Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Chicagoland / Food Chain / Food & Drink / Clout City / News In Cook County, one in six is "food insecure"
Posted by Deanna Isaacs on 11.23.11 at 05:00 PM
Here's a statistic Mayor Emanuel probably won't cite when he's promoting Chicago: according to his announcement today of a "One City, One Food Drive" campaign, "one in six Cook County residents is food insecure, or uncertain of where their next meal will come from."
The mayor's source is the Greater Chicago Food Depository. GCFD's definition of food insecurity takes into account the quality of food available. They also do some extrapolation, using variables like unemployment to arrive at an estimate. They've mapped the problem, so you can check out how many of your neighbors they think are going hungry. "One City, One Food Drive" runs through December 16—Chicagoans are encouraged to give a dollar, a can of food, or "an hour of time to hunger-relief programs." A collection barrel is coming soon, to a location near you, along with a pro bono "Do It for Chicago" ad campaign.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Uncertain of where their next meal will come from? I hope this one in six statistic didn't come from asking this question on some type of survey. I'm uncertain of where my next meal will come from. I haven't decided whether I'm going to eat at home, get takeout, or go out to dinner. And if it is one of the latter two, I don't know where yet. The phraseology, if taken literally, has nothing whatsoever to do with financial hardship. And I think most people who are asked this question would answer it literally.
like
dislike
IAC, consider yourself fortunate that you have the option of deciding whether you will "eat at home, get takeout, or go out to dinner." Enjoy your choice. Some people don't have a choice. And hell yeah it has something to do with financial hardship.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the phraseology used by Emanuel (and perhaps also by The Greater Chicago Food Depository, though I haven't looked that far) makes no sense. I never said anything about hunger or at all suggested that hunger is not a problem. I wasn't even disputing that the statistic about "one in six being food insecure" was even accurate. The point I was making is that people shouldn't be using phrases that are too general to really even be comprehensible in terms of what is being discussed. There is do doubt whatsoever that people being "uncertain where ones next meal is going to come from", taken literally, does not in-it-of-itself indicate food insecurity (or at least may indicate many other things besides food insecurity) or financial hardship. My sense is those words came from Emanuel himself and he wasn't quoting anything directly from a study. If that's the case, then one can really make a case that he should be criticized for (probably unintentionally) minimizing the problem of food insecurity by using language that doesn't illustrate the issue. My post was basically a complaint about Emanuel. I thought that would be something that you would like.
It is rather baffling how in the world you could interpret my comment in any way as minimizing the importance of hunger related issues.
Here is how the USDA defines food security:
" Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum:
-The ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods.
-Assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (that is, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies). http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecur…
That seems to me to be a good measurement. It illustrates whether someone doesn't need to go through the day unsure of whether he or she will be able to have enough full and nutritious meals. That clearly is a much better way of looking at it than whether someone is "unsure of where their next mean will come from". The latter phrase, in my opinion, seems to really minimize the seriousness of the situation that one would find oneself in if they are food insecure. It isn't helpful for people who have never been in that situation (such as me and I suspect you) have it depicted in a soft manner by politicians.
The more I think about it, the more perplexing it is that Emanuel would use that phrase. There is absolutely no indication that it came from the Greater Chicago Food Depository. I looked at their website and everything there seems to be much more careful and specific. Emanuel is such a seasoned politician that it would be very surprising for him to inadvertently let his language get a little too loose. You wonder if maybe he lessened the seriousness of the situation he was talking about because felt that people would be more likely to empathize with something that doesn't sound as severe. Maybe he feels that people would be more likely to avoid thinking about the problem when more desperate sounding language is used and thus not end up giving a donation. I don't think there is much validity to that. And unfortunately, he really did a disservice to the Greater Chicago Food Depository. Since he pairs the language directly with a statistic that comes form them he makes it seem as if they are responsible for the wording. That was my first reaction. I wondered whether the organization had purposely used very broad language in a survey in order to get as high a statistic as possible and make the problem seem more severe. That type of thing is almost always counterproductive. After looking further, it seems clear that is not what happened. But many people will come to that incorrect conclusion from Emanuel's remarks.
The phrase Emanuel used clearly does not make any sense or do justice to the severity of what real food insecurity is. In Jerome Ludwig's bizarre post, he said "IAC, consider yourself fortunate that you have the option of deciding whether you will 'eat at home, get takeout, or go out to dinner.' Enjoy your choice. Some people don't have a choice." That's exactly right. But the problem is that because I had the choice at that point and hadn't decided I would have factually been someone who was "uncertain of where their next meal would come from". So would many incredibly wealthy people. A billionaire could have told their servant to bring them any type of meal for dinner and they didn't care where it came from as long as it was good. That person also would have been uncertain of where their next meal will come form. However, someone with few resources who is struggling with food uncertainty might know exactly what they will have to it, it might be in their home, and know that it is not a full enough or nutritious enough meal. But they have decided that this is all they can afford to eat at the next meal. Literally, that person is certain where their next meal will come from. It does not jibe with the much more relevant definition given by the USDA that I linked to earlier. Food insecurity is not about not knowing the location from which one's next meal will come from. It is not knowing WHETHER they will be able to have a sufficient meal of appropriate size and nutrition (or knowing not). That's a big f---ing difference.
My guess is that Ludwig just skimmed my post, noticed it was negative, and then immediately came to the conclusion that the negativity must be against those suffering from food insecurity. He apparently couldn't be bothered to actually read all seven sentences of it to find out that I was criticizing the phraseology and those using it rather than those being described by it.
