Half of US children on Food Stamps

[SamIam]

CHICAGO – Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/...en_food_stamps

I had no idea that things were so bad. I am especially astonished at the number of black children. The article goes on to say:

The analysis was released Monday in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The authors say it's a medical issue pediatricians need to be aware of because children on food stamps are at risk for malnutrition and other ills linked with poverty.

I can understand that malnutrition might be a concern for those living in poverty without food stamps, but WITH food stamps? WTF?

Either the food stamp program does not go far enough or people who are on food stamps use them to buy soft drinks and chips. The article does not explain this.

[Shawnee123]

That must be one BIG-ASS stamp...how'd they fit all those children on it? Were they allowed to move around? Were there snacks?

Ba DUM dum...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by SamIam

...I can understand that malnutrition might be a concern for those living in poverty without food stamps, but WITH food stamps? WTF?
...

Think about it. How much nutrition can paper, ink, and glue have?

[Shawnee123]

Or maybe it's like a Commemorative Food Stamp Series, with pics of all the poor kids on them.

omg I'm going to hell. First, though, I'm going home.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

[Cloud]

lik 'em stick 'em. I call BS

[Shawnee123]

Next thing you know they'll be on trading stamps. Kids'll be ordering lamps and cameras and percolators.

[Shawnee123]

The statistics in that article, I don't know. I think Cloud's bs-ometer might be right.

The article states:

Rank and Cornell University sociologist Thomas Hirschl studied data from a nationally representative survey of 4,800 American households interviewed annually from 1968 through 1997 by the University of Michigan. About 18,000 adults and children were involved.

Then it goes on to say:

Overall, about 49 percent of all children were on food stamps at some point by the age of 20, the analysis found. That includes 90 percent of black children and 37 percent of whites. The analysis didn't include other ethnic groups.

Well, then it was hardly representative, was it? Was it ALL children or not?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Well, then it was hardly representative, was it? Was it ALL children or not?

it didn't say the SURVEY didn't include other ethnic groups... only that the ANALYSIS didn't.

[Shawnee123]

And, based on that "analysis" they concluded that 49 percent of ALL children were on food stamps at some point by the age of 20.

Flawed study, or bad reporting?

[jinx]

I'm gonna go with Shaw on this one.... she is the analest you know....

[ZenGum]

Notice also that it says "on food stamps at some time before they are 20". That might be just once, for a month or two, although some might be on for longer. So it could end up that only 2 or 3% are on food stamps at any given time.
Which makes me think this study is being presented to show the highest figure possible without actual fraud. Surely it would be possible -and easier, and more accurate - to collate the data from the food stamp issuers (social security?) and compare the number of under-20s on food stamps with the number of under-20s according to the census. Done.
The survey is actually answering a different question, about whether someone is ever on food stamps, and that is still a worthwhile question.

So, the thread title "Half of US children on Food Stamps" is easily misread.
It might be (mis)read as :Half of US Children ARE on Food Stamps", and in fact this reading is quite natural. But what the study shows is that "Half of US Children HAVE BEEN, ARE OR WILL BE AT SOME TIME on Food Stamps."

Sneaky headline writers twisting stories by skimping on the grammar.

[SamIam]

Well, one thing - they don't have actual food stamps anymore. You get a card.

This story does seem like it was written in order to fit someone's political agenda. I still don't get the malnourished part. Half of all US children were at one time malnourished? Huh?

[Undertoad]

This also falls under the category of using history (up to 1997!) to predict the future. If there is economic growth, and there has been up until last year, the future won't reflect the past.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If they go to school in Philly, they get a free breakfast, everyone does.

[tw]

Originally Posted by SamIam

I can understand that malnutrition might be a concern for those living in poverty without food stamps, but WITH food stamps? WTF?

Malnutrition and obesity are synonymous - not antonyms. Yes, you were addressing the problem with junk food. Because junk food is so much cheaper, many buy that. Then, because the food has so little nutrition, the body gets hungry quickly. So they need more junk food.

Learned this from wrestling. Diets that restrict food do not work. How did we cut 20% of our body weight? Limit the diet only to nutritious foods.

Appreciate the concept. A large carrot is nutritious - 100% of the required vitamin A. Is that second carrot nutritious? No. Of course not. The first carrot provided all of today's vitamin A requirements. A second carrot was only sugar - junk food. A concept that so many do not understand when only using sound byte reasoning.

Using the same soundbyte reasoning, many do not understand how obesity and malnutrition share a common origin. The food being consumed has too little nutrition per calorie.