The Farce of Food Insecurity: How Federal Spending Fosters Hunger (and illness) in America (A FACS Teacher Explains)

** Update: The Food and Drug Administration is supporting Biden's climate change policy as it approves language that deceptively labels of milk alternatives as real milk.  Certainly people need a variety of foods to remain healthy. but promoting a plant-based diet across the board is both nutritionally unwise but functionally unsustainable.  Maintaining a plant-based diet takes more land, more storage, and more transportation than a protein based one. A plant based diet also increases the likelihood of diabetes and weaked immune systems. It is a great economic growth industry thogh. 

 To put it short and sweet, NO ONE in America should ever go to bed hungry and yet, as the holidays approach, the media sends out emotion laced storie stating that food is scarce in this country and that something needs to be done about it.  Is that the truth or is it a subtle method of persuasion designed to lower residents expectations while increasing tolerance of government inefficiency.  Read  below and make up your own mind.  

 America, The World's Bread Basket

According to Investopedia, the US is one of the four largest food producing countries in the World. Ironically though, how that food is distributed changes it from a necessity of life to an economic growth tool. Sadly, malnutrition and hunger are very much woven into American politics as both parties use food as a weapon against its own people. Not surprisingly, Americans pay high prices and get little food value for their money as a result.

Simply put, government agriculture and trade policies are not designed to FEED people but to FEED the economy and bargain for loyalty around the globe.

Yes America, federal policy laid out by the Food and Drug Administration, US Departments of Agriculture and Commerce and other regulatory agencies choose to foster hunger and poor health in its general population. They do this by taking a hands-off approach with corporate interests such as Nestle, General Mills, PepsiCo, and many others.

Why do both Republicans and Democrats support food production methods which put people at risk for illness and death?  Because it is good for Wall Street and Wall Street is everything in today's global economy.

Food Labeling Shows Declining Food Value

To get a better idea of where Congress puts its priorities, all it takes is a look at food labeling. So complicated to understand, the numbers on a label tell the story.  One does not need to be a registered dietitian to understand low numbers and lots of zeros translate into food that has little quality. In today's market, it would take 10 snack bags of potato chips and you still would not get the sodium and potassium which are needed for good hydration.

Interestingly, the FDA allows countless products with little or no food value to be purchased with food assistance dollars.  One specific example is alternative milk products. California's almond milk is an acceptable food source even though a serving of this high priced milk look-alike is the equivalent of eating three almonds and drinking a glass of salt and vitamin infused water. 

Is that worth 10% more than whole milk with 5 times the calories, 8 times the protein and naturally sourced vitamins and minerals? Economically, sure it is. In terms of feeding the poor, its a scam on every level.

What does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Do?

At this point in time, no one is really sure. What they are supposed to do is ensure safe food products and medicines be delivered throughout the country.  Unfortunately, they seem to be more concerned with punishment after the fact than preventing food safety issues as the baby formula, pet food and drug shortages continue to cause problems for many. Recently, Clorox recalled a cleaner which had been shipped and sold over a year ago. What good does it do to recall a product a year after it has been shipped and sold?

Secondarily, there appears to be no FDA food policy that stops tax dollars from being redirected to companies through products which are colored and flavored water or calories that provide few of the micro nutrients that improve general health, strengthen muscles, or regulate metabolism.  The same, generally, holds true for medications even when their proven efficacy is less than 50% and their list of side effects is dangerously long.

As an instrument of Republican and Democratic administrations, the FDA and USDA willing allow low food value products to flood the market which reduces the buying power of individuals. Claiming to be treating those who live in poverty fairly,funds can be used to buy popular foods even when high quality food products are cheaper.

Supply Chain Problems? Not likely. 

There is an old saying in business--Say it Enough. They'll Believe It.  The truth is that food companies have been shorting the American public on nutrition for decades.  Worse, they are now using the "Supply Chain" myth to alter recipes, reduce the nutritional content of their products and increase profits.  This practice has increased with deregulation and has made commercial foods more susceptible to contaminated and less nutritious overall. 

