Please stop using the words 'food insecure'

[NYETNYET]

That makes it sound like they want mustard on their hot dog but only have ketchup.

Americans are going HUNGRY!

Stop trying to make it sound civilized. That just makes it easier for the senate to ignore the facts of daily
life in our country

Remember the stories back when we were younger of senior citizens eating dog food because that was all
they could afford. Today we have whole families. All generations going hungry and maybe days or hours
before they lose even shelter.

None of this is pretty. Don't make it sound 'pretty'.

[MerryBlooms]

1. R&K

[MineralMan]

2. Food Insecurity has nothing to do with mustard or ketchup.

It's about people who don't know where their next meals will come from.

They are insecure because of that.

It's not a "pretty" euphemism. It is an accurate description of the problem.

[Sherman A1]

3. As long as the stories stay front and center

I don’t care what they call it.

[NurseJackie]

4. I disagree.

The single word "hungry" could be easily (and incorrectly) understood as something that can be remedied with a meal. ie: "Eat up! Full? Now you're not hungry."

The more nuanced "food insecure" is a more accurate way to describe a perpetual, continual, chronic situation. It conveys the worry (insecurity) that a parent feels for their children, or that an adult child feels for their parent. Also, it's also an inclusive term (or phrase) that can be used when describing lack of proper nutrition when only cheap and low-quality foods are eaten. Many families find ways to not be "hungry" yet they still have poor nutrition and poor health as a result.

The phrase "food insecurity" isn't meant to minimize or santitize the matter. It's an all-encompassing term that covers much more than the feeling of hunger. I have no problems with using it.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Thank you

[Piasladic]

16. Great points

Thank you

[SlogginThroughIt]

32. Good points and maybe hungry isn't the right word but

Food Insecure doesn't convey the severity of the situation to me. It sounds too clinical and I don't think it creates the right image even if it does accurately convey the situation.

[jaxexpat]

51. Well, that explains it.

I wondered why there are so many toddlers, pulling at their mother's sleeve, saying, "Momma, I'm food insecure". Or the kid who asked his mom, "What's that building". She replied, "It's a grocery store and in case you're curious about why we don't we have one in our neighborhood, its because we live in a food desert, just like people in gated communities live in a poverty desert."

[NurseJackie]

56. Haaaaa!

Yeah... something like that!

[Ms. Toad]

55. Thank you. N/t

[johnp3907]

64. Well said.

[Arthur_Frain]

74. Maybe, but I'm going to respectfully disagree

When W. did this the first time, I felt it was nothing more than a manifestation of Orwellian doublespeak. While you may have valid points in your argument, I would counter that none of those reasons were why the bush II administration chose to make that change in wording a key point of their communications. I’d be more along the lines that a “food insecure” child doesn’t tug at the heartstrings quite like a “hungry” child does, and they damned well know it. That way the conservative trashing of social safety nets doesn’t seem so bad. It’s just an insecurity, not a real “hunger”. Yes, they know damned well that words mean things.

And hunger has never referred to just food. You can hunger for a lot of things.

[NurseJackie]

75. If charities, churches, pantries, kitchens ...

I’d be more along the lines that a “food insecure” child doesn’t tug at the heartstrings quite like a “hungry” child does,

If charities, churches, pantries, kitchens and other civic-groups want to use "heartstring" words in order to motivate individuals to donate or volunteer... sure! Why not?

Nobody is trying to BAN or PROHIBIT the use of the word "hunger" or "hungry". Nobody is suggesting that "I'm having food insecurity" is the new way to say "I'm hungry".

And hunger has never referred to just food. You can hunger for a lot of things.

Hungry for love. Hungry for money. Hungry for fame. Hungry for solitude. Hungry for knowledge.

That way the conservative trashing of social safety nets doesn’t seem so bad.

But it's very short-sighted to try and limit the vocabulary and accurate phrasing that helps others to have meaningful conversations and to address a plethora of problems and issues OTHER than the symptom of "hunger". Do you just want to talk about the end-result? Or will it be okay for people to be able to honestly discuss the societal and economic reasons that the people are hungry.

This OP is literally over-thinking things. The OP is in search of a problem that doesn't exist. --- All I'm trying to say is that it's always better to find solutions to actual problems than to invent "problems" (and feel as though something meaningful is being accomplished when scolding others for using perfectly fine terms like "food insecurity".)

What good purpose does it serve to dumb-down the conversation (and the search for solutions) when it's so much more complex that simply "hunger"?

