Skip to comments.Study Shows More Iowans Go Hungry (Yet More Obese: Huh?)
Posted on 07/20/2007 11:50:57 PM PDT by hawkeye101
Study Shows More Iowans Go Hungry
A new study shows more Iowans are going hungry.
The study by Drake University found that more than one of every ten households are reporting limited or recurrent lack of access to nutritional and safe food. It also connects a lack of healthy food options to obesity in low-income households.
The 2007 Hunger in Iowa Report indicates that more Iowans are skipping meals or eating cheaper and less healthy food because of their inability to get nutritional food in a social acceptable way.
Other reports were released in 2001 and 2003.
The reports are by Susan Roberts, who has a law degree from Drake specializing in food and agricultural law.
She says every report shows there is hunger in Iowa, and that it's getting worse, even though nationally it's the opposite.
O.k., these poor children are starving:
These children are not:
While the second set of children are unhealthy and will eventually have health problems, their existance doesn't even compare to the horrible pain and suffering of the truly starved and hungry of the world. Living in Iowa, I have never seen children that look like the ones in the first photo, yet I see children just like the ones in the second photo all over this state. The ignorance and vanity of this article just astounds me.
They’ve redefined hunger.
It no longer means not enough food.
It means not enough “nutritious” or perhaps tasty food. Or maybe people have a boring diet.
It sometimes even becomes a psychological phenomenon. The people are worried sometimes about whether they’ll be hungry tomorrow or next week. This is classified as hunger.
It’s an atrocious dimunition of the suffering of the millions who historically and even today have suffered true hunger. And it’s being done for purely political reasons.
I think what they are suggesting is that people are eating junk food and that makes them fat. Well, duh, but then it goes on to imply that this junk is cheaper than nutritional food which is absolute nonsense. I will try to translate: We use all our food stamps on cases of soda, candy, chips and our favorite snack cracker and we can’t afford nutritional food. Then of course either global warming, Bush or Republicans are to blame depending on your mood.
>>The 2007 Hunger in Iowa Report indicates that more Iowans are skipping meals or eating cheaper and less healthy food because of their INABILITY [emphasis my own] to get nutritional food in a social acceptable way.<<
I guess taking along a lunchbox packed with nutritious goodies lovingly prepared at home by Mom is no longer considered “socially acceptable.”
Well, it’s obvious that it’s time for the STATE to step in and take charge of this problem.
And yet I don’t see them suffering from lack of cigarettes or lottery tickets. Did the study look for a correlation?
You must have a constituency in Iowa (hunger advocates and the people who staff the programs based on their findings) who are worried about sustaining full employment. They have to put out a report like this every couple of years to get their funding renewed.
I’m not kidding.
Consider yourself fortunate that you have never had to subsist on a diet of ramen noodles alternated with red beans and rice (seasoned with the unused half of the ramen noodle flavor packet). And since the flavor enhancement of expensive preparation and seasoning can be somewhat offset by increased fat, salt, or sugar content, fatty and starchy foods are quite cheap relative to leaner fare.
While it's better than turning to crime or the public dole, it's not pleasant, and I'm glad you've never had to find out first-hand.
Sounds like a Dave Ramsey diet.
Herbs and spices are remarkably inexpensive on a per serving basis.
Starches are generally the cheapest foods. You can pick up 50 lbs. of rice for about $12 and 50 lbs. of beans for $20 at the local Costco. Interestingly, in 1957 the average retail price of navy beans was .16/lb, or $8 for 50 lbs., although presumably this does not include a discount for volume like the Costco price does. Still, it doesn't show a huge increase in the cost of this basic food, even without inflation being taken into account. .16 in 1956 money equates to $1.16 today, which is more than beans usually cost for a single pound today.
While not the most variable or perhaps enjoyable diet, that will provide the basis of a reasonably balanced diet for one person for about two months, at a cost of about 50 cents/day. An investment of another $10 at the local Dollar Store will get you enough spices to last at least this long, raising your cost to about 65 cents/day.
Admittedly this requires access to minimal cooking facillities, and some supplementation with vegatables is recommended to prevent deficiency diseases, but it is still possible to survive for remarkably little money.
The cost of basic foodstuffs has come down to a remarkable degree over the last 50 years, when inflation is considered. However, very few of us cook using basic foods, as a trip through the grocery store will show. Hardly any shelf space is given to flour, beans, rice, cornmeal and other basic foods. Everything is frozen or pre-prepared. Of course it costs more.
Notice that the article said stuff like “safe” and “nutritious” food. Undoubtedly the reporter visited some households where there was a bunch of chunky kids running around, but after checking the pantry found no “nutritional” food present. In her mind those kids were “hungry”. What do you bet?
Is that boy in the second picture releasing greenhouse gasses?
You missed my point, or something. Candy, sodas, chips and other junk foods are not less expensive than nutritional food. No, I have never had to subsist on ramen noodles, nor would it have entered my mind to do so. I was taught the old ways as a child and wouldn’t have even known what ramen noodles were. I did know how to hunt and trap game, grow food, and even go to the forest and get some possum grapes for grape dumplings for dessert. So, don’t chide me because you obviously misinterpreted what I wrote and have no idea about what I have had to “subsist” on.
Believe me, I know. The state revenue "service" wrote me a letter claiming that there was no way I could subsist on an income as low as reported on my tax filing, and they demanded an explanation. Note that I mentioned red beans and rice in my post.
The disadvantage is, however, that starches break down quickly, and fats are more efficient for staving off hunger pangs. Plus, high-starch diets lead to insulin resistance.
I did not misinterpret what you wrote. My point is that it's not necessarily candy, soda, chips, and junk foods. While I agree that many are taking the path you mentioned, the fact is that it's not necessarily that way.
I did know how to hunt and trap game
The traps that allowed my family to survive have been passed down through the generations, and I still use my grandpa's rifle, but as the article states, the problem is with "...socially acceptable..." means of sustenance. It's awfully tough to run a trap-line or live off hunting or gardening these days, if one is in an urban or suburban setting (where the jobs tend to be). And heck, people thought I was joking when I was in grad school and mentioned eating squirrel.
So my point stands, it is difficult for many people to eat nutritiously, without obesity, on low income, even if they eschew "junk foods."
Hadn't heard of Dave Ramsey at the time. It was just what I could afford and make in my hot pot for a few cents of electricity. :-)
I bought a 1 1/2 lb loaf of 100% whole wheat bread in Iowa this week for $1.50 at HyVee. Beans and whole grains are cheap, and are really cheap in bulk from a food co-op. Add in some milk and collard greens and carrots and some apples and you have great nutrition for very little money.
This is a problem of taste and habits, not poverty.
This study sounds like one that says poor children cannot afford a college education(which means they all aren’t being given a free ride to Harvard.)
Sounds like she is just shaking the money tree, looking for clients.