  - thenextcorner 15y ago
    Oh, I was not being sarcastic, but you are completely right with regards to third-world country food. My apologies if my comment sounded insensitive, was not intended to do. The point I was trying to make, is that why is such a rich country as the US serving such low quality food.
    - mikecp 15y ago
      To make a profit.
    - julsonl 15y ago
      I guess quality can be relative then. I have some relatives that would purchase these high-calorie, refrigerated foods here and take them back home, and everyone would treat them as if they came from a restaurant, but I guess they're not as educated with regards to caloric intake as Americans (even though we have way lower obesity levels).
- hugh3 15y ago
  This is a tired complaint. In fact, one of the most tiresome things I find about America is the insistence of Americans upon complaining about how awful things are in America (despite apparently limited experience with how things are in other countries). It's some kind of mark of social status; due to the tendency of lower-middle-class Americans to be irrationally patriotic, upper-middle-class Americans feel the need to be irrationally anti-patriotic as a status marker. Anyway, the other poster is correct: while you can if you're sufficiently stupid go to an American supermarket and fill your shopping trolley with garbage, you can also get a huge variety of amazing high quality food that would be absolutely astonishing to anyone living in all but a handful of other countries, and mega-astonishing to anyone living in any time period prior to today. Your ancestors hoed fields for ten hours a day to scrape together enough nutrition to not die, and you're turning up your nose at a loaf of bread that can feed you for two days, costs the equivalent of 90 seconds' labour, and will remain edible for three whole weeks? Get some perspective! PS. Anyone thinking of replying to say that bread is evil and I should be on a paleo diet: can we just assume we've already had this conversation and get on with our days?
brosephius 15y ago
is anyone else a bit skeptical at the number of countries averaging over 3,000 calories/day? wouldn't such a person consistently gain a pound or two a month, every month?
- nsxwolf 15y ago
  3,000 is not hard to reach if you eat 3 times a day, especially if it's "healthy home cooking". Paradoxically, if you skip breakfast and eat 2 middle-of-the-road fast food meals a day, it's hard to hit 3,000 calories. All sounds like such luxury to me though... 1,200 calories a day to just to remain forever 50 pounds overweight... ugh...
  - hugh3 15y ago
    It's not hard to reach, but as an average over the entire population? Is there any explanation of the methodology by which these numbers were derived? I don't think it's possible to accurately measure this kind of thing -- heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of how many calories I, personally, am consuming, so I have no idea how you could average it over the entire population. You could measure food production, but we don't know exactly how much is wasted.
    - ori_b 15y ago
      I don't understand why this is being downvoted. I really would like to see how they arrive at these numbers.
      - mikecp 15y ago
        And I don't understand why you couldn't have clicked the "sources" link yourself and found this, but okay: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/FoodConsumptionNutrients_en.xls http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_se...
        hugh3 15y ago
olegd 15y ago
no Russia?
- archangel_one 15y ago
  It only shows the top 20 and bottom 20 countries, and Russia isn't in either of those.
  - mikecp 15y ago
    Indeed. According to the source links from this page, Russia averages 3,320 calories daily. Not sure about the percentage income spent, though.

40 points by illdave 15y ago

mc32 15y ago

If food is relatively cheap in the US (>7% of income) why are we so poor† at making sure everyone is fed to a certain modicum? †http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...

hugh3 15y ago
Mostly a combination of (a) that article being largely made-up BS to exaggerate the size of a problem that barely exists (i.e. by using ridiculously broad categories for "food insecure" and a measurement methodology which involves cajoling people into agreeing that they are indeed "food-insecure") and (b) the fact that a few people are terrible at making life decisions and somehow manage to prioritize some variety of stupid crap or another (drugs, alcohol, gambling) over feeding themselves and their families. Talking about "one seventh of households in the United States being food insecure" is a complete joke, when there's people in those orange countries that really can't get enough to eat.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >that article being largely made-up BS to exaggerate the size of a problem that barely exists it is not a "problem that barely exists" for the children [or the other dependents] of these few from the (b)
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Sure, problems can "barely exist" while being significant for the statistically small number of people whom they effect. Rhinoceros attacks, for instance, are "barely a problem"... unless you're one of those poor unfortunates who is suffering from one. Fun fact: wikipedia has a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_due_to_rhinoceros_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_due_to_rhinocer...
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      >Sure, problems can "barely exist" while being significant for the statistically small number of people whom they effect. sounds like you do think that 10%+ (food insecure) or 3%+ (food insecurity with hunger) of US population is "statistically small number of people". Who'd care about 30M+ (10M+) of people who "are terrible at making life decisions and somehow manage to prioritize some variety of stupid crap or another (drugs, alcohol, gambling) over feeding themselves and their families" and their children! Or may be you just not aware about the facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Food_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Fo...
- mc32 15y ago
  I understand that there are people who make poor decisions. Nutrition, however, since it's so relatively cheap and one of the most basic needs, I think should have a safety net even for those who, thru their own fault, lack access to such. I know there are food programmes and soup kitchens --but those suffer from poor funding. I mean, I feel that we should make sure everyone has access to balanced nutrition (not talking gourmet --just good nutrition) regardless of why they might not be able to afford it themselves.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    I know there are food programmes and soup kitchens --but those suffer from poor funding. I mean, I feel that we should make sure everyone has access to balanced nutrition (not talking gourmet --just good nutrition) regardless of why they might not be able to afford it themselves. Fair enough. Well, if that's what you believe then I wish you well in your philanthropic endeavours. How much are you thinking of donating?
  - typicalrunt 15y ago
    Yes, there are food programmes and soup kitchens, just like they existed decades before. It seems that the problem isn't going away, so I have to make the assumption that maybe it's something wrong with the food programmes and soup kitchens? On a certain level, when you are babying people and doing things for them, those people learn to depend on you and not learn for themselves. Initially those programmes were setup for the hardest hit people as a /temporary/ solution, but now it seems to have become a permanent one. Just like lunch programmes at schools to feed kids. They shouldn't exist because it teaches the parents that they don't need to think about feeding their children something healthy every day of the year. It puts the onus on a school system which is usually lacking in funds, so it makes decisions not solely based on children's health. By allowing the school system to feed their child, parents have extra income to spend on...what? In the Bronx, my wife was seeing 6-7 year olds arrive to school hungry (breakfast and lunch programmes were provided) but had the latest Timberland shoes and name-brand clothes. It's sad, but people these days need to be educated about eating and parenting.

