Hunger in the USA

Jonah Goldberg:

I could swear Ted Kennedy said this morning on Fox News Sunday that some 36 million Americans go to bed hungry every night and 12 million of them are children (I'm quoting from memory). He insisted that the numbers were on his side. I'm sorry, but does anyone think that's even remotely true? That systemic hunger is a chief symptom and problem of poverty in America? Come on.

It'd be good to know what Kennedy actually said. I assume he was referring to "food insecurity" as in, "In 2004, 38.2 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity, compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999." The Agriculture Department puts people into three category, "food secure," "food insecure," and "food insecure with hunger" based on answers to the questions you can find here. The essence of the "food insecurity" condition without hunger is more-or-less that a food insecure household finds its income to be a substantial constraint on food consumption. You find that your kid wants to eat more, but you can't let him because you can't afford more food. Members of your household need to skip meals sometimes to save money. You need to cut people's portion sizes to make the food you have last as long as you need it to. You lose weight because of an inability to afford as much food as you're inclined to eat.

That sort of thing rather than conditions of hunger or starvation provoked by the actual absence of food.

Comments

could we ask for a better example of why jonah goldberg is absolutely no better than the lout on the next bar stool? he starts with an a priori assumption that there can't possibly be fairly widespread deprivation in america, which tells us right off the bat how ill-informed he is. then, rather than actually, you know, spending five minutes attempting to find out any information at all, he simply proceeds with some asswipe comments about "does anyone think that's remotely true," which would embarass himi if he were capable of embarassment.

like so many of his deranged right-wing ilk, he lives in a fantasy bubble, lashing out with tired old tropes rather than addressing reality. no wonder jonah thought bush was such a grand leader....

Posted by howard | December 17, 2006 12:17 PM

Based on the couple of times I've run into Jonah Goldberg in person, it's pretty obvious that he himself suffers from absolutely no "food insecurity" problem.

Posted by RKU | December 17, 2006 12:24 PM

It's too bad Kennedy spiced up the statistics. The actual report that you reference makes it clear that it is 36 million Americans who has food insecurity at some point during the past year, not every day. The estimate of households with children who went to bed hungry on any given day during the sample period of Nov-Dec 2004 was 40-50 thousand. The estimate of households experiencing food insecurity was 600-850 thousand.

This is a problem, but it also moves into the realm of numbers where individual misfortune, incompetence, addictions, etc. begin to play a significant role. The addicted gambler or drug user who spends the food money on their addiction begins to be as important as macro-economic factors. The children might not go hungry, but there is reason to worry.

The report also fails to provide enough detail to indicate what the statistical validity of any variations is. My first impression from looking at the percentage trends from to 1995 to 2005 was that the problem was relatively unchanging.

Thanks for finding the original report.

Posted by rjh | December 17, 2006 12:34 PM

I like that people think this is somehow not "hunger." Hey, they're not starving to death! But oh, they don't always have enough money for food and everything else, so sometimes mom eats less so the kids can have enough. Or, mom's got to choose between clothes and food. Or school books and food. Or crayons and food.

Shows how out of touch Goldberg is--he doesn't think hunger is a problem? Has he not noticed food banks? So, churches and other organizations are maintaining those just for fun? Has he not seen the long lines of people outside of them waiting for canned goods? Women with kids, standing with hats and gloves in the cold? Does he think that people do that because they don't feel like going to the supermarket?

And, before we get into it, food insecurity is tied to the obesity epidemic. You're poor, so you buy your kids food that is cheap and loaded with calories and that doesn't spoil fast. You don't buy them fresh food that needs a refrigerator because, hey, sometimes the electricity gets turned off or the damn refrigerator breaks. And it's risky to buy bulk--if you buy 5 pounds of rice and the rats get to it or it gets wet from the crappy neighbor's pipes leaking into your cupboards--well, that's as good as throwing money out the window that you could have used on the rent. It's safest and smartest to buy fast food, because it's cheap and it's filling and the kids like it and if it goes bad, it's KFC's problem, not yours.

And, of course, if you're going to spend too much money on food, you don't spend it on expensive fruits and vegetables. You get your kids the junk food they are begging you for, because you feel so awful and guilty for the time you were the worst parent in the world who couldn't give them enough to eat.

When you have the money for food, you let 'em eat as much as they want, and don't worry if the kids are 30 pounds overweight, that's a good thing because then it's OK if they miss a meal or two in February after mom's blown through the savings she had from her Christmas season job.

