janw@inmet.UUCP (02/05/86)
[ Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad] >>>The next episode of Frontline (PBS, February 4) examines poverty in America. >>>[examiming reasons why some people refuse to recognize the existence >>>of hunger: no mechanism for it; calls on everyone to see the show] >>[janw: written *before* seeing the show: the reason for not recog- >>nizing the existence of hunger is, indeed, no mechanism for >>hunger - and also no *hunger*.] OK, now I saw it. There was no hunger, no trace of hunger, and nothing remotely resembling hunger. It examined children growing up in poverty. They were plump, chubby, active children. The "family with woefully inadequate food" Karl mentioned had *meat* in their freezer. Poor people in this country have many acute problems (some of them studied in this program). Hunger is not one of them. How could it be? No mechanism. Hunger *cannot* exist in the midst of plenty, like the proverbial snowflake in hell. The subject is really not worth discussing, it is so obvious.
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (02/12/86)
> OK, now I saw it. There was no hunger, no trace of hunger, and > nothing remotely resembling hunger. It examined children growing > up in poverty. They were plump, chubby, active children. The > "family with woefully inadequate food" Karl mentioned had *meat* > in their freezer. Quite so. Hunger was not an issue in this show. Undoubtedly, hunger is not as widespread as some would have us believe, and it is not the "major" poverty problem. > Poor people in this country have many acute problems (some of > them studied in this program). Hunger is not one of them. How > could it be? No mechanism. Hunger *cannot* exist in the midst of > plenty, like the proverbial snowflake in hell. Although hunger may be rare, it is statistically absurd to say that it "cannot exist". Out of 220,000,000 people, *some* *must* be hungry. Indeed, Karms (and others) presented documented instances of mal nutrition. If we accept the fact that hunger is rare, many mechanisms become plausible. For instance, my grandfather's neighbor died of starvation, because he was unwilling to steal, and too proud to accept charity. Other mechanisms include physical, psychological, or emotional handicaps. Without an income, I probably couldn't find enough food. Perhaps, as often happens, differences of opinion are not really that great. Some say our country has accomplished the unpresidented, since less than one in 10,000 goes hungry. Others say it is appalling to have thousands hungry in America. Yet the difference is only a subjective reaction to an established fact. Both sides could easily be right. Can or should the government do anything about the few who are hungry? If I recall the reports correctly, most mal nourished are children. (yet another mechanism for hunger) If their parents continually spend the welfare check on alcohol, ignoring the needs of the children, the government should definitely take action. I just don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding hunger. Homelessness is a similar problem. Why would anyone spend a night in a Chicago winter when there are plenty of public buildings around? Why should the mayor provide specialized "shelters" for said individuals that open when the temperature drops below eleven degrees? Again, homelessness is rare, so "abnormal" mechanisms become plausible. Some studies estimate 50% of the homeless have diagnosable psychological disorders, explaining their inability to find shelter. This was discussed in Scientific American about a year ago. These "hunger" discussions illustrate the importance of clear concise communication. I believe the number of hungry in America lies between 1,000 and 100,000. Similarly, I believe the number of homeless lies between 5,000 and 500,000. Does anyone disagree with these estimates? Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread", we should have established a quantitative range early on (about how many are hungry), searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry), and then addressed the question of possible government intervention. This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening. -- Why don't we do it in the road? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/14/86)
In article <363@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: >Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread", >we should have established a quantitative range early on >(about how many are hungry), >searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry), >and then addressed the question of possible government intervention. >This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening. While you are at it, figure out what you are going to do with people who are homeless or hungry and claim to choose to be this way. I know street people who are adament that ``a house ties you down'' and that they want to live as they do. I have no idea what proportion of street people hold these beliefs, but it would be wise to plan for them. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/18/86)
