Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

One in Ten Americans Went Hungry Last Year

By Abid Aslam, IPS News. Posted November 28, 2007.


More than one in 10 people in the United States go hungry, according to government figures suggesting its food programs are falling short in the world's wealthiest country.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Abid Aslam

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

More than one in 10 people in the United States go hungry, according to new official figures that suggest government food programs are falling short in the world's wealthiest country.

More than 35 million people in a country of some 294 million went hungry last year, 390,000 more than in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's latest Household Food Security report.

Of the total, 12.63 million were children. Put another way, nearly one in five U.S. children either went without enough food during the course of the year or had food but could never take future meals for granted.

The report, released Wednesday, comes as Congress debates the 2007 Farm Bill, a five-year piece of legislation affecting everything from agricultural subsidies to nutritional programmes for the poor.

Anti-hunger activists lamented the findings.

"The U.S. is the only industrialised nation that still allows hunger within its borders," said David Beckmann, president of the advocacy group Bread for the World.

Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Centre, warned the situation likely has worsened since the agriculture department surveyed the populace in December 2006.

"As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped," Weill said. "This may mean even worse numbers in 2007. We need to do more to make sure that households have access to healthy food by improving and expanding proven programmes that help."

The advocates highlighted the federal government's Food Stamp Programme, which Beckmann called "the flagship nutrition safety net for Americans", as needed an upgrade.

The programme provides food stamps to more than 26 million people every month, enabling them to use the tokens in place of cash to purchase specified foodstuffs. According to Beckmann and Weill, the relief is insufficient.

"The average benefit of one dollar per meal per person is just not enough to buy adequate, nutritious food," said Beckmann, whose group plans to launch its own hunger report Nov. 19.

Added Weill: "Congress is considering the farm bill, which includes the food stamp programme. They have the chance to make it easier for households to access the programme, keep benefits growing with the cost of living rather than losing ground to inflation, and raise the allowable asset and minimum benefit levels for the first time in decades."

According to the food security report, the latest in a series begun in 1995, 10.4 percent of all U.S. adults and 17.2 percent of all children suffered food insecurity in 2006.

Of the 35.52 million food insecure U.S. residents, 11.1 million lived in households marked by "very low food security," a new term for what the government used to call "food insecurity with hunger". The figure rose from 10.8 million in 2005, consistent with other surveys showing worsening conditions among the poorest.

Black and Hispanic households suffered the most, with food insecurity rates of 21.8 percent and 19.5 percent respectively.

The latest findings chime with recent government reports showing poverty was largely unchanged five years after the U.S. economy began clawing its way back from recession.

Modest gains in household income have failed to lift significant numbers out of poverty, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in August.

The national poverty rate fell to 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent the year before, but remained well above the 11.3 percent mark recorded in 2000, the last year in which it dropped.

The census bureau said family earnings had risen modestly because more members were working and contributing to household income but that not everyone had benefited.

In the countryside, poverty had stagnated at 15.2 percent, three percentage points above the national average. In all, nearly 7.2 million inhabitants of rural areas fell below the poverty line last year despite rising agricultural prices.

The elderly accounted for much of last year's improvement and, as a group, were better off than they were in 2001. By contrast, poverty rates for children and for adults of working age remained statistically unchanged from 2005 and higher than in 2001, when the last recession bottomed out.

Overall, some 36.5 million people were deemed poor in 2006, about as many as in 2005, the census bureau said.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: united states, household food security r, government food programs, food stamps, hunger

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And that's just the hungry...
Posted by: Peyotino on Nov 28, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about some statistics on folks not being able to afford real food, and feeding their families genuine crap because they lack time and money to eat like real people. A belly full of mac & cheese is not always a good thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And that's just the hungry... Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: And that's just the hungry... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: And that's just the hungry... Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: And that's just the hungry... Posted by: frantaylor
Good article, but some questions
Posted by: Q30 on Nov 28, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an interest in this topic. Obviously I'm sympathetic, but I have some questions when wording like this is used:

"...either went without enough food during the course of the year or had food but could never take future meals for granted."

Well, which is larger? The number of people who don't have food, or the number of people who can't take future meals for granted?

Why can't they take future meals for granted?