Sorry, Jonah, but in America there are a lot of poor people who can't buy lots of things. And they're making rational consumption decisions, but the net sum of them leads to a life that is significantly crappier than yours. And why is their life far crappier than yours? I know you'd like to think it's because they lack your intelligence, or your hardworkingess, your drive, your ambition, judgment, or love of their family. But mostly, it's luck. Bad luck in being born to a poor person instead of being born to Lucianne Goldberg.

Asshole. As annoying a drunk as Ted Kennedy is, he at least doesn't make excuses for the suffering of others.

Posted by anonymous | December 17, 2006 12:43 PM

If that's an accurate represntation of what Ted Kennedy said, then Kennedy is a big, fat liar (shocking, I know).

First, there is the distinction between "hunger" and "food insecurity". Food insecurity is another of those made-up bullsh*t statistics promoted by the victimology industry in this country (and their allies in government that want to maintain their appropriations). Food insecurity is indicated if, for example, somebody had to think about cancelling their cable TV in order to make sure they have enough PopTarts to eat - it's not even that they actually had to cancel their cable, but that it is something they had to worry about. Food insecurity is also indicated if the person had to rely on low-cost food to feed their kids. I mean, it is an utterly made up bullsh*t statistic. "Hunger" is something completely different than "food insecure".

Second, the statistics are for people that were food insecure at some point during the year. The number of people who were food insecure on a given day was a small fraction of those who were food insecure at some time during the year.

Hunger is a slight problem in this country, not a major one. Obesity is a much more important problem among our poor than is hunger. Not that we'll ever see Tad Kennedy say anything about our obesity problem...

Posted by Al | December 17, 2006 12:50 PM

I remember back in the early 80's when my dad was on strike for near a year, he'd eat a couple spoonfuls of peanut butter or something and wash it down with water to save the powered milk and bread for us to eat for lunch.

Now he had a mortgage and some other things that maybe you wouldn't have at the absolute bottom of the economic ladder, but you are talking about what happened to a two-income, union household after a couple months of having income reduced to strike wages and unemployment. If you think this could only happen to a drug addict or whatever you are really blessedly out of touch with reality.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2006 12:55 PM

Al, the "victimology industry?" You really are a joker. This captains of the "victimology industry" are people like O'Reilly and Hannity that tell straight Christian white conservative male pussies like yourself that nothing is wrong with them and the rest of the world is just out to get them because they're just brown lesbian terrorists who hate freedom and American values. I've had friends who have parents who work multiple jobs to keep their family fed, have had to collect food stamps and have still found themselves once in a while "food insecure." What is it like suffocating in your bubble?

Posted by Reality Man | December 17, 2006 1:24 PM

The transcript is up, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

Jonah quoted correctly,
"KENNEDY: You're wrong. We've had an increase in the last five years of the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of America. It's increased by 1,700,000.

We have 36 million Americans that are going to bed hungry every night — 36 million Americans who are going — and 12 million of those are children. So..."

Posted by miguel | December 17, 2006 1:47 PM

So this statement makes Ted Kennedy a big fat liar, but there were no lies about WMD in the run-up to the Iraq War?

Meanwhile, Kennedy's statement, while not entirely accurate, does provide useful information about our nation - a significant number of people have less food than they would like because of money issues. The Republicans statements about WMD were clearly misleading about the nature of the risk (even based on the information available at the time), and provided inaccurate information about the world.

Meanwhile, in the world of our Politics, the the fine distinctions between "lie" and "deception" - the former is horrible and the second is ok or even laudatory - mean that these two circumstances are condemned to the inverse degree that one might expect given the scienter of the actors and the importance and degree of distortion.

Posted by MDtoMN | December 17, 2006 1:56 PM

Why say "not entirely accurate"? Why not just say "wrong"? His comments were wrong. They presented a deceptive picture of the nature of poverty and hunger in the U.S. There's no reason to defend them. Kennedy could easily have presented the truth -- which is bleak enough -- but instead he made up some numbers for effect. What the issue of WMD has to do with this is beyond me.

Posted by R. Williams | December 17, 2006 2:23 PM

Why say "not entirely accurate"? Why not just say "wrong"? His comments were wrong. They presented a deceptive picture of the nature of poverty and hunger in the U.S. There's no reason to defend them.