This article is long but most of it consists of an appendix. Karl Dahlke writes, in the course of giving some good advice: >These "hunger" discussions illustrate the importance of clear concise >communication. I believe the number of hungry in America lies >between 1,000 and 100,000.... >Does anyone disagree with these estimates? If by "the hungry" you mean those who periodically and chronically do not have access to an adequate diet, then you underestimate the number of hungry people in America by a factor of anywhere between 200 and 20,000, according to the figures presented below. >Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread", >we should have established a quantitative range early on (about how >many are hungry), searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry), and >then addressed the question of possible government intervention. >This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening. Sensible advice. I've already quoted from *Hunger in America*, the Report of the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (1985), a thorough and detailed study of the problem. I present their major conclusions below. If anyone wishes to disagree with their findings, please explain any flaws in the study's methods or cite studies which reach different conclusions. (Jan W. might like to explain how having meat in the freezer demonstrates that a family has an adequate diet.) It is notable that while hunger is widespread in the wealthy US, it has been nearly eliminated in Cuba (or so I have read in a reliable source). This should provide food for thought to all but those netters whose minds are rusted shut. To observe well-fed professionals on the net arguing from their armchairs that hunger is impossible in America because we can't think of an explanation, so let's not worry about it -- this is an inspiration to us all. Definitions: HUNGER is the chronic underconsumption of food and nutrients. MALNUTRITION is a broad term indicating an impairment to physical and/or mental health resulting from failure to meet nutrient requirements. The major findings of *Hunger in America* are: --Hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation. Available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 (one out of twelve Americans) may be hungry at least some period of time each month. See below for detailed explanation of how this figure was determined. It was supported by extensive and thorough field research. --Hunger in America is getting worse, not better. --Malnutrition and ill-health are associated with hunger. --Hunger is the result of federal government policies (i.e., of bad policies). --Present policies (1985) are not alleviating hunger in America. What follows is the detailed explanation of how the 20 million figure was reached, taken from *Hunger in America*. Sorry for the length, but quoting from the Report is probably the only way to get many people to read some of it. The main body of the report provides empirical data on all conceivable aspects of the situation. ________________ No official "hunger count" exists in the United States, so we have no precise way of knowing how many hungry people there are. But methods exist by which we can estimate the dimensions of the problem and, based on these, we believe that some 20 million Americans suffer from hunger. The majority of this number, over 15 million, are people who live below the poverty line but who receive no food stamp assistance. The remainder are income groups below poverty who receive food stamps but for whom the program is inadequate; they are joined by near-poor families whose economic circumstances make adequate food purchases impossible. These groups and the manner in which we estimate their numbers are detailed in this appendix. Approximately 35.3 million Americans live below the official government poverty level [census data from 1983]. In the United State poverty is defined by a construct based specifically on the ability to purchase a minimal diet [see Chapter 5 ("Hunger as the Result of Government Policies") of the present Report]. As a matter of policy, families living at or below the poverty level do not have sufficient income to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet [ibid.]. Of the 35.3 million people in poverty, most are eligible for food stamps. Many, however, do not receive food stamp assistance. Some of them are eligible but get no help for various reasons. Others are in need but technically are ineligible. By their income they are eligible, but because they have assets (such as the new poor who may own cars) they cannot get food stamps even when they have no food. With this information in mind, we can then calculate the number of people below poverty who cannot purchase the food they need. A. PEOPLE IN POVERTY WHO RECEIVE NO FOOD STAMPS. While 35.3 million Americans are in poverty, only 19.8 million receive food stamps. It is possible to receive food stamps with an income up to 130% of poverty, so all food stamps recipients do not live below the poverty level. But since there are no current data available on the percentage of food stamp recipients in poverty, we will assume for the purposes of our calculations that all food stamps go to people below the poverty level. (By assuming that more poor people get food stamps than actually do, this calculation is unduly conservative.) Even so, we see that more than 15 million impoverished Americans have an inadequate food supply: 35.3 million - 19.8 million = 15.5 million B. PEOPLE IN POVERTY WHO DO RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS. The evidence cited in this report, as well as from numerous other sources, shows that food stamp benefit levels are not adequate for a large proportion of