Half of US children on Food Stamps
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/...en_food_stamps

I had no idea that things were so bad. I am especially astonished at the number of black children. The article goes on to say:

I can understand that malnutrition might be a concern for those living in poverty without food stamps, but WITH food stamps? WTF?

Either the food stamp program does not go far enough or people who are on food stamps use them to buy soft drinks and chips. The article does not explain this.

half of US children on food stamps?
 

That must be one BIG-ASS stamp...how'd they fit all those children on it? Were they allowed to move around? Were there snacks?

Ba DUM dum...

Think about it. How much nutrition can paper, ink, and glue have?

Or maybe it's like a Commemorative Food Stamp Series, with pics of all the poor kids on them.

omg I'm going to hell. First, though, I'm going home.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

lik 'em stick 'em. I call BS

Next thing you know they'll be on trading stamps. Kids'll be ordering lamps and cameras and percolators.

The statistics in that article, I don't know. I think Cloud's bs-ometer might be right.

The article states:

Then it goes on to say:

Well, then it was hardly representative, was it? Was it ALL children or not?

it didn't say the SURVEY didn't include other ethnic groups... only that the ANALYSIS didn't.

And, based on that "analysis" they concluded that 49 percent of ALL children were on food stamps at some point by the age of 20.

Flawed study, or bad reporting?

I'm gonna go with Shaw on this one.... she is the analest you know....

Notice also that it says "on food stamps at some time before they are 20". That might be just once, for a month or two, although some might be on for longer. So it could end up that only 2 or 3% are on food stamps at any given time.
Which makes me think this study is being presented to show the highest figure possible without actual fraud. Surely it would be possible -and easier, and more accurate - to collate the data from the food stamp issuers (social security?) and compare the number of under-20s on food stamps with the number of under-20s according to the census. Done.
The survey is actually answering a different question, about whether someone is ever on food stamps, and that is still a worthwhile question.

So, the thread title "Half of US children on Food Stamps" is easily misread.
It might be (mis)read as :Half of US Children ARE on Food Stamps", and in fact this reading is quite natural. But what the study shows is that "Half of US Children HAVE BEEN, ARE OR WILL BE AT SOME TIME on Food Stamps."

Sneaky headline writers twisting stories by skimping on the grammar.

Well, one thing - they don't have actual food stamps anymore. You get a card. :rolleyes:

This story does seem like it was written in order to fit someone's political agenda. I still don't get the malnourished part. Half of all US children were at one time malnourished? Huh? :eek:

This also falls under the category of using history (up to 1997!) to predict the future. If there is economic growth, and there has been up until last year, the future won't reflect the past.

If they go to school in Philly, they get a free breakfast, everyone does.

Malnutrition and obesity are synonymous - not antonyms. Yes, you were addressing the problem with junk food. Because junk food is so much cheaper, many buy that. Then, because the food has so little nutrition, the body gets hungry quickly. So they need more junk food.

Learned this from wrestling. Diets that restrict food do not work. How did we cut 20% of our body weight? Limit the diet only to nutritious foods.

Appreciate the concept. A large carrot is nutritious - 100% of the required vitamin A. Is that second carrot nutritious? No. Of course not. The first carrot provided all of today's vitamin A requirements. A second carrot was only sugar - junk food. A concept that so many do not understand when only using sound byte reasoning.

Using the same soundbyte reasoning, many do not understand how obesity and malnutrition share a common origin. The food being consumed has too little nutrition per calorie.

... and the reason for that, in part, is that the new agribusiness farming techniques used to feed our growing population produce more food, in kilograms and calories, per area of land, but that food is poorer in nutrients.

The food is not poorer. The customers stopped buying the nutritious stuff. Canvas the shopping carts. Notice how many carts are full of stuff I cannot (do not) eat much of - cookies, sweets, and scam products.

At war with science is Kellogg. Their Cocoa Puffs have always been near zero nutrition. So Kellogg is now advertising higher nutrition in Cocoa Puffs. Science says that increase is still near zero nutrition. Kellogg refuses to concede. Companies such as Kellogg and Beechnut have a long history of selling junk as nutritious. And with so many Americans even believing Saddam's WMD lies, these junk food companies are doing even better.

We could never drink all the coke that is routine today. Want to have the Appalachia smile? Drink Mountain Dew. Or get fat by drinking the same thing called diet soda. Calories are what they preach to the naive. Nutrition is the only thing that matters. Even those energy drinks are nonsense.