Add the sound of celebrities and talk show hosts proclaiming that there is a food shortage in this country and it isn't hard to realize they help make misinformation appear as truth.

Where does the REAL food go?

Naively, Americas want to believe in farm to table marketing that supports local agriculture. Commercial agriculture is very different. Actual food distribution in this country is a complicated system of tiers (see below) with the local grocery store being at or near the bottom  Politicians will not mention that they trade food products as if they were gold or silver.  While they ship food produced here to other countries, they import food that ends up on our tables.  Economics is everything, after all.

1. Government Interests: It should be no surprise that government takes its cut at or near the top.  Active and reserve military bases, federal prisons and detention centers and, of course, the exports that are part of the every day wheeling and dealing called "foreign policy" take large quantities of food out of circulation without it ever entering a store.  With little packaging, large recurring orders and quick payment, it is good business to supply these operations first. Unfortunately, it is also susceptible to waste and mismanagement due to strict food safety guidelines which have unused food thrown away.  The FDA is currently recalling record amounts of food of all kinds.
   
2. Non-Food Products:  From cosmetics and vitamin supplements to ethanol and cleaning products. Food is used for many things other than nutrition.  Today's gourmet pet food industry is also a drain on supplies in which there have been massive recalls over the last year or more.
   
3. Commercial Operations:  This group includes any type of food prepared outside of the home.  Hospitals, residential facilities such as dormitories, school lunch programs(not actually a federally run program), convenience stores, vending machines, restaurants and catering businesses get the next cut of the pie (no pun intended). As restaurant owners explained at the beginning of the pandemic, these kitchens purchase bulk sized containers.  Good managers can keep waste to a minimum but because serving size is predetermined customers may simply not need or want as much food as is served.  In most cases, these chefs have access to whole foods and do not get the watered down versions which are found in many grocery outlets. 
4. Value Added Foods:  There is one last attempt to turn an abundance of basic food into something pricey and that is called "Value-Added Products."  These products include the rotisserie chicken and sliced meats at the deli counter, servings such as juice boxes or individual containers and already molded hamburgers or specialty seasoned meats. Then you have quick fix boxed dinners like Hamburger helper and microwave pouches for steamed vegetable.   Any change from a food's original form is considered better and therefore more expensive.  For example, the rotisserie chicken that you pay $8.99 for is a 2 to 3 pound, mostly bone, bird that costs the store a dollar and a half.  The nutrition is the same but the size is a third of what an uncooked bird with a similar price would be.
   
5. Local Grocery Outlets:  After all these other groups buy what they want, then food producers take whats left and package it for the most profit. Cheese that is cheese food.  Juices that are juice drinks.  Milk that is from a plant based mixture and meat that has been canned or breaded and fried.  Even more interesting is the number of imported foods that are found in the produce section or the meat section.  Besides foods which are largely devoid of anything but calories, the cost of these available products has gone up because of a scarcity result from preferential service to the federal government. 

**Recently, McKee Foods informed the US military that it would no longer supply products to military facilities. Its reasoning appears to be a conscious choice to supply the public rather than accommodate the large volume order required for government contracts.

Implications for Health

 As the World learned during the Covid-19 pandemic, not even the greatest healthcare system can fend off a virus when good nutrition is lacking. For fifty years, educated populations believed that healthcare was more important than nutrition. Now many are dependent on vitamin supplements and medications to maintain the illusion of health.  Still, the federal government skims the best off the top and fails to regulate what foods are marketed to children and the elderly. Sadly, a look at food labels quickly shows  that a fast food hamburger offers more balanced food value than a boxed mac and cheese with organic pasta prepared at home. 

The Un-Democratic Nature of US Political Reporting

On January 20, 2021, Joseph Robinette Biden took the oath of office for the Presidency of the United States and in that moment became indirectly responsible for 330 million Americans regardless of who they voted for.  Like every President before him, he swore to uphold the law and protect all Americans. The question he likely asks himself now is How do I protect democracy from the very industry that has turned it into a mash up of polling points, societal  trends, and party loyalty? 

Today's media (social, advertising, print, radio, and television) needs to be "schooled" in what democracy is and how democracy works. Here are a few things they might have missed in their Civics class. 