recipients. Thus, some recipients experience hunger as a result. We know in several ways that benefit levels are nutritionally inadequate: (a) the thrifty food plan, upon which food stamp benefit levels are based, is by definition nutritionally inadequate [see Chapter 5]; (b) food stamp families have lost purchasing power over the years; (c) food stamps, even in combination with AFDC, yield a monthly income well below the poverty level in every state [see Appendix B of the Report]; (d) national and state survey data show that a large proportion of food stamp recipients run out of food the third to fourth week of the month; and (e) emergency food programs throughout the nation report that a large proportion of the people they try to help are food stamp recipients who run out of food. Despite this evidence, there is no definitive basis upon which to calculate the number of below-poverty food stamp recipients who at times experience hunger.... Taking into account our own investigation and the survey data available, we believe that most people living below the poverty line on a food stamp budget are unable to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet. But in order to provide a conservative estimate of people in this category, we will calculate their numbers by taking the lowest survey finding (50%), and then reduce that by half: .50 x .50 x 19.8 million = 4.95 million People below the poverty level are not the only Americans vulnerable to hunger. Food stamp eligibility extends to households with gross income up to 130% of poverty, so long as net income is below poverty. The individuals exposed to hunger within this income category fall into two more groups: those eligible for food stamps and those who are not. C. PEOPLE AT 100-130% POVERTY WHO ARE FOOD STAMP ELIGIBLE/ INELIGIBLE. ... there are 11.9 million people with household incomes between 100% and 125% of poverty. ... D. PEOPLE ABOVE 130% POVERTY WHO ARE IN NEED BUT INELIGIBLE. Until the passage of OBRA, the 1981 federal budget act, food stamp eligibility extended to households with incomes up to 150% of poverty. Before OBRA, government policy acknowledged need among certain households with high child care costs or other expenses which brought net income to a level which makes adequate food purchases impossible. With OBRA, the policy changed but the need did not. The census reports that the number of people between 125% and 150% of poverty is 12.2 million. Unfortunately, no way exists to determine how many people in this group experience hunger. In categories C and D, therefore, we have 24.1 million people whose incomes make many of them vulnerable to an inadequate food supply. Let us assume that of all the people living in both groups (100-150% of poverty), only 10% experience hunger. This assumption would yield the following calculation: .10 x (11.9 million + 12.2 million) = 2.41 million. Based on these calculations, we estimate that somewhat over 20 million Americans experience hunger. Because we have made conservative assumptions whenever presented with the choice, we believe the actual number may be higher. There is some independent confirmation of our estimate. In January 1984, the Harris Survey interviewed a sample of 1,251 adults throughout the United States. Each interview subject was asked about first-hand knowledge of hunger ("Do you know anyone who is hungry? Is that someone close to you or not?"). According to the Harris Survey outcome: "A substantial 7.6 million households report that members of their families are hungry and do not get enough to eat. This translates into close to 21 million Americans who can reasonably be classified as suffering from hunger." Nearly 80% of respondents agreed with the statement that because the number of homeless is increasing, and because the number of soup kitchen lines is increasing, there can be no doubt that there are many hungry people in America today. Concluded the Harris Survey: "By any count it is obvious ... that in actual measurement hunger indeed is a highly serious matter, even in affluent America." We realize that reasonable people may disagree with our calculations, or with the results of the national Harris Survey. Some, for instance, might argue that hunger cannot be equated with a nutritionally inadequate diet. Others might argue that the poor spend more of their income on food than is assumed by the government in constructing the federal poverty level. Some may raise yet other issues. Nevertheless, we feel confident in the methodology and reasonableness of our conservative calculations. Moreover, we believe they help us to understand the dimensions of domestic hunger. _______________ -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/18/86)
