Senator Boxer has issued a statement about an odd change in US policy. Sorry I don’t have a link as this was sent to me directly:

The Department of Agriculture recently announced that it would remove the word “hunger� from reports on the nation’s food supply. Instead, it announced that it would use “low food security� or “very low food security� in its reports. I have written to Secretary of Agriculture Michael Johanns to express my displeasure over this change.

Officials at the Department of Agriculture report that the change in labels was not a plot to try to disguise or mask hunger in America. Instead, they claim that “hungerâ€? is too amorphous a phrase to describe, in their terms, ”a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation.”

Although I have monitored the politics of food-aid and security for many years, I have to say it is not clear to me why a term like “hunger” suddenly would be seen as vague compared to “low food security”. Strange. Was someone offended to hear that people in America go “hungry”? Senator Boxer puts it this way:

I believe that most Americans are acutely aware of the meaning of “hunger,� especially when used in official reports meant to describe peoples’ access to the food supply.

Exactly, so perhaps that’s why they changed it? Now politicians can say “this report shows no one in America ever goes hungry“, even though the numbers might show 35 million people still experience “low food security” issues.

I’d write more, but you’ll have to excuse me as I’m experiencing a high bladder security issue…probably a result of my low food countermeasures.