0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In 2013, 14.3 percent of households (17.5 million households, approximately one in seven), were food insecure (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 1). This is down slightly from 14.9 percent food insecure in 2008 and 2009 which was the highest number recorded since these statistics have been kept (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p.1 ). In 2013, 5.6 percent of U.S. households (6.8 million households) had very low food security. In this more severe range of food insecurity, the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p.1) . Children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.9 percent of households with children. These 3.8 million households were unable at times during the year to provide adequate, nutritious food for their children While children are usually shielded by their parents, who go hungry themselves, from the disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake that characterize very low food security, both children and adults experienced instances of very low food security in 0.9 percent of households with children (360,000 households) in 2013 (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2). The median [a type of average] food-secure household spent 30 percent more on food than the median food-insecure household of the same size and household composition including food purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly the Food Stamp Program) (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2). Rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the Federal poverty line, households with children headed by single women or single men, and Black and Hispanic households (Coleman-Jensen 2014b, p. 2). Background: The United States changed the name of its definitions in 2006 that eliminated references to hunger, keeping various categories of food insecurity. This did not represent a change in what was measured. Very low food insecurity (described as food insecurity with hunger prior to 2006) means that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for food. This means that people were hungry (in the sense of "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food" [Oxford English Dictionary 1971] for days each year.
I clearly recall Bush # 1 saying that he would have to think about what to do. The next day Margaret Thatcher came and had lunch with him.
The Australian Broadcasting Company's "The Science Program" has no such forum. Therefore fatuous Australian gas bags cannot embarrass Australia in one.
I know the ABC is concerned about it. Their "Future Tense" podcast describes moderating comments on public forums as a http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/online-comments---a-22wicked22-problem/6564910 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register].
Oh no, not him again under a sock puppet account.
This forum gives me the freedom of speech in new theories, they do not threaten to ban me for opinions, they are the best forum on the internet of a science nature.
I looked on the web site for that British food bank. They tell of people having to beg a tin of soup from the neighbors so they could feed their 18 month old kid.
The Feeding America nationwide network of food banks secures and distributes more than 3 billion meals each year to communities throughout the United States
...."Waiting for Godo." (This being a play, in explanation for those ignorant of the fact)...
Lol, Colin. Actually I ran asunder with that one elsewhere, whereas someone thought I was saying "waiting for god" which then led to a very strange conversation, and one that I wouldn't want to repeat. So in case anyone was thinking of getting into it, the answer is "no comment"!
Immediately following the invasion of Kuwait, I clearly recall Bush # 1 saying that he would have to think about what to do. The next day Margaret Thatcher came and had lunch with him.Bush # 1 came out of that Thatcher Lunch calling for immediate mobilization to "save" the house of Saud from "the Iraqi threat".That Thatcher "lunch" engendered the bodies leaping from the world trade center flames , 57,614 American dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, untold innocent civilian casualties and trillions of dollars wasted. All because Margaret Thatcher got America to fight Britain's war for it.True or not, that is what springs to the American mind when an insolent twit says in this forum. "God help America."I say again. Is that good for Britain? Do you really need to show the raddled face beneath Britain's mask like this with your government money?I looked on the web site for that British food bank. They tell of people having to beg a tin of soup from the neighbors so they could feed their 18 month old kid. Does this forum need to beg in the streets?I say again, Is this what you want to buy here -- a bully pulpit for this too common kind of insufferably insulting British jingoism?What right do I have to come here and tell you this? The blood of 57,614 Americans - in this century alone - has paid for it.Careful with yer soup there, I wouldn't want you to burn your tongue.