> > Definitions: HUNGER is the chronic underconsumption of food and > nutrients. MALNUTRITION is a broad term indicating an impairment to > physical and/or mental health resulting from failure to meet nutrient > requirements. > > The major findings of *Hunger in America* are: > > --Hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation. > Available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 (one out of > twelve Americans) may be hungry at least some period of time each > month. See below for detailed explanation of how this figure was > determined. It was supported by extensive and thorough field > research. > --Hunger in America is getting worse, not better. > --Malnutrition and ill-health are associated with hunger. > --Hunger is the result of federal government policies (i.e., of bad > policies). > --Present policies (1985) are not alleviating hunger in America. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes An excellent article! I would just like to confirm this article with unscientific and unrepresentative personal evidence. My wife is studying to be a nurse and had to do some interning in a hospital in Newark. Many of the patients there have severe health problems which have been greatly exacerbated by poor nutrition. Of particular concern to our future is the number of mothers with inadequate nutrition and prenatal care before giving birth. Many studies have shown that poor nutrition in early childhood can be permanently disabling. Poor nutrition in early childhood retards proper brain development - once this development is retarded it can not be corrected. This means that these children may never be able to acquire the skills needed in our highly technological society because their brain development has been permanently harmed by poor nutrition. This is what I find particularly galling about Reagan's cuts in school meal programs - I don't care if we subsidize the middle class kids as well if we can help insure that a generation will get the nutrition needed for education and later jobs. "Let'em eat bullets!" Nancy Reagan, 1984 tim sevener whuxn!orb
matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews) (02/19/86)
For all the studies that conclude there are hungry people in the United States, none give convincing recommendations for new policies. The study cited by Carnes claims that 15 million below-poverty-level citizens are hungry, but *all* of them are eligible for food stamps (by definition) and food stamps are, in theory, enough to sustain a healthy diet. Furthermore, anyone earning up to 130% of the poverty level can receive food stamps -- despite the fact that (by the definition of the poverty level) they should be able to feed themselves already. Spending on food stamps has been *increased* every year of the Reagan administration -- and yet the problem of hunger is consistently blamed on federal policies. Is there a problem with our definitions of poverty, or the size of food stamp allotments, or could it be that a government policy that makes it *possible* for every citizen to get proper nutrition will not necessarily yield that result? Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/19/86)
Carnes defines "hunger" as "inadequate nutrition" and then writes: > It is notable that while hunger is widespread in the wealthy > US, it has been nearly eliminated in Cuba (or so I have read in a > reliable source). This should provide food for thought to all but > those netters whose minds are rusted shut. Interesting. I spent my early years in Poland, so I may have something to add to those "reliable sources". In the course of his postdoc in the US, my father was impressed with the importance of adequate nutrition for recovery from illness and trauma. On his return he was appointed medical director of a major hospital in Warsaw. Unfortunately, the ingredients of an adequate diet were not to be found in Poland except at very high prices on the black market, and even that source was not always reliable. Because of its location in Warsaw, a high proportion of patients in the hospital were members of "the New Class", and so my father was able to establish a special farm which produced meat, milk, and vegetables for the patients. Elsewhere in Poland it was unheard of even for hospital patients, much less ordinary people, to have what in the US would be considered an adequate diet. The hospital farm still stands, surrounded by an electrified fence and patrolled by armed guards. The only other institution in Poland with such "special farms" is ORBIS, the state agency providing food and lodging to visiting "reliable sources". Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
At last I'm an expert. Ever been to Newark, Tim? I lived there and in immdeiately surrounding towns for 99% of my life. Newark is not typical in any way of the US. It used to be quite a nice place to live. Not so anymore. Why? It is debateable. However it is not debateable that Newark is highly atypical. I know people who live in Livingston, NJ. (Fairly ritzy if you're not familiar with NJ towns). They could give a lot of equally meaningless personal reports. The flaw with the report (as presented here) is that it doesn't try to MEASURE hunger, it just plays with statistics. Especially, it assumes that the total resources available to the "hungry" are defined by the input described. This is untrue. Now for my meaningless personal report. I know a person who is totally dependent on government aid for her support, no children, and who runs out of food stamps early sometimes. I'm not sympathetic. Why? Am I just a cruel Reaganite? No, I'm a compassionate Reaganite, like most of us, but I know what she does with her money. Largely it is wasted on consumer goods. She exhibits no frugality and as such I think that her problems are mostly her fault. If there were kids, I'd try to help them, kids aren't responsible for the idiocy of their parents. Unfortunately, to do that it would be necessary to get the kids out of her control. (in the hypothetical case, since as I've said, she doesn't have any). Well, I guess that proves that all social spending is wasted, right Tim? Guy