Food insecurity, updated
Reuter’s article is particularly galling when one’s viewing the horror of the Indian Ocean disaster. Jane Galt (via Instapundit) looks at the Reuter’s numbers:
This number makes no sense.
It makes no sense because 33 million people is more than 10% of the US population. Yet only 12.5% of the US population is below the poverty line, even with the recession-driven spike of recent years.
It especially makes no sense because those living below the poverty line have much higher incidence of obesity than those living above it. Either the remaining 2.4% of the population that is poor but isn’t “food insecure” (the USDA figure they’re using) is really whomping the hell out of those averages, or a lot of people who don’t know where their next meal is coming from are managing to run into it anyway.
Jane’s comment section quicly got filled up with discussions on which is cheaper, McDonald’s or home cooking. It seems to me that discussing the pros and cons of eating out or eating at home is a good enough commentary on the availability of food in this country. Thomas Sowell, for instance, who has studied the subject in depth, has said,
Senator Edwards has already shown the same blithe disregard for facts as a politician that he showed as a lawyer. He has used the old liberal claim of “hunger in America” during this year’s primary campaign, even though studies show no such thing — and in fact show obesity to be more common in the lower income brackets.
“Hunger in America” claims were once big stuff in the media but hard facts have long since shot down this contrived alarm. John Edwards must know that “hunger in America” claims are bunk, but he obviously doesn’t care
Or, as Dinesh D’Souza put it,
Finally I asked him, “Why are you so eager to come to America?” He replied, “Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”
If you really want to know about poverty in America, contact The Salvation Army (which I did recently), and don’t bother relying on Reuters.
Update: Speaking of Reuters . . .