See, it's a question of priorities. I see those stats and wonder just what in fuck is wrong with a country this wealthy that anyone is looking at an empty refrigerator. Apparently, you see this and your first instinct is to bitch about Ted Kennedy. That's what gets you fired up. I think that is sort of prima facie evidence that you are a shit.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2006 2:49 PM

WMDs are relevant because we've spent 350 billion on a war justified by the fantasy of WMDs, which is far more than is needed to eliminate hunger in America. The ideologues who conned everyone else into believing that fantasy work with stooges like Grover Norquist, who wanted the government to spend more money killing n*gg*r babies so it has less money to spend feeding n*gg*r babies. Because the proper role of the government is to help "good" Americans, meaning entrepreneurs, get even richer, while punishing n*gg*r babies, here and in Iraq, for their failure to prostrate themselves before our superior values. The rich get richer off of government contracts for guns more than butter.

So if there's not enough hunger in America for you yet, a few more wars should make you very happy. Maybe Bush will cut out the pesky foreign middleman and declare war on n*gg*r babies right here at home by 2008 for their terroristic culture.

Posted by super390 | December 17, 2006 2:51 PM

Ohmigod, 38 million people don't go to bed hungry every night, they just go to bed hungry SOME nights!!! Let's lynch Ted Kennedy!

We need to ignore the hungry people--there's a war on Christmas! Ted Kennedy is on TV talking about hungry people and ignoring the WAR ON CHRISTMAS!

I love conservative priorities.

Posted by anonymous | December 17, 2006 2:58 PM

Al is correct, but....
"Households without money to buy enough food first change their purchasing and eating habits - relying on cheaper, high calorie foods over more expensive, nutrient-rich foods - before they cut back on the amount of food. In order to cope with limited money for food and to stave off hunger, families try to maximize caloric intake for each dollar spent, which can lead to over consumption of calories and a less healthful diet.

"Research among low-income families shows that mothers first sacrifice their own nutrition by restricting their food intake during periods of food insufficiency in order to protect their children from hunger. The resulting chronic ups and downs in food intake can contribute, over the long run, to obesity among low-income women."
http://www.frac.org/html/news/071403hungerandObesity.htm

International comparisons http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/419.pdf
show that the proportion of Americans living below not just a half but even a quarter of median income is markedly higher in the United States than in other countries. If Al knew only that over his lifetime he'd receive an income in its lower fifth or tenth, what country would he pick to live in? Does he really think life at the bottom in America is all that comfy? Are conditions there conducive to rearing children who have good prospects of faring better? Does he oppose measures that provide a more nearly decent life for his fellow citizens whose incomes are low? Is his conservatism not compassionate?

Posted by Bleedingheart | December 17, 2006 3:24 PM

i see, so for some there's no serious problem because tens of millions of americans aren't hungry enough. just wait a few months.

Posted by DeeLuzon | December 17, 2006 3:37 PM

So how regressive is the payroll tax if so many working Americans are going to bed hungry each night ... 7 percent from the first dollar earned -- is it a fair trade?

Posted by dcpi | December 17, 2006 4:23 PM

"You find that your kid wants to eat more, but you can't let him because you can't afford more food."

Bullshit. You can eat for next to *nothing* (mac & cheese, ramen noodles). You can also eat a healthier diet than most Americans for next to nothing (rice and beans).

I'm certainly not saying the poor have it easy -- I know they don't. They certainly do struggle to pay the bills, but one of the last things they struggle with is finding enough money to eat.

I know, food and hunger have a visceral impact and it is difficult give up as an advocacy tool, but the problem is that it strains credulity more and more every year. Everybody who goes into the grocery store knows how little basic foods cost.

It would be far better, I think, to emphasize the things that the poor really *do* struggle with -- high-crime neighborhoods, health care, poor education, transportation, etc.

Posted by Slocum | December 17, 2006 5:23 PM

I don't know who's right in terms of the exact numbers in this debate.

I will point out that it feels a LOT like the claims that were made about homelessness in the early nineties --- you know, there are 50 million homeless people in America, 47 million of which are families with children under nine --- numbers that seemed ludicrous to most people and, what do you know, turned out to be ludicrous.

As far as I can tell, the homeless situation today is much the same as 15 years ago, and I suspect that lying about the issue, rather than improving things, simply switched off whatever minor interest most people may have had in the subject. Would a campaign that admitted the truth: "that there are a small number of homeless people, most of whom have mental and/or drug/alchohol problems, but who, nonetheless, are human beings so can't a wealthy society try to do something to improve their lives?" have done any better? I've no idea, but I don't think it would have done any worse; and it wouldn't have pissed in the well of every other charity trying to publicize US domestic problems.