What is Democracy?

First off, democracy is not about the individual but about a nation that chooses to live under one set of rules for the benefit of everyone. Presidential approval ratings are selfish reminders of what has divided this country. It is not whether people like Biden but whether they see improvement at the end of his four-year term. Shows like The View , Meet the Press and other opinion based talk shows encourage viewers to take a short term, me-me-me view of political problems that cannot be fixed with simple legislation.  Today's media should educate and explain while leaving personal preferences to what takes place in the voting booth.

Next, democracy is not about voting rights or filibusters but about how many people are on the the ballot. Coming from a monarchy, the founding fathers thought having any choice was a luxury. What good does it do to register more voters and make voting easier when there is only one name on the ballot?  No one is reminding Bernie Sanders that he pledged to start a grass roots organization dedicated to preparing candidates to take on the role of elected officials. The Obamas are not working to educate younger voters about how to evaluate candidates. Both parties sow party loyalty based on hot-button topics and push a leftover agenda from past administrations. As if time is stuck in some strange moment that long ago ceased to exist, Congress attacks problems with the same solutions that have been used for over 200 years. Not learning from the past, today's media worships the well meaning but untrained and clueless candidate. These overnight breakout successes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamala Harris and yes, Donald Trump, are better news stories than seasoned professionals that have worked their way up from local government.  What message does that send to voters, and is it really all that surprising that these STARS of the campaign trail fail to do anything more than make headlines? How does it feel to gaslight the public with a constant diet of celebrity-style hype and soft-ball questions?

Finally, democracy is not a popularity contest but about making informed choices without fear, peer pressure or manipulation.  Contrary to VP Harris's take on this country's standing as a free society, our simplistic form of government pales in comparison to some democracies.  While our government declares a winner and sets up a combative environment which rarely achieves much, other countries open the ballot to multiple parties and require the majority party to come to a consensus BEFORE the election is certified. Failure to do so nullifies the election and it begins again. As mass media focuses on the best news story and the most supportive advertisers, they fail to grasp how they warp the voting process in a way that is far more dangerous than requiring a picture ID or limiting voting hours. Their focus on an ever changing future robs the public of the present by distracting them from what is important in the here and now. That isn't democracy. That's propaganda. 

A Bit of History

President Biden is not the only president to be concerned about the integrity of the American election process.  

In March of 2001, just three months after Al Gore lost his final 2000 election challenge, former President Jimmy Carter received the first Jonathan Myrick Daniels '61 Humanitarian Award, at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington VA.  

For a small town reporter, this was a once-in-a-lifetime event.  As Carter explained his work establishing democratic governments around the world, he made a simple but blunt statement about the condition of American elections.  Whether it was part of his acceptance speech or the questions he answered following the ceremony, I do not remember but he very clearly stated his organization would not take on the American political process because it failed to meet the high standards that his group had for democratic leadership. It was such an unexpected and confusing comment that many compared notes before reporting it to readers.  I have no way of knowing if he changed his assessment of this situation or not.

Twenty years and five national elections later, the United States has failed to make any meaningful changes in the political process-- a process that benefits the few and subjugates  the many. Carter, in being a single term president, knew, all too well, the role that television and political reporting had in putting a Hollywood actor named Ronald Reagan in the White House. The same frenetic focus on poise and photo-ops overshadows today's political reporting. Carter brought peace to a region of the World, even for just a short time. Reagan took a global energy crisis and inflation and turned it into a massive change in the tax code that the country has yet to recover from. Which was better?

If journalists want to champion democracy instead of damage it, they need to change their focus from agency ratings, high dollar salaries, Twitter followers and website clicks and begin doing the hard work of report the ugly reality of the election system. Here are a few questions they might begin to ask. 

1. Why is the United States one of the few countries that allows political organizations and fund raising to be considered non-profit or charitable organizations?

2. What percentage of PAC funding goes into supporting the candidate, family and staff? (Remember John Edwards and his hair cuts?)

3.  Is the minimum support rule required to enter debates a form of voter suppression because these events choose to squash the viewpoints of people who mainstream media doesn't give the time of day?

