Hunger spreading in USA

I've been a huge fan of Bill Moyers for years.  I recently read the following interview regarding the challenges associated with hunger in America today.  

Going to Bed Hungry

April 5, 2013

by Theresa Riley

The United States is the world’s wealthiest nation, yet we still have families and children who don’t have enough to eat. We caught up with Joel Berg of NYC’s Coalition Against Hunger to learn what it means to be food insecure and what we can do to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry.

Theresa Riley: What does it mean to be “food insecure”? How many American children now live in “food insecure” households?

Joel Berg

Joel Berg: Food insecure means families don’t have enough money to regularly obtain all the food they need. It means they are rationing food and skipping meals. It means parents are going without food to feed their children. It means kids are missing breakfasts. And, ironically, because healthy food is usually more expensive than junk food, and because healthier options often don’t even exist in low-income neighborhoods, it means that food insecurity and obesity are flip sides of the same malnutrition coin, so food insecurity may actually increase a family’s chance of facing obesity and diabetes. Fifty million Americans, including nearly 17 million children, now live in food insecure homes.

Read the entire interview here. 

A "food desert"

Watch for CitySquare Board Member, Dr. Mark DeHaven in this informative and concerning report on access to healthy food in South Dallas.

The path to ending poverty. . .

Pictured below is the new sign identifying our new Opportunity Center site at the south east corner of I-30 and Malcolm X Boulevard in South Dallas/Fair Park! The two-sided sign announces our arrival!

[By the way:  check out the great, new company that Janet Morrison is creating at Believography.  Thanks to Janet for the photo!]

Deep cuts in food programs harmful, unnecessary

Our ongoing national budget crisis jeopardizes the health, nutrition and overall well-being of the poorest and weakest Americans.  As Congress considers, debates and proposes various plans to slash spending, it appears that more and more life-sustaining options will be taken from the poor. 

Furthermore, a common notion (read just here "myth") is that private non-profits, churches and other NGOs will be able to "pick up the slack" or close the gap in providing needed benefits and services.  Of course, anyone who works in the sector and understands the magnitude of the problems facing poor folks also knows that such a suggestion is simply not feasible.  While non-profit groups have a role to play, often in administering public funds via grants and/or contracts, they can't be expected to manage the problems created by massive cutbacks.  The scale of the need and the challenges facing our low-income neighbors are simply too large to effectively address without adequate, realistic public funding.  

A factor few people bent on budget cuts often overlook is the high return on investment achieved by the strategic use of public benefits to help lift people from poverty.  Each dollar spent to help improve the lives of low-income persons and families is immediately injected into our economy.  Poor people don't leave their funds unspent on any sideline! 

In addition, effective programs for the poor prevent costly problems down the road.  For example, funds invested in infant and childhood nutrition reduce health care costs later in life among this population.  

As the following report makes clear, our times call for thoughtful leaders, not knee jerk reactions.  These tough times for so many also call for fairness and equity in policy matters.  Let me know what you think after you've read the report. 

Bait and Switch


Congress Chooses One Week’s Worth of Tax Cuts for Millionaires over Nutrition Assistance for Families that Need It

By Melissa Boteach, Seth Hanlon
June 2, 2011

If House Republicans get their way in the federal budget for fiscal year 2012 beginning in October, nearly 500,000 women, infants, and children could be deprived of basic nutritional assistance. Though Republican leaders justify this decision on the grounds that budget deficits require "shared sacrifice," the tax cuts they recently fought to extend will give away more money to America’s 300,000 millionaires this week than it will cost to adequately fund nutrition programs for all of next year.

That’s the story and the math behind the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee decision to slash the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, by $833 million in FY 2012. WIC provides nutritious foods to low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies, and children under 5 who have been identified as nutritionally at risk. The program has done this successfully for nearly 40 years at a relatively modest cost to the federal government, which is why the program has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

The bill approved this week by Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee upends that bipartisan commitment, imposing deep and harmful cuts to WIC and denying assistance to 325,000 to 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children. In fact, not content with cutting WIC, the House Republicans also placed on the chopping block the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which delivers nutritionally appropriate meals to low-income, often homebound seniors. Tens of thousands of vulnerable seniors would lose access to these meals if these cuts totaling $38 million are ultimately signed into law.

Conservatives often claim that private charities and faith-based organizations will simply pick up the slack. Yet the funding bill for agriculture and nutrition programs also slashes the very funding that supports emergency food bank networks, through both food commodities and storage and distribution. The bill cuts $63 million from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, a decision that would significantly impede the ability of private food banks, shelters, and pantries to meet the rising need.

All told, the bill cuts $934 million out of these three federal nutrition programs. House Republicans say that given our nation’s fiscal challenges, these draconian cuts are unavoidable. Indeed, when announcing the cuts to nutrition services, Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston patted himself on the back for “making some of the tough choices necessary to right the ship.”

But slashing federal nutrition assistance won’t right the ship. It would steer us in the wrong direction. The WIC program represents about two-tenths of 1 percent of the federal budget. Even if one disregards the negative consequences on family budgets and the overall economy, the proposed cuts would reduce this year’s federal deficit by less than one-tenth of a percent.