Amazing how many families are not dependent on Ritalin because they don't serve two vegetables with each dinner. Blame the advertisers - not the products. Wholesome products are still available. Some even better than they were. But in a country where milk - an extremely healthy food - is hyped a fattening or harmful, well, what is the problem? Diet sodas. Agribusiness did not make people eat crap. They just made it available. Kellogg and Beechnut have always been selling crappier foods.

A major difference is Kelloggs vs General Mills. Gerber vs Beechnut. And yet so many do not even know that.

I recently bought a pack of mini-pot fromage frais. They're supposed to be for kiddies. Theyre tiny, but delicious (yes I know I am tragic). I noticed on the labelling it said "suitable from weening onwards". Then I read the ingredients, the third of which was sugar. Of course the pack is also full of bright cheery pics of natural things. And bright cheery lettering telling parents all about the good wholesome milk, calcium, fruit pulp, 'all natural ingredients' and even a little colouring picture on the inside of the pack for the little'uns to complete. It had a farm scene with cows and a farmer and milk churns.

They're essentially marketing this sugary dessert as a weening food. Disgraceful.

A while ago, I picked up a pack of 'scooby doo' chicken nuggets meal. Just out of curiosity. I read the ingredients and put it back in the shop freezer. Yes, it had no artificial colourings and flavourings - great! But it did have almost the whole of a child's recommended daily intake of salt in a single meal.

Awhile back, I was chatting at the playground with another mother I'd just met, and she was asking about the diet my kids are on.

She said to me, in all seriousness, "Oh no! That's got to be so hard. I could never stop giving him cookies, that's where he gets all his essential vitamins and minerals." The tone made it clear she was earnestly quoting from the box.





Plants love it! It's got electrolytes!

That movie is messed up.

It was too preachy for my tastes... but it did make me laugh.

cocoa puffs to WMD in one paragraph ... TW, you're awsome.

1) I can see how they took the study results (49% of all children are on food stamps AT SOME POINT by age 20) and used canny wording to make it seem like something else.

2) Obesity and malnutrion do go hand in hand, as TW says. I'm a newly educated individual on nutrition, thanks to my bodybuilding, and am of the opinion that the gov'mnt and public officials are doing a piss poor job of both teaching proper food choices and offering decent food to the poor and to the schools.

I don't know about schools. The poor who go to soup kitchens must take what is offered. Food pantry outfits around here offer macaroni and more macaroni -also lots of sphagetti. You also get canned food made by companies you never have heard of. Very seldom do I see these places hand out milk, fresh vegetables or fruit. Never is there whole grain anything.

On the other hand, you can buy what you want with "food stamps". My diet is far from perfect, but I shop the sales and by green leafies, fruit, lean meat and chicken. I see no reason why other food stamp recipients can't do the same thing. :headshake

Sam, for the same reason someone not on food stamps doesn't eat healthy food. I don't think receiving food stamps obligates you to not eat Cheetos. Yeah, it's a dumb choice, but it's a choice not limited to the food stamp population. People luvz 'em some junk food.

Look for where both share a common location. In your head. See that. I'm in your head and you cannot get me out. Now. What's for dinner.

... and I thought that voice was just Lucifer on speed and acid at once.

Akchully........... they're not bad as a weaning food. They're not sweet like candy, and breastmilk is pretty sweet compard to cow's milk. One of baby's main jobs is to lay down a little fat to get them through periods of illness etc. so the calories are not a major problem for most kids. So they're milky and sweet -like breast milk and yet less liquid and with other flavors -like real food. an excellent transition tool. What you don't want to use is chocolate puddings -80%+ sugar, no dairy, no fruit, but the kiddywinks really like them......

in my house, cocoa puffs are weapons of mass destruction. when mixed with milk in the correct proportions, allowed to stand for the correct number of minutes and then in 2 nan-seconds spilled over all paperwork with in a 10 mile radius (how do kids do that?), nothing survives

...and then, if allowed to harden for more than 5 seconds, become completely impossible to remove by anything short of diamond-powder sandblasting.

Ok I'll bow to your knowledge on that:P I just figured the same could be achieved without the addition of lots of white sugar. I am thinking more of the impact on their teeth as they come through.

as I understand it, incoming teeth are really only affected by sugar that stays in the mouth next to the gum for a long time -like if you give the poor bairn a lollipop or a long sugary drink through a bottle. But it's definitely somehting to be aware of.

