http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/13/eng20050613_189927.html


More US babies malnourished

Increasing numbers of young American children are showing signs of serious malnourishment, fuelled by a greater prevalence of hunger in the United States, while, paradoxically, two-thirds of the US population is either overweight or obese.

In 2003, 11.2 per cent of families in the United States experienced hunger, compared with 10.1 per cent in 1999, according to most recent official figures, released on National Hunger Awareness Day held this year on June 7.

Some paediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only worsen the situation. By contrast Bush plans to keep tax cuts for more affluent sectors of the population, they note.


So tell me. Why is the greatest economic power in the world starving its own people? :D

It's called food insecurity.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/images/pacman.gif

The most recent food security survey reveals 88.1 percent of American households were food secure throughout calendar year 2004. "Food secure" means they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining 11.9 percent of U.S. households (13.5 million) were food insecure. At some time during the year, these households were 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. About one-third of food-insecure households (4.4 million, or 3.9 percent of all U.S. households) were food insecure to the extent that one or more household members were hungry, at least some time during the year, because they could not afford enough food. The other two-thirds of food-insecure households (9.0 million, or 8.0 percent of all households) obtained enough food to avoid hunger, using a variety of coping strategies such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/trends.htm

So Sam, why does the U.S spend so much of its GDP on its military, while 11.9% of its population was food insecure? Why is the American regime starving its own people?

Surely if they didn't devote such a large proportion of their GDP to their military, and instead spent it on healthcare and social services, the health of their citizens would skyrocket!

So Sam, why does the U.S spend so much of its GDP on its military, while 11.9% of its population was food insecure? Why is the American regime starving its own people?

Surely if they didn't devote such a large proportion of their GDP to their military, and instead spent it on healthcare and social services, the health of their citizens would skyrocket!

The food insecurity in the US is related to poverty. Very often, unforseen expenses can make the difference between hunger and starvation- a visit to the emergency room, a major car repair. Single mothers with children and blacks and hispanics who subsist at the poverty line are especially vulnerable. If you don't have a credit card, you cannot purcase food when you run out of cash. Not many people have charge accounts at the local grocery store.

Another problem is that of distribution and access. Fresh food is expensive when you subsist on a minimum wage job. Low-income communities support retail operations that sell low-cost goods. When it comes to food, low-cost items do tend to be high in fat and low in nutritional content.

Families are often forced to make the tradeoff between food and other expenses. Health care is a particular problem. In poor, rural communities families often have no choice but to use the emergency room for routine health care. This is very expensive. Car repairs are another significant and unexpected expense. If the family car needs repair and it is the end of the month, when cash reserves are low, a family will have no choice but to reduce food intake to get the car back on the road in order to go to work.

Basically hunger in the US is due to lack of employment stability and inadequate minimum wage.

The government has launched several anti-poverty programs since the 1960s to combat hunger due to poverty.

The USDA spends about 55% of its budget (around $51 billion) on Food and Nutrition assistance programs, chiefly the Food Stamp program, WIC and child nutrition program (which provides school lunches).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodNutritionAssistance/


Some of the latest figures (not all inclusive):
http://www.hungerinamerica.org/key_findings

LOL, the U.S starving it's own people? well you tell me. If your are starving in this country it is because you want to, I worked as a volunteer for the Salvation Army, and they provide two meals a day, that definitely will not cause you to starve, and no questions ask, just bow your head while the prayer is said to bless the food.

Increase in Overweight Status Among Poor Older Adolescents ...
The prevalence of overweight among adolescents in the US has increased greatly in the past 30 years. Researchers analyzed the association between overweight ...
http://emergency-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2006/714/8

How can Californians be overweight and hungry?
vidual behavior, another considers the. genetics of obesity. In examining the. relationship between food insecurity. and overweight among the poor, recent ...
http://calag.ucop.edu/0401JFM/pdfs/obesity.pdf


AP Wire | 05/23/2006 | Study: Obesity rises faster in poor teens
The results contrast with recent research suggesting that while the poor are most likely to be overweight, obesity rates among U.S. adults have climbed ...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/14649129.htm

MedlinePlus: Poor states among the fattest: survey
Poor states among the fattest: survey. ... and weight to calculate whether they are overweight or obese, while the NHANES measured and weighed people. ...
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_38691.html

