Politics of Food: Solutions for a Hungry Nation
Realm of the report is on a definition of food security based on the number of postitive responses to indicators of frequency of food consumption, affordability, quality, and quantity.
Report reflects well-known demographics, specifically much higher prevalence of food insecurity among single women head of households (with children), Blacks, Hispanics, and in southern states.
Statistics sometimes mask a true understanding by removing personal stories.
USDA report taken with Feeding American's Hunger Study show common characteristics.
Missouri rank in food insecurity has drastically increased in recent years, as has Kansas. This despite Missouri leading place of those applications for SNAP that are elgible.
Immersed in Feeding America statistics showing 3 billion pounds of food distributed per year through the network of 200 US food banks. USDA shows 2.88 bill pounds distributed in 2000. TEFAP commondity accounts for 14% of food distributed through pantries.
SNAP assists 33.7 million people, while Free or Reduced lunch program feeds 31.3 million, and WIC 9.1 million.
18% more households used pantires in 2009 compared to 2008, representing 5.6% of all households.
Pantries and soup kitchen, while using "local resources with volunteers" carry signficant weight as described by, namey, the lack of convenience and availabitiliy makes these sources unreliable or non-existent, the stigman and indignity felt by recipients undercuts their speech -- any misbehavior could exclude them from pantry access -- this despite 90% of food assistance recipients registered to vote.
The quality, quanity, and nutritional value is limited, or at least less than available by shopping at grocery stores.
The report shows that food insecure households spent less on food than food secure households when they do purchase food.
Federal programs are widely used by people in poverty. Hunger Study and other reports show majority of households that use programs have at least one person employed. Raising food security levels, as found in food bank programs like the Backsnack program, elevate performance in schools, both in attendance and test results. Better performing students and workers mean they are healthy and more productive, thus able to help the economy.
A dollar spent on SNAP provides a direct investment in local economies. A drastic increase in Federal programs will benefit the health and well-being of recipients.
Perhaps out of a perceived humanitarian motivation, there's new energy behind increasing the number of applications for SNAP. By extension, increasing the Free or Reduced Lunch program and WIC (Women, Infants and Children) will further improve the health and well-being of residents.
Statistics show that the food security of SNAP recipients is increased through participation in the program, tThat is, they don't become dependent, they require less food assistance.
Is there fraud, misuse, or increased dependency by some SNAP recipients? Yes, but this miniscule amount should not define the overall program, nor taint recipients that use the program properly.
Why has the prevalence of food security decreased in Missouri and Kansas? These two states are in the middle of the nation's breadbasket, producing record yields of wheat, corn, soybeans, and rice. Clearly, there's a disconnect between food producers and consumers. The large multi-national food and grain corporations are motivated by profit, and their profitability has increased or maintained in recent years. They've maintained profitability by cost-cutting, job layoffs, reducing waste, and producing products that cost less for consumers. In a word, they've become more efficient at producing food.
Food donations from food companies are well below the need, though almost no one is arguing that they should give more food away to compromise their profitability. Feeding America, the national network of food banks, and local food banks argue they should donate to help the neediest, the most vulnerable, namely infants and small children. They also urge food corporations to donate because "it's the right thing to do" in a difficult economy.
Let's go look for some people or organizations that say multi-national corporations should donate a portion of their profits. The UN Millenium Development Goals address the worldwide hunger problem by suggesting wealthy nations provide a meager amount of the GDP, namely 0.5%, or roughly $70 billion. By comparison the US spends 5% of its GDP on military expenses, roughly $630 billion per year.
Figuring out a donation based on revenue is more aggressive than by profits, more conservative amount.
If people or groups are not asking for corporate windfalls to be taxed more heavily then which groups are advocating against improper speculation on food production -- one group pressured CALPRS, the California Public pension fund, to not invest in funds that speculate in commodity trading.
It's not too radical of an idea to place requirements on corporations to divert funds for public good. Many communities require private developers to donate 1% of project costs on public art. Other communities require developers hire a certain percentage of workers from the neighborhood and a certain wage.
