anybody who says 'food insecurity' instead of 'hunger' should be

[donsu]

kicked in the shins repeatedly

[billbuckhead]

1. Can there be "reverse political correctness"

[KingFlorez]

2. I agree

You can't make a bad thing sound better by using different words.

[acmavm]

3. I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree.

[pooja]

4. You saw that... We are eliminating hunger because, you know,

its unAmerican to say anyone is suffering in America... So, we'll add our doublespeak and all is better in America.. Its just insecurity. No problems here, keep shopping, don't worry you only have food insecurity after tomorrow...
:sarcasm:

[wryter2000]

6. As you say "just insecurity"

Makes the hungry person sound neurotic. I think Bush ought to be deprived of food for about a week and see how insecure it makes him feel.

[sweetheart]

5. let them eat asparagus

:-)

[wryter2000]

7. Or good Christian morels. n/t

n/t

[sarge43]

8. Or a heaping bowl full of screwns. n/t

[Annces]

9. or how about socioeconomic factors instead of poor

That one is for people that want to skate over the bare truth too.

[tanyev]

10. Maybe they should have a nice, long, "robust interrogation" session.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Nope. Just people who think it's an excuse to downplay hunger.

There is nothing new or inaccurate about the term 'food insecurity.' The only problem with it is when someone tries to use it to deny that hunger exists. Hunger is the most extreme form of food insecurity. We have a problem with hunger in this country and a bigger problem with people being unable to afford enough decent, nutritious food. Eleven percent of households reported food insecurity in 2005, but only about a quarter of them had very low food insecurity, the term that replaced "low food security, with hunger."

If you can afford to eat only enough Ramen noodles to stave off hunger, you're still food insecure. You're not hungry. You are malnourished. It's terrible that 4% of American households were so food insecure that they may have been hungry, but there are another 7% of households who were food insecure.

The way that recent press coverage is presenting the concept of food insecurity, too many have fallen into the trap of thinking food insecure is just a euphemism for hungry.

[Fridays Child]

12. What heartless bastard came up with that phrase, anyway?

[Hand]

13. Further up and toward the center is a better target, IMHO. nt

[dazzlerazzle]

14. insecurity

My daughter and her husband have "utilities payment" insecurity and they work three jobs between them!

[eyesroll]

15. I don't mind it in scientific or research documents.

"Hunger" is an emotionally laden word. Plus, it's ambiguous. Some people hear "hunger" and think it's about rumbling stomachs and whining kids who have to wait for their snack. Some think of the poor sunken-eyed children in Ethiopia. What experts are talking about is probably somewhere in between -- but what does that mean? If I can meet my kids' caloric needs but not my own, they're not "hungry" but I am...but my whole household is "food insecure."

"Food insecurity" is what they're actually measuring -- do you have affordable and feasible access to sufficient food today? Will you have access to food tomorrow? Many more people are "food insecure" than are truly chronically "hungry," so in a way that's a good thing.

But, yeah -- when they're talking about it in public, "food insecurity" is the ambiguous term, it's cold, it doesn't mean anything to most people... and some emotionally laden language, when talking to the public, can be a good thing.