Cindy Fuller wrote:
> In article >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > According to an article in the Washington Post (reprinted in the Santa
> > Rosa Press Democrat), they will no longer report on the 11 million
> > people in the US who identified themselves as being "hungry" at times.
> > Instead, they will report them as "very low food security".
> >
> > :-(
>
> Food security and food insecurity are actual terms. Think of food
> insecurity as a continuum, with starvation at the lowest end. Then would
> come hunger. Food insecurity is defined as limited or uncertain
> availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or limited or
> uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable
> ways. As an example, a homeless person who dumpster dives behind
> McDonalds may be getting plenty of calories, but the food may not be
> safe to eat. In addition, dumpster diving is not socially acceptable in
> some circles.
>
> If I were the USDA, I'd continue to call hunger hunger. However, food
> insecurity is a more wide-ranging term and may better capture the scope
> of the problem.
>

So, maybe it would be more politically correct to stop referring to
"the government's stupidity" and instead to use a more wide-ranging
term "the government's mental insecurity"?