In all likelihood, these cuts would leave the country and the federal budget in worse shape. Investing in the nutrition of pregnant women, infants, and young children is often credited with saving federal dollars in the short term and long run. By ensuring vulnerable children have access to adequate nutrition, WIC often prevents more costly health problems down the line and improves children’s school performance. According to researchers at Children’s HealthWatch, children’s brain size more than doubles in their first year of life when they are provided with appropriate nutrition. By ensuring moms and new babies have the nutritional supports they need to thrive during this critical time, WIC decreases the risk of developmental delays and promotes school readiness.

The program’s biggest cost-savings, however, often come before the child has even turned 1 year old. Economists estimate that every $1 invested in WIC saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs in the first 60 days after an infant’s birth by reducing the instance of low-birth-weight babies and improving child immunization rates. In fact, it is estimated that the program has saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth.

Read the entire report here.

FOX News: School lunch programs impact poverty

School Lunch Programs Might Break Poverty Cycle
Published November 24, 2010

Teens who live in households where food is scarce suffer academically, but a new study has found that government programs to provide meals in schools can reverse this effect.

According to the researchers, the findings suggest that school programs aimed at reducing so-called food insecurity can break an insidious cycle of poverty: poor children go hungry, get bad grades, don't go on to college and fail to rise out of their socioeconomic status -- raising children whose lives follow the same unfortunate narrative.

"Food insecurity is more problematic in the long term if it occurs prior to adolescence, but it doesn't mean that adolescents are more resilient than younger children," said study leader Christelle Roustit, of the Research Group on the Social Determinants of Health and Healthcare, in Paris, France. The researchers reported their findings in the medical journal Pediatrics.

The severe recession has taken a toll on food security. In the United States, a recent report by the Department of Agriculture found that nearly 15% of American households faced food insecurity at some point in 2009, the highest level since officials began tracking the measure in 1995.

Food insecurity in childhood is thought to undercut scholastic achievement in at least two ways. It deprives the body of nutrients necessary for proper mental and physical development, and it creates an atmosphere of stress and uncertainty that saps a kid's desire to attend school and to perform well.

In the new study, Roustit and her colleagues analyzed questionnaires given to 2,346 public high school students in Quebec, Canada, along with nearly 2,000 of their parents. The surveys asked about issues of school performance and socioeconomic status and included several questions addressing food security at home. These included whether a lack of money prevented the family from eating enough, or from buying a sufficient variety of foods.

Just over 11 percent of teens in the study experienced food insecurity at home, according to the researchers. Of those, two-thirds attended schools that offered free or low-cost breakfast, lunch or snacks, allowing the researchers to look for an effect of the meals program on academic performance.

The study revealed that food insecurity was strongly associated with problems in school. However, children with food insecurity at home performed significantly better academically if their school offered meal assistance. They were much less likely to be held back a year, to score badly in language testing or to rate their overall academic performance as poor.

Although the data come from the 1990s, Roustit said a new survey of Quebec adolescents is now in progress. "We would be able to compare the results of 1999 to 2009 in few years," she said.

Nicola Edwards, a dietician and food policy expert at California Food Policy Advocates, an Oakland-based nonprofit, said the results of the study are unsurprising.

If children are hungry they cannot learn, Edwards said. "There is a direct correlation between food insecurity and academic performance," she said.

In the United States, teachers and school administrators report that children who take advantage of food assistance programs in schools have improved behavior, fewer absences and better test scores, Edwards added.

Under the federal Child Nutrition Act, more than 31 million American school children receive free or inexpensive lunches through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level ($28,665 for a family of four) are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level ($40,793 for a family of four) are eligible to receive lunch for a cost of no more than 40 cents.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National School Lunch Program cost $9.8 billion in 2009. A study of this program that was published earlier this year supports the Canadian findings. Dr. Peter Hinrichs at Georgetown University in Washington DC reported in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management that for children who participate in the National School Lunch Program, "the effects on educational attainment are sizable."

[Visit the FOX site here.]

Texas kids: hungry and obese

Recent reports indicate that far too many Texas children battle the twin, and seemingly paradoxical challenges of hunger ("food insecurity") and obesity. 

How can this be? 

Here's a report news report from  Austin, Texas.

Garcia: Texas children sandwiched between hunger and obesity

Eileen Garcia, Local Contributor
Tuesday, July 13, 2010


Two recent reports relayed bad and seemingly paradoxical news for Texas children. According to the latest research, our Texas kids, more than almost any in the country, face threats from both hunger and obesity.

Nearly one out of four Texas children is "food insecure," meaning they might not know where their next meal will come from, says a July 1 report from Feeding America, which ranked Texas 49th in the country for providing reliable food access for children under 18. The same week, however, the Trust for America's Health announced Texas children suffer disproportionately from obesity. More than 20 percent of kids here are obese, and Texas had the seventh-highest child obesity ranking.

Underlying these statistics is a sad reality: Too many children get poorly nourished because their environment—at school, in the neighborhood and their community—proves inhospitable to healthy eating. Four factors help explain why.

To read on, click here.

We've got to focus and find ways to do better.  What do you think?