GROWING OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN AMERICA: THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF ...
You would not know about the problems of obesity and overweight among the poor from. the reports and press releases from various advocacy groups that bewail ...
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/03ap3besh.pdf

Why spuriousmonkey, arn't you smart enough to open the site your self?

from buffalo's own links which he didn't bother to read after googling them:

Overweight is generally associated
with excessive food intake while food
insecurity is associated with inadequate
food supplies. How can both be found
in the same individuals and households?
Overweight is not just a function
of the quantity of food consumed and
can mask other nutritional problems
that result when families have insufficient
money for food. One possible
scenario is that high-fat, high-sugar
foods are the cheapest source of calories
for low-income parents to buy.
Reliance on these foods may contribute
to weight gain, especially when it
occurs cyclically in response to dwindling
food dollars. Another scenario
is that low-income parents may buy
less high-fat, high-sugar foods when
they are food insecure and then indulge
in more when they have money.
While these scenarios focus on individual
behavior, another considers the
genetics of obesity. In examining the
relationship between food insecurity
and overweight among the poor, recent
studies have begun to look at the possibility
that the
body may make
permanent
changes in response
to periodic
food shortages,
leading to increased
body fat
when food becomes
available.
For example, the
thrifty genotype
hypothesis of obesity suggests that
those exposed to fluctuating calorie intakes
develop adaptive methods to
achieve high efficiency in energy use
and deposition of fat stores (Neel 1962).
The thrifty gene, which favors energy
storage, may have been adaptive for
early humans or traditional societies
faced with periodic famine but is no
longer beneficial in modern societies.
Yet another theory focuses on some
evidence that low socioeconomic status
leads to psychosocial stress, promoting
increased fat deposition in the abdominal
area through psychoneuroendocrinological
pathways (Bjorntorp 1995). In
spite of the many plausible theories, we
still do not know all of the factors contributing
to the obesity epidemic.

So Sam, why does the U.S spend so much of its GDP on its military, while 11.9% of its population was food insecure? Why is the American regime starving its own people?

Surely if they didn't devote such a large proportion of their GDP to their military, and instead spent it on healthcare and social services, the health of their citizens would skyrocket!

Because feeding the poor isn't profitable in the short term, and making weapons is. The present administration doesn't believe in the role of the federal government to help the poor.

spuriousmonkey, The site show that there is still more than enough food that no one needs to starve in America, and that the problem in America isn't starvation but obesity, can you show me were people are starving in mass droves in our country, as I have said there are many place's that free food is available, the welfare programs are advertising to get people in, anyone who starves in America is doing it out of pride and stubbornness, or just plain stupidity. The problem is not lack of food in this country but the over abundance of food. From what I know having worked with Salvation Army I would never have to cook or buy another meal again, and save myself a bundle of money to travel across the country, from Salvation Army Center to Salvation Army Center, like one of the gentleman that I knew in the center, as the weather in the south would warm up he would start moving north, and end up in the north for the summer, and as fall set into the north he would start to move south for the winter, the only thing he paid for was his travel, and he wouldn't have had to do that if he so chose, so don't tell me that anyone has to starve in America for a lack of food, it can be found in any city of America at the Salvation Army, Good Will, Church Kitchens, and all at no charge.

It is not a nation's job to feed its people. It is the nation's job to encourage those conditions that let them feed themselves. The more handouts you give, the more dependant you make the people on their government until, at some point, the government misses a beat and people starve. I am not going to be worried about hunger as long as it isn't actually killing people. We have plenty of charities... but most people are very hesitant to exploit them until they are actually fighting for survival.

Lord knows, my family went through some tight spots from time to time. Never did accept a penny of aid or a bowl of soup. We found more ways to streach a pound of beans and a sack of potatos though...

I agree to a degree, clockwood. But the Republicans have been doing everything they can to destroy the middle class, favoring corporate profits over the well-being of the people. Letting jobs go overseas, letting corporations get away with having tax loopholes in the Cayman Islands, breaking Unions, opposing minimum wage. What about the working poor? What about being able to afford college, so that you can rise out of poverty? It used to be a person could afford college while working an entry level job, now people are just stuck being poor, no matter how hard they work.