[BannonsLiver]

95. Thanks for the rational thought, Jackie.

My goodness it’s a rarity sometimes.

[Skittles]

96. CORRECT

it's an ongoing problem, not a matter of someone just being hungry at any particular time

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. "Food insecurity" doesn't sound pretty at all. It's a vivid descriptor of the problem.

[NurseJackie]

9. Sadly, the premise of this OP has the effect of marginalizing what Food-Insecurity actually is.

The phrase "food insecurity" isn't some humorous tongue-in-cheek euphemism that makes us chuckle or roll our eyes. The OP is doing a disservice by dismissing an accurate phrase and incorrectly lumping-it-in with things like "Folically Challenged" or "Height Challenged".

It's also a mistake to characterize it as an avoidance euphemism for things that are uncomfortable to discuss (like death: "Answered the Lord's Call" ... or menstruation products: "Feminine Protection" ... or torture: "Enhanced Interrogation'')

The concern expressed in the OP demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the full extend and everything that's covered with "Food Insecurity" and how it means so much more than simply being "hungry".

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. Well said.

[Bettie]

6. I think some people around here would object to the word hungry

because it would make republicans feel 'uncomfortable' and we can't have that.

Remember: the new rule is never use words that might make the other side feel uncomfortable or even think about anything in a different way, there are invisible fence-sitters who might, some day vote for our party is only they are never, ever made to think or feel anything.

Better to use words that downplay the seriousness of everything to ensure that it gives the impression that there are no problems at all.

[NurseJackie]

10. Ridiculous. --- Nobody is doing that.

I think some people around here would object to the word hungry because it would make republicans feel 'uncomfortable' and we can't have that.

Ridiculous.

Better to use words that downplay the seriousness of everything to ensure that it gives the impression that there are no problems at all.

Nobody is doing that.

[SharonClark]

13. Is that YOUR new rule because I've never read it on DU.

[MineralMan]

26. Not at all. I get "hungry" sometimes, between meals.

I do not have food insecurity. When I am hungry, there is food in my house to eat.

Food insecurity means that you have no food in your house or don't know where you will get food for you and your family. It's beyond the word "hungry." Hunger is a body sensation that signals that it is time to eat. It doesn't mean that you are not secure in knowing that there is food available to you.

Food insecurity is a precise way of saying you do not know whether you might or might not have food to eat. It is a much more serious thing than mere "hunger."

[Ferrets are Cool]

29. You forgot this, right?

[rzemanfl]

7. There's one thing here I always read. n/t

[NurseJackie]

82. It reveals much.

[rzemanfl]

84. It does indeed. I believe around the middle of the month I will be in a

position to be more direct.

[yardwork]

8. Food Insecure is more accurate than hungry.

Many poor people eat foods that contain little nutrition. Junk food. They eat those foods because their what's affordable and available to them. You don't have to be hungry to have poor nutrition. You might even be obese, but still not be getting adequate nutrition. That leads to other serious health problems.

Food Insecure means a constellation of interrelated problems that would be over-simplified by calling it hungry.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. Yes. Insecure is too WEAK of a word. Perhaps UNSTABLE, UNPREDICTABLE or VOLATILE are stonger.

[NurseJackie]

14. That leaves out the problems associated with malnutrition...

... many families aren't LITERALLY hungry. They do eat, and nothing about it is "unstable" or "unpredictable" or "volatile"... but the food they can afford to buy is of poor quality, low-nutrition, prepared snack foods, fatty, sugary, etc.

I think the OP is overthinking things and looking for problems where none truly exist.

[TheBlackAdder]

24. Got it. Adding from the USDA, definitions and graphics

.

Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity

In 2006, USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity. USDA made these changes in response to recommendations of an expert panel convened at USDA's request by the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) of the National Academies. Although new labels were introduced, the methods used to assess households' food security remained unchanged, so statistics for 2005 to now are directly comparable with those for earlier years. The following labels define ranges of food security:
Food Security

High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.

Food Insecurity

Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.
.
.
The CNSTAT panel also recommended that USDA make a clear and explicit distinction between food insecurity and hunger:

Food insecurity—the condition assessed in the food security survey and represented in USDA food security reports—is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
Hunger is an individual-level physiological condition that may result from food insecurity.



The defining characteristic of very low food security is that, at times during the year, food intake of household members is reduced and their normal eating patterns are disrupted because the household lacks money and other resources for food. Very low food security is characterized in terms of the conditions that households in this category typically reported in the annual survey.

