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".

:-(

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> 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".
>
> :-(
>
> Dan Abel


Well, it is sort of embarrassing, considering the amount of money we're
wasting in other places.

I've also heard that coal-burning power plants don't release mercury into
the atmosphere. And, even if they did, mercury's not a problem and it
doesn't build up in the water, and the fish we eat. Even though it does.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>> 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".
>>
>> :-(
>>
>> Dan Abel
>
>
>Well, it is sort of embarrassing, considering the amount of money we're
>wasting in other places.
>
>I've also heard that coal-burning power plants don't release mercury into
>the atmosphere. And, even if they did, mercury's not a problem and it
>doesn't build up in the water, and the fish we eat. Even though it does.
>
The facts have a well known liberal bias. (Apologies to Steven
Colbert)
--
modom

"Southern barbecue is a proud thoroughbred whose bloodlines are easily traced.
Texas Barbecue is a feisty mutt with a whole lot of crazy relatives."

--Robb Walsh, Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook

"modom (palindrome guy)" <moc.etoyok@modom> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> :-(
>>>
>>> Dan Abel
>>
>>
>>Well, it is sort of embarrassing, considering the amount of money we're
>>wasting in other places.
>>
>>I've also heard that coal-burning power plants don't release mercury into
>>the atmosphere. And, even if they did, mercury's not a problem and it
>>doesn't build up in the water, and the fish we eat. Even though it does.
>>
> The facts have a well known liberal bias. (Apologies to Steven
> Colbert)


How so? Be specific.

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.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

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"?