Fate
"Food insecurity" is a made-up term. How shocking that a group that raises money to feed the hungry would hype the problem!
All language is "made up." But this term was made up by the US Department of Agriculture and the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies
In 2006, USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity. USDA made these changes in response to recommendations by an expert panel convened at USDA's request by the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies. Even though new labels were introduced, the methods used to assess households' food security remained unchanged, so statistics for 2005 and later years are directly comparable with those for earlier years for the corresponding categories.
USDA requested the review by CNSTAT to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access—or lack of access—to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound and that they convey useful and relevant information to policy officials and the public. The panel convened by CNSTAT to conduct this study included economists, sociologists, nutritionists, statisticians, and other researchers. One of the central issues the CNSTAT panel addressed was whether the concepts and definitions underlying the measurement methods—especially the concept and definition of hunger and the relationship between hunger and food insecurity—were appropriate for the policy context in which food security statistics are used.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nut ... urity.aspxbbauska
Perhaps the idea of a "shame sandwich" is what is being done when comparing us to France
.
When a company compares their products or services with others, they do so to evaluate whether or not there is something to learn from the competition.
When a government agency looks at how it provides it services by examining how other jurisdictions provide similar services, again, its in order to see if there is something to be learned...
Why does the comparison with France in this instance bother you Bbauska?
I get it that you have a personal story of growth from poverty. Thats marvellous. Just because you had it tough and managed to improve doesn't impact on the arguement that childrens lives could benefit from programs that would ensure they wouldn't have it so tough.
There are a myriad of beenfits that accrue to societies that fight poverty and the effects of childhood poverty. Lower crime rates, greater worker productivity, social cohesion, better health and lower health care costs ...
And there all kinds of costs to societies that neglect their poor .Including, the eradication of social mobility. The very poor children who manage to make their way to a higher standard of living with little or no assistance is much smaller than when there is broad social support. (School lunches being one small part of that...) Is social mobility desirable? I thought thats what the American dream was all about.
bbauska
There are some who need assistance. Very few.
And what is that number? And what is your source for that number? Is the USDA wrong in their estimates?
And if we are "called to help" shouldn't we seek to achieve the most efficient and effective way of helping? I would add that we should seek the methods of delivery that most respect the dignity of all concerned.