97 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more.
96 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last, and they did not have money to get more.
94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.
97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food; 89 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.
96 percent reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.
69 percent reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.
48 percent reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.
36 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food; 29 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

All households without children that were classified as having very low food security reported at least six of these conditions, and 70 percent reported seven or more. Food-insecure conditions in households with children followed a similar pattern.


https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx

.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

31. Hope no one skips this post.

[NurseJackie]

48. Great info.

[llashram]

17. thank you

these words are because people are not comfortable with the fact that while they or their family don't go to sleep hungry, millions do. Americans sometimes can't face the truth. This current on the way out of the front door potus squatting at 1600 proves that. Hunger has never been "pretty", never will be.

[NurseJackie]

21. Absurd! It's not a euphemism that's meant to sanitize or minimize.

these words are because people are not comfortable with the fact that while they or their family don't go to sleep hungry, millions do.

Absurd! It's not a euphemism that's meant to sanitize or minimize. It's a way to discuss real issues in a more comprehensive and meaningful way. It allows groups and individuals to address ALL of the aspects (reasons, causes, consequences) in a way that allows for meaningful and long-term solutions to be found.

Americans sometimes can't face the truth.

That's an over-simplification of something that causes more harm than good.

[llashram]

22. I misunderstood, I guess

Last edited Sun Nov 29, 2020, 01:51 PM - Edit history (2)

my post was not meant to be "absurd". American are too comfortable versus what many people here and abroad face in their daily lives. Hunger, threats of violence and death by tinpot dictators and their cronies. Sorry if I didn't read the OP in a manner where I explained myself properly to anyone here.

on edit: I quit. I am not one to be insulted like this. I don't insult so I don't get insulted. I am not absurd or a simpleton.

[marybourg]

18. If we stopped using every word and phrase

that we are exhorted on DU to avoid, we be speechless.

[NurseJackie]

34. Thank you!

PS: Just a word to the wise: It might be safer if we didn't use the word "speechless". It's probably offensive to people who lack the ability to speak or clearly express themselves (or, more importantly, it's offensive to those who look for ways to be offended on behalf of someone else). In any case, it's probably safer to say "verbally challenged" or "vocabulary impaired".

[doc03]

19. Why is it when the MSN does a report on people

being hungry they always pick someone that is 100 pounds
overweight? I know someone could be overweight and have a poor diet. But why not pick someone that looks hungry.

[sweetloukillbot]

23. Maybe because it doesn't always fit what people like you think it looks like?

Do you need to see a starving child from Africa to care?

[doc03]

85. Didn't I say a person can be overweight because of

a poor diet? I thought I made that plain but I guess someone always has to attack. I have struggled all my life to keep my weight in check. My brother could eat anything he wanted and never gained a pound.
I just think if I was a reporter that wanted to talk to someone saying they are hungry I wouldn't find someone morbidly obese. The first thing a Republican is going to say is it doesn't look like they ever missed a meal. Maybe that is what the reporter is trying to imply. I can see someone on Fox doing for that reason.
If you were interviewing body builders would pick Trump?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. You think obese people can't be hungry? WTF is this?

[NurseJackie]

38. It's called "grasping for straws" and a profound lack of understanding of the fact that...

... the poorest among us, as well as those in "food deserts" (ie: those who have no access to nutritious foods and who likely do their "grocery shopping" at gas-station convenience stores) will tend to have diets that are HIGH FAT, HIGH CALORIE processed food with little or no nutritional value. This resulting in weight-gain, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a myriad of other ailments and diseases associated with poor nutrition.

[LeftInTX]

60. Lol

I get it

Overweight people can be hungry if they recently lost their income.

Actually they are probably more likely to have food resource issues than someone who is trim and fit and eats healthy. People who eat healthy are probably a bit more resourceful when it comes to food purchases.

[sweetloukillbot]

86. LOL Hunger's funny!

And fatphobia's okay!

[LeftInTX]

87. The irony is funny

I personally would not give it a second thought because I was a nurse, but I can see how some people may not perceive someone who is overweight as hungry.

Generally fit people tend to go out of their way to purchase healthy food. This skill would probably carry over in a decreased income situation.

I personally find eating healthy to be a ton of work. I've got chronic sciatica and other issues. Food prep and dealing with fresh ingredients is very hard work and would just make my back much worse. I eat mostly frozen food due to this. I'm not overweight, but my diet is not the healthiest. It's a choice between eating healthy or worse physical disability. When people were recommending a chest freezer here, all I could think of was my back.