And so we return to this issue. It certainly sounds to me like Kennedy is stating the problem in inflammatory and misleading terms, which in turn gets us into arguments about numbers, whether parents are gambling addicts etc. I'd much rather see an argument that gave honest numbers about hunger, and then proposed ways to deal with it that most decent people could get behind (you're never going to convince GWB's remaining 30% supporters, but try for everyone else). For example, if there really is a problem here with some kids, maybe we need to look into expanding school lunches in some fashion --- maybe add school breakfasts, or allow the kids to take home a snack after school?

Posted by Maynard Handley | December 17, 2006 5:49 PM

The poor need to sruggle and suffer to get ahead just like
Jonah did. How do you think he got where he is today, huh?

Posted by jimbo | December 17, 2006 6:01 PM

I'd like to agree. The problem with food manifests itself as obesity, not thinness, and contributes to medical problems like diabetes, heart disease (MIs and CHF), and even hypertension. Ever notice how weight has become a class marker, just like in the Middle Ages, but in reverse?

Posted by SFG | December 17, 2006 8:15 PM

one of the last things they struggle with is finding enough money to eat.

Can you find a citation for some reasonable critiques of the food insecurity survey or of its interpretation? Perhaps it's mistaken, but if you want to convince us it is you should provide some evidence.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 17, 2006 9:48 PM

I don't even like Kennedy, but I don't think a politician is necessarily wrong to take the phrase "food insecurity" and the length definition provided, and rephrase it "go to bed hungry". I think that's rhetoric. I can't justify these numbers, and maybe he shoudl have said "go to bed hungry some nights" - but honestly, I think those rephrasings basically make the point.

Democrat - must be meticulously accurate in every public statement or accused of lying. If meticulously accurate, then accused of being arrogant and out-of-touch.

Republican - completely and totally misleading in major ways that everyone knows are dishonest, described as strong and good leader.

Posted by MDtoMN | December 18, 2006 12:18 AM

I would make the following a blockquote if I knew the html tages to do it:

The Census Bureau conducts an annual telephone survey of "food insecurity" for the Department of Agriculture, but it depends on subjective self-reporting and misses families who are too poor to have phones. Dr. [Deborah] Frank [of the Boston Medical Center] thinks it understates the problem. Extrapolating from a sample of 50,000 families, the study found 3.5 percent, or 3.8 million of the country's households, with at least one member who had been hungry at some point during the year 2002. They were part of larger population of 12.1 million households (11.1 percent of the country's total) who were deemed "food insecure" because the reported themselves as having been uncertain that they could afford enough to eat. Surveying food's insufficient quantity, rather than its quality, may leave uncounted a larger number of families who would not label themselves "food insecure" but have children lacking nutrients vital to healthy brain development. The worsening problem of obesity illustrates the point that a lot of the wrong food is not helpful.

David K. Shipler, [i]The Working Poor: Invisible In America[/i] 216 (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | December 18, 2006 12:42 AM

If many of those 36 million households have cable TVs or other forms of non critical goods (aka entertainment) that would not condemn them as idiots. Even poor, hungry people in the third world (ok, maybe not the poorest) spend some portion of thier money on entertainment. See this Marginal Revolution post: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/12/life_on_1_or_2_.html

If I was poor, I'd rather that me and my children missed a small number of meals a year than that we had no entertainment at all.

Posted by pjgoober | December 18, 2006 12:56 PM

"See, it's a question of priorities. I see those stats and wonder just what in fuck is wrong with a country this wealthy that anyone is looking at an empty refrigerator. Apparently, you see this and your first instinct is to bitch about Ted Kennedy. That's what gets you fired up. I think that is sort of prima facie evidence that you are a shit."

The first instinct of people who aren't ideologues is to check the accuracy of *any* data they are presented with. I think that this is sort of prima facie evidence that you are an ideologue that tolerates misinformation for a good cause.

Posted by pjgoober | December 18, 2006 1:03 PM

Can you find a citation for some reasonable critiques of the food insecurity survey or of its interpretation?

As the survey was actually linked to, I think intelligent people can make their own critiques. For example, the fact that the questions that generated high responses had to do with whether a family was "worried" about having food or whether the food was nutritional enough is rather telling. The number of actual missed meals here is quite small, and by their measure, a decent percentage of those are rare events (i.e. happening in less than three months in a year).

There are certainly food-related problems of poverty, but hunger in the sense that we usually think about it is rarely one of them, even by this study. This study conflates one problem (poor nutrition) with another (lack of food), lowers the bar on qualification for either, and gives them both the same label.

Despite some of the rhetoric, Al has the basics of this right.

Posted by brad lehman | December 18, 2006 1:14 PM