Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
We Can't Do It Without You!  
     
Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives
   
 
   Featured Views  
 

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
 
Hunger in America
Published on Friday, December 10, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Hunger in America
by Anuradha Mittal
 

December 10, 2004 marks the 56th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which established universal standards and aspirations for human dignity. Inspired by the belief that human dignity requires freedom of expression and freedom from poverty and hunger, the UDHR proclaimed the interdependence and indivisibility of civil-political and economic-social human rights. Regrettably, 56 years later, original commitment to human rights interdependence remains in rhetoric only. The U.S. is no different.

Today, as the U.S. integrates the language of "human rights" into international diplomacy and politics, it continues to spurn social and economic human rights guaranteed by the UDHR. The United States faces a hidden epidemic. It is striking Americans of every age group and ethnicity, whether they live in cities or rural areas. And despite the diversity of targets, those suffering in this silent epidemic have two things in common: they are poor or low-income, and they are increasingly going without enough food.

Although politicians talk about "poverty in America", decision-makers avoid specifically mentioning the growing, and often deadly problem of hunger. George McGovern said in 1972, "To admit the existence of hunger in America is to confess that we have failed in meeting the most sensitive and painful of human needs. To admit the existence of widespread hunger is to cast doubt on the efficacy of our whole system." Three decades later, evidence indicates that the existing system is failing a vast number of Americans.

A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition, and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger-from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010- are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans!

Meanwhile, the already burdened food safety-net program which was designed to alleviate hunger and food insecurity is under attack by the threat of reduction of funding and ease of enrollment by policy makers. With food expenses being the most elastic part of a family's budget, as limited funds usually get allocated to fixed payments first, such as rent and utilities, food purchasing has become the most compromised portion of the average family's budget. So far in 2004, 35% of Americans have had to choose between food and rent, while 28% had to choose between medical care and food. While others, forced to stretch their budgets further and further, are buying less expensive but often less nutritious food.

The problem is even worse in low-income neighborhoods and inner city areas which face food redlining. The majority of low income/minority neighborhoods do not have enough supermarkets to serve the entire community effectively. Therefore, these communities generally meet their food needs at smaller, more expensive corner stores, especially at liquor/convenience marts that tend to provide less nutritious foods and very few if any fresh produce. For example, While 3 companies control 57 percent of the huge food retail market in California, West Oakland, with 32,000 residents and a 60 percent unemployment rate has only one supermarket compared to 40 liquor and convenience stores. And the price of food in these stores is almost 30 to 100 percent higher than the price in the grocery store!

The most vulnerable - the children, immigrants, rural families - are worst affected by this epidemic. Despite evidence that hunger causes chronic disease development and impaired psychological and cognitive functioning in children, an estimated 13 million children are living in households that are forced to skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints. The worst affected are children of 6 million of America's undocumented immigrants: on a daily basis they go without such necessities as milk and meat. Tulare County in California, the number two county in the nation for agricultural production, is one of the hungriest and poorest areas of California. Many of the county's towns (Alpaugh, Earlimart, Plainview, Woodville, etc.) host mainly Hispanic farm-laborer families who have come to America for a better life, but have found that their employment to put cheap produce on America's and the world's tables has left them starving amidst the bounty. These families suffer from the worst economic and social injustices as they live in lean-tos made of plastic or cardboard, dilapidated trailers, wood shacks, caves and even parking lots and yet are surrounded by grape fields, orange and peach groves.

While this kind of hunger rarely makes the evening news, it is just as deadly. The challenge before us is to question what is the business case for Bush signing the $400 billion spending bill in August 2004 that will largely go to military efforts in Iraq And Afghanistan and strengthening of missile defense program, while millions starve. The Bush administration has already spent $150 billion on the war in Iraq - three times the original estimate. The United States already accounts for nearly half of the world's military spending. This means that the U.S. spends on defense nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. Military spending increased from $296 billion in 1997 to $397 billion in 2003 and the projected budget of 2005 includes an estimated $1.15 million a day or $11,000 a second on defense spending. Compare that with what is spent on a child/year for anti-hunger or poverty programs.

It is going to be a grim holiday season for millions this year. The UDHR committed our government to provide a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of every one. This included commitments to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age. A widely supported statement at the time, the promises of the declaration today seem outrageous to many in the age of "personal responsibility." At the eve of UDHR's anniversary, it might be useful to ask: What's more outrageous? A broad and sturdy safety net and living wage jobs for all members of our society? Or our children growing up hungry and poor in the richest country on earth?

Anuradha Mittal is the director of the Oakland Institute, a non-partisan think tank utilizing research, analysis and advocacy to promote and ensure public participation and fair debate on critical economic and social policy issues that affect peoples' lives. (www.oaklandinstitute.org)

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
     
 
 

CommonDreams.org
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.
Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives

To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.