BTW, that's the other guy inside your head yelling, "Jump. Jump. Jump."

That's me saying, "Don't look up at her eyes."

From The Economist of 29 Oct 2009 See the FDAs recent battle with Kellogg's for adverising nutrition that does not exist.

How did Dannon increase sales by 30%? Advertised 'Digitaliss Rectilitis' or whatever that mysterious substance is. What does it do? Nobody can say. But using their 'Saddam WMD' logic, 30% bought Dannon yogurt. Lying is acceptable as long as so many insist on staying dumb by using 'Saddam WMD' reasoning.

European Union is also involved in a long investigation about so many foods promoting mythical nutritional claims. Current standards permit so much lying that even fat free cookies were promoted for a healthy diet.

Digitaliss Rectilitis? Surely that is the medical term for having your thumb up your arse, isn't it? :eyebrow:

The BS meter should be going off the wall on that article.

I know mine did.

Homeless people (at least the ones that I deal with) are notoriously choosy. They won't eat that kind of stuff.

Cheap food (white bread, macaroni and cheese etc) is usually high in starch and therefore makes you feel fuller. If you have limited funds for food a bunch of high starch potato or pasta is more appealing than green leafy veg.

I agree that the figure of half of US children on food stamps at some point during their childhood appears highly questionable, but the fact remains that millions of kids in the US every day (nearly 1 out of 5) are living with some level of food deprivation...at the very least, not knowing when or where they might get their next meal.

At any given time, somewhere between 15-20% of the children in the US are living in what is characterized as "food insecurity"....that doesnt mean facing severe hunger or starvation, but facing disruptions in regular meals every day.

Household Food Security in the US, 2007

Many are short term (several months) and return to normal eating patterns and are replaced with other children facing those same short term circumstances....so that over a 18 year period (childhood years), much more than 15-20% of children are facing "food insecurity" at some point for some period (generally small) of time.

49 Million Americans do not get enough to eat
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091116/ts_nm/us_hunger_usa

I am stunned by this information. No one, but no one should ever go hungry in the US. I have a handicapped friend who is the mother of two children. Last week she joked about fixing them all leaf soup. But the problem she has is very real. Not everyone qualifies for food stamps, and those who do receive them often get a miniscule amount. Example: people in my county who have a total income of $700.00/month qualify for a whopping $10.00 in food stamps. The spendthrifts who go through their $10.00 before the end of the month can go get commodities from the Good Samaritans. They will give you a box or so of canned food each month – no milk, no fresh fruit or veggies, no fish or meat. You do get plenty of pasta and rice. If they’re feeling generous that day, you may luck out and get 8oz of dried pinto beans. Its certainly not great nutritionally, but it is food. I find it an outrage that 49 MILLION Americans apparently do not get even that much to eat. The government keeps on talking about ramping up the fool stamp program, but out here in the real world, I see little evidence of this supposed increase in government largesse.

I'm too lazy to look for recent facts, but a while back the Agricultural industry was destroying large amounts of oranges and lemons etc to keep prices up. Are they still doing that?

Food stamps should go hand-in-hand with gardening lessons. Teach a man to fish and all...

Well, Mr. Lazy, I did a quick google on citrus dumping and discovered that Brazilian growers have been dumping their fruit into the US market at below levels of cost of production. The Brazilians were forced to drop this practice and as a consequence, citrus prices in the US climbed higher.

I don't know what that has to do with anything unless Brazil wants to give their crop to poverty stricken US citizens. Brazil has an appalling level of poverty all of its own. I imagine that if the Brazilian industry decided to be so charitable, it would look to Recife and Sao Paulo brfore taking on Denver or Kansas City.

I couldn't agree with you more. The fewer people who are forced to depend on the government, the better. Alas, there are no easy answers. An elderly woman living in poverty may not have the strength to turn the soil and hoe out the weeds. A man in a wheelchair may not find it easy to dig up potatoes. A single mom in the city may consider herself lucky to have an apartment for herself and her children - never mind finding land where they can plant crops, water them and not have them stolen. That's the trouble with simplistic answers - we deal with the real world, not the ideal one.

Careful with that kind of talk! :rolleyes:

Very sad, but true