thenextcorner 15y ago

Everyday I'm stunned about the low quality food we get served in the US. Walking through a supermarket, reading labels, all processed food is too high in calories, includes corn syrup and loads of sodium. Ever wondered why a wonder bread can stay good for 2 weeks? Yikes!

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
julsonl 15y ago
Either you're being sarcastic, or you have no idea how third-world country food is like (and I grew up on one of those countries). People are tremendously lucky here, and I'm not kidding.
- thenextcorner 15y ago
  Oh, I was not being sarcastic, but you are completely right with regards to third-world country food. My apologies if my comment sounded insensitive, was not intended to do. The point I was trying to make, is that why is such a rich country as the US serving such low quality food.
  - mikecp 15y ago
    To make a profit.
  - julsonl 15y ago
    I guess quality can be relative then. I have some relatives that would purchase these high-calorie, refrigerated foods here and take them back home, and everyone would treat them as if they came from a restaurant, but I guess they're not as educated with regards to caloric intake as Americans (even though we have way lower obesity levels).
hugh3 15y ago
This is a tired complaint. In fact, one of the most tiresome things I find about America is the insistence of Americans upon complaining about how awful things are in America (despite apparently limited experience with how things are in other countries). It's some kind of mark of social status; due to the tendency of lower-middle-class Americans to be irrationally patriotic, upper-middle-class Americans feel the need to be irrationally anti-patriotic as a status marker. Anyway, the other poster is correct: while you can if you're sufficiently stupid go to an American supermarket and fill your shopping trolley with garbage, you can also get a huge variety of amazing high quality food that would be absolutely astonishing to anyone living in all but a handful of other countries, and mega-astonishing to anyone living in any time period prior to today. Your ancestors hoed fields for ten hours a day to scrape together enough nutrition to not die, and you're turning up your nose at a loaf of bread that can feed you for two days, costs the equivalent of 90 seconds' labour, and will remain edible for three whole weeks? Get some perspective! PS. Anyone thinking of replying to say that bread is evil and I should be on a paleo diet: can we just assume we've already had this conversation and get on with our days?

brosephius 15y ago

is anyone else a bit skeptical at the number of countries averaging over 3,000 calories/day? wouldn't such a person consistently gain a pound or two a month, every month?

nsxwolf 15y ago
3,000 is not hard to reach if you eat 3 times a day, especially if it's "healthy home cooking". Paradoxically, if you skip breakfast and eat 2 middle-of-the-road fast food meals a day, it's hard to hit 3,000 calories. All sounds like such luxury to me though... 1,200 calories a day to just to remain forever 50 pounds overweight... ugh...
- hugh3 15y ago
  It's not hard to reach, but as an average over the entire population? Is there any explanation of the methodology by which these numbers were derived? I don't think it's possible to accurately measure this kind of thing -- heck, I have enough trouble keeping track of how many calories I, personally, am consuming, so I have no idea how you could average it over the entire population. You could measure food production, but we don't know exactly how much is wasted.
  - ori_b 15y ago
    I don't understand why this is being downvoted. I really would like to see how they arrive at these numbers.
    - mikecp 15y ago
      And I don't understand why you couldn't have clicked the "sources" link yourself and found this, but okay: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/FoodConsumptionNutrients_en.xls http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_se...
      - hugh3 15y ago

olegd 15y ago

no Russia?

archangel_one 15y ago
It only shows the top 20 and bottom 20 countries, and Russia isn't in either of those.
- mikecp 15y ago
  Indeed. According to the source links from this page, Russia averages 3,320 calories daily. Not sure about the percentage income spent, though.