Hungry in the U.S.A.

The Department of Agriculture reported last week that the number of Americans lacking access to sufficient food reached 49 million last year.

The figure is the highest since the DOA began tracking what it calls "food insecurity," according to the New York Times.  The DOA's definition of the term includes skipping meals, cutting portions or relying on government aid, food pantries and soup kitchens to acquire adequate food.

The report said there are more than half a million households with children that face "very low food security," including more than one-third of households headed by single mothers with children.  The most serious cases of hunger or risk of hunger were found in the South.

The Times also reported some controversy over the term "food insecurity," with several conservatives arguing the phrase is a result of a political and academic approach to measuring hunger in the U.S., and doesn't necessarily reflect actual incidences.

"Very few of these people are hungry," said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.  "When they lose jobs, they constrain the kind of food they buy.  That is regrettable, but it's a far cry from a hunger crisis."

In response, the Food and Research Action Center issued a statement saying, "Many people are outright hungry, skipping meals.  Others say they have enough to eat but only because they're going to food pantries or using food stamps.  We describe this as 'households struggling with hunger.'"

"These numbers are a wake-up call for the country," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Indeed.  However we define hunger, whatever euphemism we use to describe it, and whatever platform the political pundits choose to make of it, this is a condition that should not exist in the United States of America.  Period.