If they won't work for it, let them starve. I'm sick of the progressive socialist policies. People used to ask to work for a meal, but now they just hold out their hands and expect it.

You misunderstand. People aren't going without food because they are lazy. Progressive social policies aren't about handing out food in support of laziness. People are working their ass off and are still poor, they call them the working poor.

Notice that this problem has grown since the government in effect nationalized the charity industry. Every business sector that the government sticks its incompetent, inefficient, slow moving, politically serving, bureaucracy impaired hands into becomes a dismal failure. Education, health care, transportation, energy, science, and now charity.

Salvation Army workers need only rudimentary "people skills" to be able to discern the truly needy from the lazy. Government workers are specifically forbidden to try to make that distinction. My wife was a social worker in a hospital for many years, and their only criterion is how well you can fill out the forms and navigate the system. Truthfulness is not part of the process.

Consider that many poor people are poor because they are uneducated or simply slow-witted, and it's obvious that many of the neediest among us will be precisely those who can't fill out the forms and navigate the system. My wife dealt with people who literally could not set an alarm clock, get on the right bus, or operate an elevator, in order to keep an appointment. The slick ones who understood the system hid their jewelry in their purses and sailed right through.

The problem with government-run charity programs is not that there's not enough money to go around. The problem is that government is incapable of distributing resources efficiently and fairly. Part of this problem is what I just stated, that it gives the money to the wrong people. Most Americans living in poverty have cars, color TV sets, microwave ovens, and other quasi-necessities that not all moderately successful working people have in many other countries. I don't begrudge them that, but why does the government give so much money to some people that they can afford to eat themselves into obesity (yes Spurious in some cases it's a symptom of a medical condition but in most people, even most poor people, it really is a matter of eating more calories than they burn off) and then not give enough to the people who really need it? It's because the government is incompetent, inefficient... oh wait I already said that.

The other part of this problem is that most of the money the government spends "to alleviate poverty" is actually spent on the salaries of the middle-class office workers who "administer" the charity programs. I'm sure I've posted this statistic (from the early 1990s) twelve times on SciForums because it is so outrageous that it bears repeating: If all the tax money that the government collects to spend on the poor were simply thrown into a pile, divided up equally, and given to the poor, every poor family in America would have an annual income of forty thousand dollars. Instead, they use most of that money to pay thirteen levels of civil "servants" to sit around all day administering each other.

As for "high-fat, high-sugar foods are the cheapest source of calories for low-income parents to buy," that is just collossal bullshit. For one thing, they're buying their high-fat, high-sugar foods at McDonalds. That must be where the National Association Of Poor People holds their daily meetings. Next time a bum asks you for money for food, give him five bucks, then follow him to see where he spends it. I promise you he will not go into a 7-Eleven and buy enough bread and peanut butter to subsist on for three days.

For another, even in the supermarket those types of processed foods are not the cheapest. Humble staples like bread, peanut butter and cheese give you a lot more nutrition per dollar than junk food. Shop that way and you'll save enough money to afford a daily supplement to compensate for the vitamins and minerals which admittedly are a bit scarce on my menu but aren't exactly abundant on the convenience food aisle--or at McDonalds--either.

1) Middle class, as we like to think of it, does not exist and never has. Its a blanket term that covers everything from those barely scraping by to those with three cars and a membership at the local country club. Though everyone likes to think of themselves as middle class, the term is truely worthless in every sense of the word. Lower class isn't much better as it covers people eating out of dumpsters and living in cardboard boxes and then seems to seamlessly blend in with the middle class. I suggest we throw out both terms.

For the purposes of this discussion, lets use subsistence level as a benchmark. At subsistence level, you are producing just enough income to be able to keep your family alive without relying on external sources for help but can afford no setbacks. Insurance and such things are problematic. Above subsistence level, things may not be great but there is some surplus income. College, with some help from scholarships, is possible and occasional medical expenses can be handled. Below subsistence level, survival is dependant on charity and possibly scrounging.

2) Fraggle Rocker's post actually illustrates why the federal government shouldn't involve itself too much with charity. Paperwork has a habit of self-popagating under such circumstances until the government can do nothing but juggle paperwork. If you want something done, do it outside of the manifold of the government.

OK, let's reduce government inefficiency in other areas as well. The cost of our war in Iraq will approach 1 trillion (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/)before it's over, and terrorism is only increasing.

