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.
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?
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.)
Did someone alert John Edwards?????
Between jobs in my younger years, it was cheaper to buy bags of potatoes, bread, cheap meat, etc. than fruits, veggies and fish. And, now with all the store brands, food is even cheaper.
Of course, I’m great at rationalizing anything when it comes to food. LOL
It’s very simple. More people can’t afford food, and those who can afford food are too dumb to eat properly balanced and portioned meals.
No contradiction there at all.
I have never seen children that look like the ones in the first photo
There are some kids in iowa that go hungry once in a while. They are the one’s who’s parents are on meth and never sleep. They can’t remember what day it is and can’t remember if they fed their kids or not.
It quite obvious, the fat people are hogging up all of the food. After a while the skinny people are too weak to fight them for it.
I never realize Iowa was like that.
Since when did “hunger” get redefined as “limited or recurrent lack of access to nutritional and safe food”?