MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Nov. 25, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Food 'insecurity'

Is famine stalking the land?

The report was issued just a week before Thanksgiving, designed to shock.

The number of "food-insecure households" in the United States "rose from 13.0 million (11.1 percent of all households) in 2007 to 17.1 million (14.6 percent) in 2008)" ... meaning "food insecurity was at a record-high level in 2008," the U.S. Department of Agriculture claimed.

Most Popular Stories
  • J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
  • EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie
  • LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy
  • LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?
  • LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'
  • LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money
  • EDITORIAL: Hiking permits
  • LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity




    • Why, that means households containing 49.1 million people suffered "food insecurity" in 2008, up from 36.2 million people in 2007!

    The New York Times headlined its account of the report "49 Million Americans report a lack of food."

    Does famine stalk the land? Not really. "The data ... don't support this dire portrayal," reports Charles Lane, a member of The Washington Post's editorial board.

    The USDA survey asked respondents in 44,000 households whether, and how, a lack of funds affected their eating habits. The first question asked was whether the respondent had ever "worried" about running out of food in the previous 12 months -- "not actually run out of food, just worried about it," Mr. Lane points out. A "yes" answer was counted as an instance of "food insecurity."

    The least severe forms of "insecurity" were the most commonly reported. "Worry," with 19.7 percent of households, topped the list, followed by running out of food before money came in to buy more (15.3 percent). In neither instance, however, did respondents end up eating any less than usual.

    In fact, only 0.1 percent of children went without food for a whole day in 2008, the USDA found. While that's not a good thing, it's hard to imagine what the cumbersome federal bureaucracy could do to locate and help those few waifs, other than expand the food stamp and school lunch and breakfast programs -- all of which have already been done.

    And that number was down from 0.2 percent in 2007.

    In actuality, 2008 was the best year in eight decades for food affordability, according to the USDA. It now takes only 5.6 percent of income to feed an average family of four -- a tribute to this land of plenty.

    "Food is so readily available that, on the very day that the USDA issued its report, health policy expert Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University in Atlanta reported that, if present trends continue, 43 percent of Americans will be obese by 2018," Mr. Lane reports.

    This report is a clear attempt to drum up -- and mischaracterize -- another "need" the bureaucrats can fill to justify their existence.

    Millions of Americans presumably also worry they won't be driving a nice enough car next month. To solve this "ride insecurity" crisis, perhaps the U.S. government could take over a major auto manufacturer, and then spend billions handing subsidies to already-wealthy people who want to buy brand new SUVs. They could call it "Cash for Clunkers" ...

    Oh, wait. Never mind.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 18 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Patrick wrote on November 25, 2009 03:20 PM: Mschaffer, where are you?

    Did you get this: Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

    REALCLIMATE.ORG, the website you frequent, was designed to present one side of the debate while squashing all opposition. The website is monitored by Michael Mann a global warming alarmist that hides/manipulates data and fights against information requests to release his data sets to the public.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails


    MTS wrote on November 25, 2009 01:14 PM: You guys are still harping about the Government "running" GM. GM begged for the Taxpayer funds, and I want somebody protecting my money from the same kind of idiotic corporate decisions that screwed up GM. I would have preferred that there had been no loans and let GM crash and burn so a truly Free Market could do its thing.


    Carl K wrote on November 25, 2009 12:22 PM: I had to laugh at Sam's comment that Obama "can determine the "proper" price for food!", as if he didn't live through the price and wage freeze under Nixon.

    Ah, memories.


    OldRoy wrote on November 25, 2009 11:50 AM: When was the last time anyone died of starvation in this country? The last I read, there was an obesity epidemic here.


    Athos wrote on November 25, 2009 09:46 AM: I have no problem helping those in need. I've found that you must teach a person to fish, not just give him a daily allotment of fish. The system we have today creates a crippling dependence on the supplier whether it be Mom and Dad, or the all powerful State.

    I do have a problem with the State putting its hand in my pocket, to feed these new slaves a fish every day.

    And I have a problem with these new slaves demanding a better fare.


    DUKE wrote on November 25, 2009 09:43 AM: THE GOV HAS LONG ENCOURAGED MORE CHILDREN BY SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE WHO COULDNT AFFORD THEM.WHEN YOU SUBSIDIZE IRRESPONSIBILITY YOU GET MORE OF IT.WARS COME AND GO ,BUT ENTITLEMENTS ARE FOREVER.


    Obama's glorious utopia wrote on November 25, 2009 09:01 AM: To Sam:

    Yes, I think you have it exactly right. Then after Obama destroys the free market system, we will all have to go through the government for our food, just like they did in Communist countries. But then, since the government manages to bungle just about everything, we can expect food shortages, just like they had in the USSR and China when the governments there tried to micromanage food production. So, there won't be enough food for everyone. Hence, Obama will have to start the food rationing, just like he has already promised will happen with healthcare. Senior citizens, Republicans, and other "useless eaters" will simply have to sacrifice so that others in Obama's glorious utopia can eat.


    Sam wrote on November 25, 2009 08:23 AM: Perhaps Obama should hire a Food Czar?

    He can determine the "proper" price for food! He can add a tax to food that only the "rich" will pay.

    And he'll have a "govenment option" where the governmet will sell food directly to the people in direct competition with the free market.

    It will be grand!


    Here's how I feel about it wrote on November 25, 2009 08:19 AM: This year, I had the opportunity to provide a Senior Food Basket for Thanksgiving, to a veteran through a local VFW.

    It concerns me, that some of our veterans aren't fairing so well. I donated to this organization because I wanted to buy a soldier dinner. And give thanks.


    Common Sense wrote on November 25, 2009 07:46 AM: "creating the questions in order to get the correct answer."

    It's known as a "push poll" in the industry.

    When you see some media outlet pretend to be shocked (SHOCKED!) by some new poll, look for certain clues to its origin. The giveaway this time was the use of "insecurity" or "at risk."

    The NYT claimed that 49 million people were starving, while the truth was that the poll only asked them how they "felt" about their food situation.

    Emotion-based statistics are a common tactic among the useful idiots who support socialist politicians. Those stats lead to emotion-based economic policies. Those lead to plenty of "campaign contributions" for politicians, and $12 trillion dollar debts for the rest of us.


    Read All Comments