Many obese people do have physical limitations similar to mine. Physical limitations lead to more sedentary positions, loss of job and more likely weight gain.

I was born with better than average metabolism

[judesedit]

20. Exactly! Democrats need to say it like it is PEOPLE ARE STARVING

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. People are not starving. They face food insecurity. There is a difference.

[judesedit]

88. Would you wait in line for 10 hours to get a bag of potatoes and various staples?

Only if you or your children or both would starve without it. And what about the people that don't have cars to get in line for food? I'm sorry. These people are suffering severely. 11 million kids in this country are not getting the food they need. Wake up.

[judesedit]

89. Screw that food insecurity bullshit.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

90. They are suffering, but they are not starving. They are experiencing food insecurity.

[judesedit]

91. Starve: To suffer severely or die

And there are actually people who starve to death in this country.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

92. Well sure. Children and the very old can be starved by abusive caretakers.

Otherwise, it's actually a very rare thing that someone starves to death in the U.S.

This does not mean that food insecurity or even acute hunger aren't a problem. Actual starvation, though, is not the issue.

[RobinA]

27. I Have To Side

with the OP here. Food Insecure sounds like bureaucracy language to me. I prefer "Can't put food on the table." Or some such more graphic language that speaks directly to the problem and evokes an image. The fact that some people know what "food insecure" means is not the point when you are trying to change actions and attitudes, you need words that are going to make people think twice. Kids are Starving!!!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. But the issue is not starvation, or even "can't put food on the table."

"Food insecurity" has a specific definition, which is a lack of consistent access to food required for a healthy, active life. People who have food insecurity aren't necessary starving, and can definitely put food on the table. But they face a variety of issues -- money to pay for food, the existence of stores that sell a wide variety of affordable foods on a regular basis (regular hours, regular deliveries, etc.), access to transportation to those stores, time to prepare the foods, etc. It may be bureaucratic, but it describes wider issues than the ones you offer in your post.

[Turin_C3PO]

65. I basically agree

but with the pandemic raging, there are more people than ever who literally can’t afford to put food on the table and are skipping one, two, or more meals. I like the word food insecure but I think a different description for the situation I’m talking about is warranted.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

66. Why different?

[Turin_C3PO]

67. It just seems

that food insecure isn’t strong enough of a descriptor for some situations. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong.

[cwydro]

93. Yes.

Well said.

[cwydro]

94. Yes.

Well said.

Not sure this post will go through. Had four of those 403 forbidden things while trying to reply. Last attempt.

[luvtheGWN]

54. Compare being without enough food to eat

with not having a roof over your head because you're unemployed and can't pay the mortgage or the rent.

We call those unfortunate people "homeless" -- a term that everyone can understand.

I agree that "food insecurity" sounds bureaucratic. "Starving" on the other hand, is a word that everyone can understand.

It's totally incredible that 1 in 6 Americans (over 50 million) fall into this category. What's so great about America?

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. Agree 100%

[Gidney N Cloyd]

35. "Food Insecurity" is the kind of term you develop when you're trying to study and solve the problem.

"Hunger" just makes people want to make up a plate of sandwiches or something.

[Shermann]

36. False dichotomy

The terms food insecurity and hunger are both valid and there is a nuanced difference. I reject this proposal.

[Codeine]

47. Dude. nt

[demmiblue]

53. The fuck?

[yellowcanine]

39. Food insecure is actually a more precise term than "hungry"

Sorry but science matters even when it disagrees with our politics. We rightly fault Republicans for not accepting science. We need to do better. Can't have it both ways.

[Heartstrings]

40. "Don't know where or when their next meal may be...."

Might work.

[pandr32]

41. It's a direct consequence of Republican malfeasance

Meanwhile, they've been fattening up their bank accounts.

[mountain grammy]

42. K&R

A million times.

[NickB79]

43. For Black Friday I signed up to give a recurring monthly donation to Second Harvest Heartland

$30/month will provide 1080 meals a year.

Far more important than buying a bunch of cheap plastic crap on sale.

[seta1950]

44. Yes

Why call it food insecurity when it’s hunger plain and simple , parsing words

[Codeine]

45. Username checks out. nt

[NurseJackie]

50. You're not alone.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

59. Not the first time.

[ancianita]

46. "Food insecure" is corporatespeak to cloud the harm of maldistribution systems from farm to table.

Doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately describe food insecurity. But the phrase presents real harm as something academic that's associated with some character flaw (insecurity) of those deprived of access to food.

Corporate pricing (gouged or subsidized, their choice before politicians) and distribution becomes anti-human. When government leaves Big Ag and food distribution corporations to their own "free" market values, they are slow rolling human killing sociopaths. Their excuse? "Nothing personal, just business."

70% of Russians get their food from their own gardens. That's where we are headed.
Because as Cheney said, "food is a weapon."

How ideal COVID is for beating people down around their need for food.

[cwydro]

49. No.There's nothing "pretty" about food insecurity.

I can’t even imagine how you see it that way.

[NurseJackie]

57. I agree. The OP does a great disservice.

[milestogo]

52. "food insecurity" is an established term used around the world

for people who do not have enough to eat.

Sorry you don't like the term. It has nothing to do with condiments.

[utopian]

58. As someone who fights food insecurity for a living

I can tell you that it is the common term used within and between agencies when discussing the topic.

If it sounded "pretty" or "civilized" we probably wouldn't use it, especially in fundraising materials.

[DLCWIdem]

61. I really have no opinion just yet

But I am tending to side with tbe OP. Food insecure sounds like a sanitized version of hungry or starvation. IMO, food insecure doesn't evoke tbe starkness of hungry or starving.

[meadowlander]

73. They are describing different things.

Hungry or starving is an immediate continuous condition which is on a trajectory to death.

Food insecurity is a likely future state of hunger. It's about the lack of certainty of having enough food to make it to your next paycheck absent any interventions. You can be food insecure without being hungry or starving at any given moment because maybe you just got paid and have enough for now but may not be able to make it last as long as it needs to. Or you have enough food but only because you relied on food banks. Or you can feed your kids but only because they get free breakfasts and lunches at school. Or you have enough for food but only as long as nothing else ever goes wrong. If your car broke down or you got sick for a week and missed a paycheck you wouldn't have enough money for food. Or you can afford enough calories (potato chips and chocolate) but not nutrient dense food (meats, fruits and vegetables) and there's no affordable grocery store near enough to where you live that you can buy the kinds of foods you really need.

A lot more people are food insecure than are hungry or starving.

[MrModerate]

62. Naah. It's a useful term that puts the problem in context for further discussion.

Attempting accuracy isn't the same thing as attempting prettification.

[johnp3907]

63. Nope.

[demmiblue]

69. Archae did this one. It did not go well.

Rightfully so.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

71. This is a crap take.

The majority of people live paycheck to paycheck. With so many people losing jobs this year, expensive cars at the food bank is not a surprise or something to shame people for.

[LanternWaste]

78. What specifically leads you to believe that...?

[KentuckyWoman]

81. Another take on "welfare queens"

yes, there are few that don't really need and game the system.

Most people are just trying to get by and grateful for the help.

[dlk]

70. Don't have food to eat...

No matter how we say it, given our country’s vast resources, it’s nothing short of criminal. Meanwhile, those at the very top continue to vacuum up money and resources as fast as they can. God forbid we feed everyone. That would be socialism.

[BobTheSubgenius]

72. I certainly take your point, and agree...

...but the term is informative. If something occurs to make them no longer hungry and/or malnourished, it may well not be a secure situation for them. Their lives could backslide quite easily.

There are a vast number of people who don't even have access to nourishing food, even if they have the means in a given moment and must buy second- and third-tier foods from bodegas. Any given meal can be comprised of snacks. There are few, if any, grocery stores in most of the inner city.

[Snake Plissken]

76. It's just a matter of time before murder victims are referred as "life insecure"

[NurseJackie]

83. No it's not.

[LanternWaste]

77. I think your interpretation of the word is without evidence.

And predicated wholly on your own inferences rather than that of the people as a whole.

But I would dutifully reconsider my opinion if you can support your premise with measured evidence rather than editorial.

[JI7]

79. Disagree, In the US poorer people often are overweight

becsuse they don't have access to healthy food.

They aren't hungry if they eat the cheap crap more easily available to them.

[Vinca]

80. Thank you! This particular phrase drives me nuts. It's HUNGER. People are HUNGRY.

It has to be called what it is, not prettified by a nice name.

[littlemissmartypants]

97. Food insecurity and hunger are two different things and

I'll use any words to describe anything I damn well please...just like you do.