Why not require food and commodity growers to allocate a percentage of costs towards the SNAP program? If Kraft Foods diverted 1% of its $25 billion costs, then $250 million would be available to fund SNAP.
Report reflects well-known demographics, specifically much higher prevalence of food insecurity among single women head of households (with children), Blacks, Hispanics, and in southern states.
Statistics sometimes mask a true understanding by removing personal stories.
USDA report taken with Feeding American's Hunger Study show common characteristics.
Missouri rank in food insecurity has drastically increased in recent years, as has Kansas. This despite Missouri leading place of those applications for SNAP that are elgible.
Immersed in Feeding America statistics showing 3 billion pounds of food distributed per year through the network of 200 US food banks. USDA shows 2.88 bill pounds distributed in 2000. TEFAP commondity accounts for 14% of food distributed through pantries.
SNAP assists 33.7 million people, while Free or Reduced lunch program feeds 31.3 million, and WIC 9.1 million.
18% more households used pantires in 2009 compared to 2008, representing 5.6% of all households.
Pantries and soup kitchen, while using "local resources with volunteers" carry signficant weight as described by
The quality, quanity, and nutritional value is limited, or at least less than available by shopping at grocery stores.
The report shows that food insecure households spent less on food than food secure households when they do purchase food.
Federal programs are widely used by people in poverty. Hunger Study and other reports show majority of households that use programs have at least one person employed. Raising food security levels, as found in food bank programs like the Backsnack program, elevate performance in schools, both in attendance and test results. Better performing students and workers mean they are healthy and more productive, thus able to help the economy.
A dollar spent on SNAP provides a direct investment in local economies. A drastic increase in Federal programs will benefit the health and well-being of recipients.
Perhaps out of a perceived humanitarian motivation, there's new energy behind increasing the number of applications for SNAP. By extension, increasing the Free or Reduced Lunch program and WIC (Women, Infants and Children) will further improve the health and well-being of residents.
Statistics show that the food security of SNAP recipients is increased through participation in the program, tThat is, they don't become dependent, they require less food assistance.
Is there fraud, misuse, or increased dependency by some SNAP recipients? Yes, but this miniscule amount should not define the overall program, nor taint recipients that use the program properly.
Why has the prevalence of food security decreased in Missouri and Kansas? These two states are in the middle of the nation's breadbasket, producing record yields of wheat, corn, soybeans, and rice. Clearly, there's a disconnect between food producers and consumers. The large multi-national food and grain corporations are motivated by profit, and their profitability has increased or maintained in recent years. They've maintained profitability by cost-cutting, job layoffs, reducing waste, and producing products that cost less for consumers. In a word, they've become more efficient at producing food.
Food donations from food companies are well below the need, though almost no one is arguing that they should give more food away to compromise their profitability. Feeding America, the national network of food banks, and local food banks argue they should donate to help the neediest, the most vulnerable, namely infants and small children. They also urge food corporations to donate because "it's the right thing to do" in a difficult economy.
Let's go look for some people or organizations that say multi-national corporations should donate a portion of their profits. The UN Millenium Development Goals address the worldwide hunger problem by suggesting wealthy nations provide a meager amount of the GDP, namely 0.5%, or roughly $70 billion. By comparison the US spends 5% of its GDP on military expenses, roughly $630 billion per year.
Figuring out a donation based on revenue is more aggressive than by profits, more conservative amount.
If people or groups are not asking for corporate windfalls to be taxed more heavily then which groups are advocating against improper speculation on food production -- one group pressured CALPRS, the California Public pension fund, to not invest in funds that speculate in commodity trading.
It's not too radical of an idea to place requirements on corporations to divert funds for public good. Many communities require private developers to donate 1% of project costs on public art. Other communities require developers hire a certain percentage of workers from the neighborhood and a certain wage.
Why not require food and commodity growers to allocate a percentage of costs towards the SNAP program? If Kraft Foods diverted 1% of its $25 billion costs, then $250 million would be available to fund SNAP.
Comments