

Hunger among U.S. children skyrockets in 2007 - Alex3917
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/18/hungry.kids.ap/index.html

======
Alex3917
I've heard that in many areas of the country children gain weight every fall
and spring and lose weight in the summer and over Christmas break. The reason
being that the only way the kids get enough to eat is when school is in
session because of the free and reduced price lunch program (FRPL).

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I did find this telling stat:

"In his research, children taking the recommended daily allowance of vitamin
and mineral supplements for three months learned 14 different academic
subjects at twice the rate of children given a placebo. In more than 1 million
children given a good breakfast and lunch at school, academic performance
improved by 16%, and 76,000 suddenly were no longer 'learning disabled.'"[1]

Maybe someone else here knows more about the truthfulness of this than I do...

[1]
[http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51...](http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51698)

~~~
iigs
As an adult of acceptable means, I've found that my appetite increases
substantially in the fall and winter, and diminishes in the summer, despite
slightly elevated exercise levels in the sunny Seattle summers. It doesn't
explain the holiday break, but I could easily see myself putting on 2-3 pounds
during the winter.

I'd love to read more about the weight issue if you can recall where you read
it. The notion turns on its ear the stereotype of kids laying around the house
eating Doritos all summer.

~~~
Alex3917
Unfortunately it is something I was told by an education professor in a
college class. No primary source.

------
mnemonicsloth
This article is manipulation of the rankest kind. It's built out of facts that
are individually true, but together constitute an outright _lie_.

First, reread the article and not what it actually says. It summarizes,
paraphrases, and offers characterizations like:

* "struggled to feed themselves adequately"

* "struggled with hunger"

* "predicted the 2008 numbers will show even more hunger because of the sharp economic downturn"

* "increases in the number of hungry people"

...and so on. But notice that whenever actual statistics are cited, they all
refer to something called "food insecurity," which is a technical term defined
by the FDA.

Now, consider the title of this article, published in 2003 in the _Journal of
Nutrition_ , which is an established, peer-reviewed journal run by scientists
instead of politicos:

 _Food Insecurity Is Associated with Increased Risk of Obesity in California
Women_

here's the abstract: <http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/4/1070>

I'm not claiming that the US doesn't have poverty-related social problems. In
fact, one of those problems is obesity, as numerous independent studies have
confirmed. There's plenty of room to discuss what should be done about obesity
among the poor. But they aren't getting fat because they don't have enough to
eat.

In closing, dear reader, I present a few unrelated facts for your amusement:

* One of the federal government's largest discretionary expenditures is farm subsidies.

* The most heavily subsidized crops are corn and soybeans.

* The largest single donor to federal election campaigns is Archer Daniels Midland, which sells products derived from corn and soybeans.

* Midwestern states (which grow corn and soybeans) are disproportionately influential in the Senate, whence farm bills often originate.

* The FDA, which doles out the farm subsidies, is also responsible for measuring hunger and assessing nutritional requirements. Nutritional recommendations made by the FDA affect what you can buy with food stamps.

* Food consumed disproportionately by the poor contains disproportionate amounts of corn and soybeans. This is thought to be one of the main reasons why obesity is more common among this group.

~~~
Alex3917
So just to be clear, your belief is that poor people being able to afford only
unhealthy food causes no physiological, mental, or social problems and is not
something that society should be concerned about?

~~~
mnemonicsloth
No. How can you think I said that?

I went out of my way to reject that idea explicitly. I was afraid that if I
didn't, someone would hear me saying "we should focus on the problem of
obesity, which is real, instead of hunger, which is not" and accuse me of
being a heartless bastard intent on screwing the poor.

Here's what I said:

 _I'm not claiming that the US doesn't have poverty-related social problems.
In fact, one of those problems is obesity, as numerous independent studies
have confirmed. There's plenty of room to discuss what should be done about
obesity among the poor. But they aren't getting fat because they don't have
enough to eat._

I'm really at my wits' end here. Can _you_ tell me what kabuki I have to
perform in order to be perceived as someone interested in living in a better
society than the one we have now?

------
davo11
Scrolled to the bottom of the page and saw :-

Ads by Google 5 Tips for a Flat Stomach I fought with excess belly fat for
years until I found this 1 trick. www.TruthAboutAbs.com

~~~
helveticaman
That ad is everywhere now.

~~~
shutter
I noticed that too; I wonder how much they had to pay for that (near-
ubiquitous) placement.

~~~
helveticaman
With today's CPM, I don't know, maybe twelve bucks?

------
ars
I don't understand how this is possible - doesn't it cost about $1 for a meal
at a fast food place? I don't care how bad things are, everyone can manage to
make $1 per day - even if you have to sit on the street and beg.

If this was about how kids were only eating junk food I'd understand - but no
food at all?

~~~
pfedor
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
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/ad...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/surveytools/ad2008.pdf)

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.

------
rw
Could a member of the libertarian party please comment on the moral obligation
we have (or do not have) to ensure that all children are well-fed? I want to
better understand your position on issues like these.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
It's evident that you haven't met many real libertarians. Very few of us
actually join the Libertarian Party. It has no influence in the real world. I
think most people, regardless of their political orientation, would rather
have some control over an imperfect process than none at all.

By asking to talk to members of the Libertarian Party, you're refusing to talk
to the subset of libertarians who can make compromises, and deal with the
moral ambiguities that exist in the real world. There are some well-meaning
people in the Libertarian Party, but mostly you're asking for compound-
dwelling wackos.