I would rather "waste" that on the poor, if I had a choice about it.

Poverty and starvation is especially devestating to children, as children that don't have enough food to eat don't develop as well as their well-fed peers.

Every charitable institution has administrative costs, in fact, that is the only cost besides the money itself.

When the private sector enjoys complete deregulation, the result is best observed in the classics of Dickens, a permanent underclass of working poor. While this might seem grand, they do occaisionally rise up and behead the members of the elite ruling class, so... look out for that.

Dickens, was a fictional novel spidergoat, based in England over a hundred years ago, what does it have to do with the situation we are discussing? and England has never risen up and beheaded the ruling class. Were in the world do you get the idea that there is any similarity between the U.S. today and 18th century England? Logic my boy logic.

It is not a nation's job to feed its people. It is the nation's job to encourage those conditions that let them feed themselves. The more handouts you give, the more dependant you make the people on their government until, at some point, the government misses a beat and people starve. I am not going to be worried about hunger as long as it isn't actually killing people. We have plenty of charities... but most people are very hesitant to exploit them until they are actually fighting for survival.

Lord knows, my family went through some tight spots from time to time. Never did accept a penny of aid or a bowl of soup. We found more ways to streach a pound of beans and a sack of potatos though...

That's all nice and good, but charities cannot support those who need help. Charities are already overburdened as they are. It's a complete myth that people are hesitant to exploit charities. People just say that to excuse themselves from having to do something about poverty.

And not worrying about hunger unless it starts killing people? Huh? Wait to go, fellow American! I'm sure there's no side effects to hunger if it doesn't kill them, right? :bugeye:

It's called food insecurity.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/images/pacman.gif


http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/trends.htm

what's the not hungry mean? Hungry but not starving? If not, couldn't those be considered food secure also?

what's the not hungry mean? Hungry but not starving? If not, couldn't those be considered food secure also?

It was there under the figure:

About one-third of food-insecure households (4.4 million, or 3.9 percent of all U.S. households) were food insecure to the extent that one or more household members were hungry, at least some time during the year, because they could not afford enough food.

The other two-thirds of food-insecure households (9.0 million, or 8.0 percent of all households) obtained enough food to avoid hunger, using a variety of coping strategies such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries.

That's all nice and good, but charities cannot support those who need help. Charities are already overburdened as they are. It's a complete myth that people are hesitant to exploit charities. People just say that to excuse themselves from having to do something about poverty.
You know, there better ways to deal with poverty than asking the government to squander other people's money on ineffective programs. I'd rather have livestock from Heifer International than food stamps and Victory Coffee.

spuriousmonkey, The site show that there is still more than enough food that no one needs to starve in America, and that the problem in America isn't starvation but obesity, can you show me were people are starving in mass droves in our country,


Did you even read the quote from your own link that you never read?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/13/eng20050613_189927.html



So tell me. Why is the greatest economic power in the world starving its own people? :D



You will find it is the illegal & legal immigrants who came to america in the last 30 years who are the ones starving, in your country OZ its the Aboriginees who are starving or out of work & uneducated, its the same all over the world, anybody who chooses to go to america should do so with a good trade behind them, a mexican or a african usually has neither, if i went to live in OZ without a trade i would starve too, if a brit wants to emigrate to oz they will only be accepted if they are a engineer, doctor etc, america's open borders & open door policy in the past has filled the country with uneducated people, who if the get a job it will always be a poorly paid one.

America is not starving americans, people who choose to go there are starving themselves by not getting a good trade or education behind them before going there.

I don't even know why you are paying attention to this rubbish. Take a look at the British people and take a look at Americans, conclude for yourself who looks malnurished. For that matter take a look at Americans and people of all other countries. Then again, who knows what genetically mortified stuff Americans eat for food these days. America is the drug capital of the world, there is a drug in everything, for everything, and about everything. The food and drug is the biggest industry in the nation.

That's all nice and good, but charities cannot support those who need help. Charities are already overburdened as they are. It's a complete myth that people are hesitant to exploit charities. People just say that to excuse themselves from having to do something about poverty.No dude, you do have to excuse me. Last year the governments at all levels took about $35,000 of my money in direct and indirect taxes. If I had donated that money to the Salvation Army they could have fed ten families of four or completely supported two of them. What did those governments do with that money? Threw it at some little drenn-hole of a country that we're supposed to be afraid of, even though with our help and seven years to do it it couldn't even defeat Iran. Paid subsidies to tobacco farmers. Bought people's homes and gave the land to developers to build shopping malls that will be exempt from property tax for years. Bribed professional sports teams whose athletes "earn" seven-figure salaries into coming to their city--and built them a stadium. Paid thirteen layers of bureaucrats to sit around all day and "administer" each other.Because of these confiscatory taxes I don't have the ability to be as charitable as I would like. I also feel rather resentful about it because the left-liberals who assure me that the charity industry must be nationalized like education (which worked so well) are the ones who keep bloating the ranks of the civil "servants" so less of my tax money goes anywhere except their own pockets.

Americans were once one of the most charitable people on earth. We could be again. But when the federal budget alone leeches off a full 20% of our GDP and delivers virtually nothing in return, it makes us all quite a bit poorer.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Nobody, except perhaps the clinically insane, is starving in the US. To even suggest that there is any comparison between the US morbidly obese poor, and the North Korean actually starving poor is an insult to the suffering of the North Koreans.

Any American who is actually obviously starving and not just a couple of meals behind can go stand on a corner in any city, dressed so as to show his state of malnutrition, and he'll be showered with money. Someone will even drag him into a McDonalds and stuff him with hamburgers.

If it's a big city there's a Salvation Army or Union Rescue Mission that will feed him. If it's a smaller town he can walk into a church and someone will take pity on him.

It's not easy to alleviate homelessness but hunger can be treated quickly and cheaply. No American, absolutely none of us except the sociopathic fringe like gang members, will stand by and allow someone to starve. If anyone is starving in this country it's due to some other problem, such as an inappropriate pride that prevents him from enduring the humiliation of seeking help from strangers in public.

If anyone is starving in this country it's due to some other problem, such as an inappropriate pride that prevents him from enduring the humiliation of seeking help from strangers in public.
Exactly, this whole thread is absurd.

It's called food insecurity.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/images/pacman.gif


http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/trends.htm




When it comes to food, it's about quality not quantity. The USA is not the world leader in quality food. We have a lot of low quality food.

We have the quality of food that we want. The kind of food you're talking about is easily available at affordable prices to anyone who wants it. In America eating is a compromise between nutrition and recreation and a great many of us lean more toward the recreational side. Fortunately it's a free country and we can do that if we want. A lot of poor people have really sad lives (duh) and food is one of their few pleasures. That's why when I give a beggar three dollars he'll spend it on a Happy Meal instead of enough groceries for six meals.

It's also why I refuse to completely eliminate trans-fatty acids from my diet.

Our Mesolithic ancestors had to eat a survival-obsessed diet because it was the only one available to them. I have a choice and I choose not to live that way, as do most Americans. This preference is neither irrational nor ignorant.

Any American who is actually obviously starving and not just a couple of meals behind can go stand on a corner in any city, dressed so as to show his state of malnutrition, and he'll be showered with money. Someone will even drag him into a McDonalds and stuff him with hamburgers.

If it's a big city there's a Salvation Army or Union Rescue Mission that will feed him. If it's a smaller town he can walk into a church and someone will take pity on him.

It's not easy to alleviate homelessness but hunger can be treated quickly and cheaply. No American, absolutely none of us except the sociopathic fringe like gang members, will stand by and allow someone to starve. If anyone is starving in this country it's due to some other problem, such as an inappropriate pride that prevents him from enduring the humiliation of seeking help from strangers in public.

It's Happy Meals for everyone in Fraggle's mythical Happy Land of Milk and Honey, where money falls as if from trees, and sausages grow from the sausage bushes!

And the fact still is that if you need food in this country all you have to do is go to any number of organizations from the Salvation Army, to Good Will, to local church food pantry's, the government has food giveaway programs, just read the paper for the time and place, anyone starving in America wants to starve, I went through the telephone book in my county and found 56 places to get food assistance, all for no charge, so how the hell do you starve in America, in Korea they do not have the option of the Salvation Army, Good Will, Church Food Pantry's, or government giveaways, as there is no extra food to be had.