WHat does this remind me of:

” The CNSTAT panel:

* Recommended that USDA continue to measure and monitor food insecurity regularly in a household survey
* Affirmed the appropriateness of the general methodology currently used to measure food insecurity
* Suggested several ways in which the methodology might be refined (contingent on confirmatory research). Research on these issues is currently underway at ERS.

The CNSTAT panel also recommended that USDA make a clear and explicit distinction between food insecurity and hunger. ”

Mary Ellen Smithbottom
Jonathon Alderman Crapho
John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt

F. DISALLE

Three of these four are guaranteed finalists in the Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes! But only if they return their entry forms.

The specific recommendation you asked for?

Are you kidding?

Who the hell are you, the schoolmarm?

It was on the front page of the link I gave you Apr 12, 2007 11:50:16 AM

USDA made these changes in response to recommendations by an expert panel convened at USDA’s request by the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies.

What the hell is wrong with you?

You’re scaring me.

Enjoy! Because it isn’t there.

Enjoy!

There were recommendations that the statistics and such be more fully explained. That hunger questions on the surveys include definitions of hunger.

It seems odd to me to divorce the word “hunger” from a survey whose primary purpose is to provide a measurement protocol for estimating the national prevalence of hunger.

I understand it perfectly well.

You need to read my previous comment again, to see how much of it you repeated, even though you expressed your opposition.

You also need to recognize that the change in terminology did not have its origin in government, and that it serves a greater purpose than saying, “X amount of people are hungry”.

If you wish to continue this conversation, you have merely to explain why all the issues raised in this link are less important than the simple statement, “people are hungry”.

Further, you can,if you wish, explain why organizations like Bread for the World can’t continue to use the word “hunger” or “hungry”.

And I will dispense with the insults if you will.

How do people know from a report that 11 million people don’t have enough food and experience hunger when you
eliminate the familiar term “hunger” (food insecurity with hunger) with “very low food security”. Same with the 35 million that have trouble putting food on the table regularly when you change “Food Insecurity without hunger” with “Low Food Security”.

Many feel the change was the government attempting to cover the fact that 11% of the population in the wealthiest country in the world, have trouble getting enough food and that about 3% experience hunger.

Add the fact that the government has started delaying issuing the annual reports until after elections. You start to reinforce the idea that the government might be embarrassed by this failing.

Got it now ignorant one?

Do you really think people are so stupid, that they can’t distinguish between “hungry”, as in “not eating”; and “low food security”, meaning you can’t be sure where you’re next meal is coming from, OR you’re not in a position to feed yourself or your loved ones properly?

Since you’ve probably never experienced either, I guess you have no idea what it’s like for people who have.

Two things spring to mind, O anencephalic one:
1) People probably don’t understand exactly what the problem is that Americans face trying to feed themselves and their children. Saying “Children go to bed hungry” isn’t accurate. It is, therefore, not helpful.
2) And if “Children go to bed hungry” was such a clear call to action, then how come the number has gone up to around 35 million?

There is something worse than being a dumbass, you know…

It’s thinking you’re smart and being a dumbass.

“Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. “The proposal to remove the word ‘hunger’ from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families,” said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. “We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens.”

Dumbass.

I’m in graduate school, and you’re just rambling like a Saturday night drunk.

There is nothing funny about hunger, but the two clowns laughing about it were you and Duros.

How dare you blame me for your juvenile display!

“Low food security” may be a silly term to you, but that’s because of your own ignorance of the subject, not because of anyone’s callousness.

Go look up +USDA “low food security” site:gov, before you continue any longer to make a fool of yourself.

I notice Duros has figured out what is going on, and left you alone. Good for him.

I’ll save you the ‘struggle’, you ignorant buffoon:

http://tinyurl.com/yu6dyy

Hunger is horrible. I think it is shameful trying to hide it behind silly terms like “Low Food Security”. Shame on you.

And the last thing I want you to do is join the Diplomatic Corps. That would require a college diploma, and Speaker Pelosi can’t wait 12 years for you.

She needs you now.

Oh, yeah, I’m glad that you and Duros think it’s funny that people have trouble regularly feeding their families.

MSNBC could use guys as funny as you two, now that they’re firing Imus.

Like pilot Ted Stryker’s drinking problem huh?

ROFL

Difficulty feeding themselves. Like pilot Ted Stryker’s drinking problem huh?

This is the administration that tried to re-classify fast food employment as manufacturing to cover job losses in the manufacturing sector.

Nice.

“Low food security”, as a measurement, increases the number of people reported to have difficulty feeding themselves.

Once again, you have confused “day” for “night”. Your Speaker needs you!

Of course the Bush admnistration also decided the word “Hunger” was too inflammatory so children who don’t get enough food now have “low food security”.