4.  Explain to the public the difference between the one vote-one person process that occurs on election day and the loosely monitored polling methods used through social media. There is no comparison and the results amount to misinformation and voter manipulation. Will agencies be embarrassed to admit they are not a fair representation of national demographics?

Before criticizing any elected officials, media has an obligation to make sure their findings are as objective and factual as possible. Like CEO who blames everyone else for the company's failures, Congress encourages mass media to distract the attention from their irresponsibility. Perhaps that is what voters should understand is the real form of voter suppression.  

Maurizio Buratti COVID-19 Bias: Daily Beast Headlines "Facts" Not in Evidence

* This article compares two reports of the same event. One is objectively detailed by a

Daily Beast Logo

European Fe News agency. The second is an updated version of a Daily Beast story that at first included no details other than to link the words anti-vaxxer, dies and Covid-19.  Links to both articles are at the bottom of the page as documentation for this review.  

It is bad enough that the American people have been subjected to a revolving door of conflicting information spread by its own government officials but when a reputable news agency like The Daily Beast chooses to taunt a dead man in hopes of shifting public opinion to a course of action that is as much supposition as fact, the result harms everyone, not just journalistic integrity. 

Opting for headlines rather than fact, even quality media outlets are now leaning into the repugnant practice of verbally hanging the body in the public square as proof that vaccines "save lives" and that vaccination is the only way out of this crisis (an opinion which is questioned by more than few well educated physicians).  Confusing their role in society with marketing or public relations, media has taken on emotion-based rhetoric akin to the old fashioned party line telephone line.  That in itself is dangerous on many different levels. 

According to both articles, an admitted anti-vaxxer, Maurizio Buratt, 61, was diagnosed with double pneumonia and died in a Verona, Italy hospital on December 28. Both state that Buratt stood by his anti-vaxxing position even after being admitted.  Neither article reports a positive COVID-19 test.  Only The Daily Beast article uses the Covid-19 term in its headlines as the cause of death.  

The ANSA article appears to have been researched and written by its own staff.  There is no reference to Twitter feeds or copying and pasting from another website.  On the other hand, The Daily Beast article comes almost entirely from two sources--the ANSA article and a local newspaper (Brescia Today). Interestingly, the local news account admits reporters had to ask the attending doctor repeatedly about COVID-19 before the doctor would "admit" to a COVID connection. As one reads the article however, the doctor's statement was to say it "seems" to be COVID--not to definitively label COVID as the cause of death.  Reporters apparently were looking for that phrase and targeted that information regardless of any other factors which might have come into play. 

Had The Daily Beast looked into the definition of "double pneumonia", it would have found that the condition can be caused by any thing that irritates the lungs to the point the body cannot remove fluid in a timely manner.  According to the World Health Organization (WHO),  an estimated 750,000 children died from pneumonia in 2019, the year before COVID hit. Causes listed on this website include multiple viruses, bacterial infections and even such common contaminants as mold or other fungi.  The webpage does not, however, mention adult pneumonia number but general figures found elsewhere report a case rate of between 15 and 20 cases per 100,000 people in industrialized countries **Italy would expect between 9000 and 12000 cases each year. 

Then there is he habit of news agencies going for the popular conclusion and skipping over other more relevant information. How often do reporters ask any other question that might change the viewpoint of the reader?   Did Buratt have a health directive that prohibited treatment that might have  saved his life? Was Buratt on any of dozens of medications that compromised his immune system? Were there any other health issues that came into play in his anti-vaccine beliefs?  And finally, was his "Communist" comment about healthcare an actual judgement of today's health care system or a cultural ideology left over from Italy's 20 year period of Fascist control?  The story isn't complete until these questions are considered.  To condemn a man for his beliefs without understanding his motivation is not just bad journalism but the sign of a closed minded industry. 

Too often in this political climate, it is the narrow-minded focus of major media that seeks to steer public opinion in one direction regardless of its basis in fact. Only when the news is reported objectively does it serve to educate the public rather than subdue it. 

ANSA News Article (Rome)

 The Daily Beast Article