Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html</a> Ok, in fairness, Bush didn't write the report. But his agricultural department did, and for the first time ever, in its report on Americans' access to food, it removed the word "hunger" to describe those who go hungry, and replaced it with very low food security. Wow.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think this use of the word security to define more than border protection or home defense is actually a good use of it. If you think about the effects of a lack of economic security on a family or a community or nation, you'll see that it's just as much of a problem as crime or terrorism. It affects productivity and stability. Hunger sounds like an insurmountable problem, but low food security sounds like something that can be fixed. And, in this country at least, it can be. Security is tied to need.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy It still sounds silly to me...but maybe that's cause it's used in this sense like a "Bushism".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It does sound silly, but I think someone at the USDA is using the right terminology. Hunger comes when a person that doesn't have a secure food supply. It kinda shifts how you look at the problem when you think of it that way.
Originally Posted By ecdc I get your point Tom, and it's a good one. But "food security" is brimming with bureaucracy while hunger sounds very real and human. We've all been hungry; we can relate to it. Calling it "food security" depersonalizes those who suffer from it.
Originally Posted By GrandmaNancyO i dont feel that secure anymore this time because our president is making the big problems in the Iraq country. we need to get our soldiers back home now to this united states.
