Thursday, November 16, 2006

"very low food security"

Here's another big question (boy are there a lot of those!) for the 110th Congress: Can the Democrats do away with this sort of political double-speak which uses a half-baked and disingenuous understanding of "Science" - though not actually the scientific method - to sell dehumanization and bigotry to the electorate?

Maybe the more important question is; Will they?

Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry
By Elizabeth Williamson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; Page A01

The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."

Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.

Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."

The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.
Will it help if someone, with credentials
much more pertinent and professionally established than mine, explains that the actual scientific term has been acknowledged by scientists, for decades now.

It's called Malnourished.

5 comments:

  1. It's very striking that the media glazes over the fact that people are going hungry and rather reflects on the "importance" of words.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I sometimes work at our local food bank. People come in who are truly in dire need and the numbers are increasing rapidly. Great economy for the wall street guys. For the rest, not so good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do to be diggin' it Peacechick. My first wife and I did Food Stamps for about 6 mos at one point, and I know I could've got them in my 2nd marriage as well, but, well.. I won't go into that one.

    I really am glad that Wall Street's healthy. There's simply no sound economic excuse for it to be soaring as so many people are still near to half-starved.

    Speaking of the "importance" of words, AG: I found this link through The Phantom Viscount. Y'all may enjoy giving it a read. It's really not related. I've just been enjoying it for most of the day (it's Long! lol!) But could be read quickly if ya give it a go. {-;

    ReplyDelete
  4. Things have to be cleaned up and palatable for people first. They can't hear about hungry children and...well...give a crap about it, unless they can have a luncheon or dinner, listen to a little lecture, clap, donate a little bit so as not to feel too much guilt...and then ride home in that luxury car and call it a night. But oh...did you see that diamond braclet that Paris was wearing? I want one just like it...please Donald I really must have it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the orwell alert just hit 1984!

    WTF is it with all the newspeak?

    ReplyDelete