1. Billions of pounds of food get thrown-away from resturaunts each year (and surplus farm production as well), some of it is increasingly donated to shelters and soup kitchens. It's not that there isn't enough food, is it that not enough is being donated?

2. Do the 1 in 10 hungry people not know about the shelters and soup kitchens and food banks and other such programs that supplement existing food-stamp programs?

3. I used to work in a pharmacy and every so often, people on food stamps would buy food in the pharmacy. But the prices aren't as competitive as in a large supermarket. Additionally, billions of dollars worth of coupons are never used. Are people on food stamps not informed about how to get more bang for the buck?

Obviously, I'm not against feeding the hungry. I just want some inkling of how serious the problem is. Using fuzzy wording isn't a good idea when you're talking about something this serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's time to do something Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: It's time to do something Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» food corporations won't do jack Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Good article, but some questions Posted by: psychodancer
» RE: Good article, but some questions Posted by: Romantic Violence
The Food Stamp Challenge....
Posted by: picket on Nov 28, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Washington Post..5/16/2007..."Lawmakers Find $21.00 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries"
Members of Congress took this challenge...Rep Barbara Lee's [D Calif] blog on her experience.
http://dchunger.org/blog/
What would YOU buy to survive the week??????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Education would help a lot, too.
Posted by: Amy27605 on Nov 28, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Absolutely, the benefit amounts must be increased and indexed to inflation. Here in NC, from the first time I used food stamps in 1998 until the last time, 2003, the maximum for a single person rose only $20, from $119 to $139 per month.

But other changes are needed as well, education being primary among them. All the times that I had to rely on food assistance, I had virtually no other income, and I was able to feed myself very well while buying nearly everything at Whole Foods--yes, it CAN be done. But it requires knowing that one can thrive without the expensive stuff--meat, dairy products, processed foods, candy, soft drinks, chips and other snack foods, etc.

It could also do with some restrictions on eligible items. You CAN buy as much as you want of junk food, but you can't use them for health-supporting items such as protein powder or other nutrition supplements. And of course such life necessities as soap and toilet paper are ineligible as well.

Oh, and FYI to the author: I suppose there may be a few remote outposts still using paper coupons but, even though the assistance is still referred to as "food stamps," most of the country has gone to a debit-card style mechanism for providing the funds.

Peace,
Amy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ducation would help a lot, too. Posted by: newtype_alpha
RedEyeCry
Posted by: John Walters on Nov 28, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to have to do without beer for both December and January just to pay for Christmas, not so I can buy presents, but to cover the nearly two weeks my office is closed for the holiday for which I won't get paid. But I don't want to sound unsympathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: edEyeCry Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: edEyeCry Posted by: Joe
» RE: What jobs? Posted by: nightgaunt
» RE: What jobs? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
FOODSTAMPS?
Posted by: aberdeen on Nov 28, 2007 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do so many liberals insist on giving adults food stamps? Haven't they ever heard of New Deal programs? Isn't it a better idea to provide government program jobs with the money instead of just dolling it out so it can be traded for booze and drugs?

Isn't it wiser to feed hungry children through the school system, which is already set up with cafeteria facilities, rather than to give food stamps to their parents who often use it for something else?

Why do modern liberals like these authors demonstrate such a severe lack of progressive vision?

Richard Aberdeen; www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FOODSTAMPS? Adults too! Posted by: nightgaunt
» he's a crypto-liberal! Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: FOODSTAMPS? Posted by: babs
» RE: FOODSTAMPS? Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: FOODSTAMPS? Posted by: ALANHESTER
» school food is garbage. Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Not surprised.....
Posted by: risk on Nov 28, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why spend money for the building up of your own country when you can put it all for the military occupation of Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not surprised..... Posted by: ALANHESTER
Poor Americans
Posted by: Doubtom on Dec 1, 2007 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something drastically wrong with a country that has upwards of 35 million of its citizens going hungry while sending billions in foreign aid to Israel each and every year. Time to take control of your government folks or admit that you don't have a democratic Republic.
Which will it be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Illegal immigrants... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Illegal immigrants... Posted by: yellow
hello everyone
Posted by: kkmedia1 on Dec 24, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]