Hunger and Nutrition in America: Discussion

Abstract

perceive hunger to be growing at an alarming rate based upon a common definition where hunger is an inability to get enough to eat, even in the short run, and those who do not see hunger as a public health threat based upon a clinical definition of hunger which implies a prolonged lack of food and malnutrition. The debate has not been limited to the definition and measurement of hunger. Alternative definitions, measurements, and estimates of the determinants of nutritional status have also fueled the debate. Morgan catalogs the known evidence on the factors influencing food consumption and nutrition and indicates that new statistical and theoretical approaches are being utilized. She does not go further, however, and evaluate the results she discusses. Unfortunately, some important questions are left unanswered, such as: Should we be using nutrient intake levels (RDA's or percent of RDA's) or biochemical analysis to evaluate nutritional status? Does the household production approach yield better results? Two of the studies Morgan catalogs have particularly interesting results. The findings by Morgan and co-workers-that income and nutrients per food dollar are negatively correlated, and the higher likelihood of meeting the NRC-RDA's for households with high nutrient return per food dollar-may well clarify the link between income, food expenditures, and nutrient intake. Further exploration of this link is merited. Likewise, a host of possible interactions between other transfer programs and food assistance programs are suggested by the results of Akin et al., that the FSP has a clear positive impact on nutrient consumption by the elderly and that compared to elderly FSP nonparticipants, the receipt of other cash transfer improved nutrient intake by elderly FSP participants. These results add to a long list of results indicating that food assis ance programs have enhanced the nutritio al status of participants. The efficacy of the food assistance programs in alleviating hunger and improving the nutritional status of low income citizens is a major aspect of the hunger-malnutrition debate. Indeed, those who believe hunger and malnutrition are increasing, indict federal food policy and food assistance programs for doing too little. Allen and Newton carefully and concisely describe existing food assistance policies, focus their evaluation on the major food programs, and suggest ways in which the programs might be improved. I would like to expand upon three aspects of their presentation. First, they acknowledge and cite studies that suggest that hunger is increasing even with high expenditures on a broad set of food assistance programs. Their cost statistics definitely reflect high expenditures, but I would like to suggest an alternative view of what those statistics mean. In particular, the impact of inflation and increases in the number of persons in poverty should be co sidered when evaluating federal food assistance spending. These adjustments are incorporated in table 1. As indicated in the table, federal food aid spending in current dollars increased by $3.103 billion from fiscal year 1981 to 1985. After adjusting for inflation, however, spending decreased over the same time period by $.028 billion in constant 1985 dollars. FurChristine K. Ranney is an assistant professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.