3 ms·

My guess is it is possible thanks to careful redefining the meaning of the word "hunger". According to the article, more than one out of ten Americans "struggl

by pfedor 18y ago

My guess is it is possible thanks to careful redefining the meaning of the word "hunger". According to the article, more than one out of ten Americans "struggled with hunger" in 2007. If you can believe this, you will believe anything.

patio11 18y ago
They've redefined "struggle with hunger" to mean "has experienced food insecurity". Food insecurity is assessed by asking a 10 question instrument. (There are shorter and longer versions.) Here it is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad2008.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad... Typical question: "In the last 12 months, since last November, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?" If you answer in the affirmative for 3 questions or more, you're food insecure. I answered the test honestly. I score 3 points and have, accordingly, "low food security" which is reported as "food insecure" (i.e. struggles with hunger). Don't feel too bad for me -- I am a professional engineer and single 20-something. Life is fine, thank you. At the moment, I have $200 in my pocket and nothing in my checking account. If the $200 does not last until payday (the 25th), I will eat ramen and rice instead of pizza and ribs. This happens a handful of times a year. (I could have the ribs if I raided my emergency fund or used credit but, really, swapping expensive for cheap for a day or three just doesn't strike me as an emergency.) I don't think most advocates would consider me food insecure. They probably would have when I was growing up. My family had some rough times, money was tight once in a while, things got stretched to last another day, once in a while we went without juiceboxes. It wasn't a Dickensian tale of horror, but it is pretty squarely within the intended meaning of "food insecure". Which convinces me the metric is not worth as much as some people think it is.

by pfedor 18y ago

patio11 18y ago

They've redefined "struggle with hunger" to mean "has experienced food insecurity". Food insecurity is assessed by asking a 10 question instrument. (There are shorter and longer versions.) Here it is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad2008.pdf http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad... Typical question: "In the last 12 months, since last November, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?" If you answer in the affirmative for 3 questions or more, you're food insecure. I answered the test honestly. I score 3 points and have, accordingly, "low food security" which is reported as "food insecure" (i.e. struggles with hunger). Don't feel too bad for me -- I am a professional engineer and single 20-something. Life is fine, thank you. At the moment, I have $200 in my pocket and nothing in my checking account. If the $200 does not last until payday (the 25th), I will eat ramen and rice instead of pizza and ribs. This happens a handful of times a year. (I could have the ribs if I raided my emergency fund or used credit but, really, swapping expensive for cheap for a day or three just doesn't strike me as an emergency.) I don't think most advocates would consider me food insecure. They probably would have when I was growing up. My family had some rough times, money was tight once in a while, things got stretched to last another day, once in a while we went without juiceboxes. It wasn't a Dickensian tale of horror, but it is pretty squarely within the intended meaning of "food insecure". Which convinces me the metric is not worth as much as some people think it is.