Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:25 PM CST
COLUMN: 'Food security' term sits sourly on an empty tummy
By PENNY WEAVER, Night news editor pweaver@jg-tc.com
Leave it to the U.S. government to use cold, detached language to completely take the humanity out of statistics showing that more Americans are going hungry.
I mean, if you didn’t have enough to eat, would you think to yourself, “Gosh, I certainly have very low food security.”
That’s ridiculous!
In case you missed it, the Ag Department on Monday said one in eight Americans had trouble feeding themselves adequately in 2007, even before the rough economic waters this nation hit in recent months.
An estimated 691,000 children in the U.S. went hungry sometime in 2007, according to the annual “report on food security,” the Associated Press reported in a story we carried in Tuesday’s newspaper.
Now, maybe it’s just me, but the term “food security,” in my mind, conjures up all kinds of things not having to do with going hungry.
I imagine barbed wire strung around the tomatoes on display in the grocery store. I guess it’s reasonable that fruit should want to feel safe, too.
We can all probably expect to see little bulletproof vests on the cantaloupe now, and teeny tiny seat belts on every egg in a carton, too. That sounds like “food security.”
I can’t help but picture a large, square-necked muscular man on guard, with a police kind of night stick in hand, as I push my grocery cart near the fresh vegetables during my next shopping trip.
“Step away from the broccoli, ma’am, and no one will get hurt,” he’d say.
Well, I don’t know about you, but having the government boil poverty and hunger down to a cold term like “food security” doesn’t sit so well on my stomach. For those with an empty tummy, I’m sure the use of such ridiculous words gives an even more sour feeling.
The Ag Department’s report said children “who suffered substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat was more than 50 percent above the 430,000 in 2006 and the largest figure since 716,000 in 1998,” the AP reported.
The government lists 11.9 million adults and children as having a substantial disruption in their food supply at some point, classifying them as having “very low food security.”
Uncle Sam did, by the way, rewrite its definitions a couple of years ago, the AP reported, and this same group was categorized as having “food insecurity with hunger.”
Let’s think of these stats with real humanity, shall we, instead of cold numbers and buried-in-the-dictionary terms?
In the real world, more of us can’t afford to buy enough food to eat. That might be you, or it might be your neighbor, or your sister’s family, or the quiet family you see at church each week.
Lines at the Salvation Army, Mattoon’s PADS and other charitable organizations are growing. People are being turned away when these groups run out of food and can’t offer a simple meal to everyone who stands in line needing one and hoping to get one.
It’s the poorest of the poor and those already hungry who suffer first, suffer more, and will continue to suffer more amid the current economic downslide.
A 2-year-old who doesn’t have enough to eat doesn’t know what a “substantial food disruption” is. All he knows is to cry because his tummy hurts and he’s hungry.
I wonder how much money the Ag Department spent on studying poverty instead of fighting it? Maybe the stiff-necked suit behind a desk who tallied up the “low food security” of his fellow Americans could be out working at a soup kitchen instead.
Make these numbers real to yourself. Skip breakfast, lunch and dinner one day, and see how you feel. Imagine if you truly had no idea where your next meal would come from. Think how you might feel if you had to watch your kids eat every little bit on their plates and look around for more, knowing there is no more today — and maybe not tomorrow.
I know it’s necessary for the government to keep track of statistics such as these. I think it’s even more important for the government to help lead the way in keeping the humanity in the numbers, and in reminding all of us to help each other out.
The holiday season is here, and many of us are thinking about how to afford Christmas gifts for everyone on our list. Maybe this year, we should not give gifts. Maybe, instead, we should take the money we would have spent and put it in the Salvation Army’s red kettle outside a local store.
Maybe we should donate the money to another charitable group that helps feed those who can only hope they have a meal on any day, let alone on Thanksgiving and Christmas. It may not even occur to them to think of gifts for the holidays. Basic necessities have to come first.
In worrisome economic times, surely any of us can donate our time to helping others, even if we don’t have cash to offer. And it’s a year-round need, not just a holiday wish, for many people.
I think the next time I feel a little hungry, I won’t complain to myself; I’ll be thankful. The selection in my fridge may not have much “food security” when I get hungry and go scrounging for a bite to eat — “Look out! Here she comes again!” says the salsa to the margarine — but I’m lucky that there’s food there.
I just hope the grocery store is low on food security staff when I’m really needing some chocolate.
There’s no need for anyone to get hurt.
Add your comments
Not already registered? Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
Tree Hugger wrote on Nov 21, 2008 1:46 PM: