Hunger Costs America $90 Billion per Year

[IronGhost]

Economic Impact of Hunger Affects All Americans, New Study Shows

Cost to nation is $90 billion; cost per household $800

First study of its kind led by Harvard University School of Public Health researchers, sponsored by Sodexho Foundation

(CSRwire) WASHINGTON, D.C.- June 5, 2007 — While thirty-five million Americans feel the physical effects of hunger each day, every household and individual in our nation feels the economic effects. So finds a new study released today by the Sodexho Foundation and researchers affiliated with Harvard University School of Public Health, Brandeis University and Loyola University.

The study, titled "The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger: Estimated Annual Burden to the United States," finds that the U.S. pays more than $90 billion annually for the direct and indirect costs of hunger-related charities, illness and psychosocial dysfunction and the impact of less education/lower productivity. These costs are borne by all Americans.

Distributed on an individual basis, it means that on average, each person residing in the U.S. pays $300 annually for the hunger bill. Distributed on a household basis, it means that the annual cost is closer to $800 each year. And calculated on a lifetime basis, each individual’s bill for hunger in the nation is nearly $22,000.

"From our study, it appears that we could virtually end hunger in our nation or only approximately $12 billion over current spending on federal nutrition programs," said Dr. J. Larry Brown, Harvard School of Public Health and lead researcher for the study.

"The Cost of Hunger study is a call to action for communities, legislators, the private sector and individuals to look at hunger as more than a social issue – hunger also is an economic issue," said Stephen J. Brady, president of the Sodexho Foundation. "As such, it is everyone’s responsibility to end hunger. The first step is to be aware of the magnitude of the impact of hunger on every American."

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi/8778.html

[Startraveler]

Well, this didn't get much play now did it? It deserves a bump, at least.

[BrucePrime]

Well, this didn't get much play now did it? It deserves a bump, at least.

Hunger costs me a lot more, since I eat out a lot.

[GoddessWhispers]

And yet....our government subsidizes farmers not to grow food. Outsources jobs, so families dependent on the major industry(ies) in their area, are now standing in food lines, hoping that laundry basket they brought , will have something in it by the time their family of 2 parents and 4 children , get to the front of the line.

But if you're an illegal alien! You'll never go hungry again. ~raises fist in the air with turnip between teeth , in Scarlet O'Hara pose~

Edited June 8, 2007 by GoddessWhispers

[AROCES]

Funny for the diet business is a huge industry. This is just the same old Democrat political tool.

America hungry VOTE democrats!

[IronGhost]

What I though was really interesting about this is that social program for the poor that helps feed people would actually save all of us a lot of money. The people who did this study said that it would be much cheaper and more cost effective to increase the value of things like foodstamps, and other so-called liberal programs -- if we did so, we would all have more money in our pockets.

Not helping poor people who are hungry is actually like a tax that is costing every household $800 a year. So -- if we help the poor with government program -- we get to keep more of our own money.

Also, it would reduce crime, help education of the young, which leads to less of them getting involved with gangs and other trouble, which leads to less money for prisons, etc.

[AROCES]

While thirty-five million Americans feel the physical effects of hunger each day, every household and individual in our nation feels the economic effects. So finds a new study released today by the Sodexho Foundation and researchers affiliated with Harvard University School of Public Health, Brandeis University and Loyola University.

What a CRAP. I feel hunger everyday, and if I keep eating whenever I'm hungry I'll heck be too fat and might get sick or die.

[BrucePrime]

And yet....our government subsidizes farmers not to grow food.

We subsidize farmers not to grow for, not for the sake of just not growing food, but to grow certain types of food. Fact is, the United States produces far more food than our population could ever eat. The problem is not the amount of food being produced.

[BrucePrime]

Not helping poor people who are hungry is actually like a tax that is costing every household $800 a year. So -- if we help the poor with government program -- we get to keep more of our own money.

This is great and all, but the article does not explain how it costs us more money.

I have a hard time believing that with the amount of money we already spend, and with the programs both private and public, that we cannot feed "the hungry". I'm not saying that people aren't going hungry, I'm saying there is a disconnect somewhere. The problem isn't the amount of money we're spending or not spending, but rather a flawed system.

[AROCES]

This is great and all, but the article does not explain how it costs us more money.

I have a hard time believing that with the amount of money we already spend, and with the programs both private and public, that we cannot feed "the hungry". I'm not saying that people aren't going hungry, I'm saying there is a disconnect somewhere. The problem isn't the amount of money we're spending or not spending, but rather a flawed system.

For every $ that goes to feed the hungry, only 10 cents is left after is passes through bureaucracy. Department of this and that takes much of it to pay governement workers, benefits, retirement packages so they can feed the poor. So, the poor is still hungry and the governement worker is set for life. Then election comes, same CRAP, Democrats accuse the Republicans of starving the poor and they want more money.

Edited June 8, 2007 by AROCES

[Spurious George]

Let them eat cake!!!

What?!?

[Bob26003]

Yes, A dog eat dog society which leaves many stranded and helpless and even unable to meet essential needs, has serious flaws...................................

And don't think it isn't designed that way.

It's an issue of common Human morality....................

Edited June 8, 2007 by Bob26003

[GoddessWhispers]

This is great and all, but the article does not explain how it costs us more money.

I have a hard time believing that with the amount of money we already spend, and with the programs both private and public, that we cannot feed "the hungry". I'm not saying that people aren't going hungry, I'm saying there is a disconnect somewhere. The problem isn't the amount of money we're spending or not spending, but rather a flawed system.

That is a bold statement, but rather vague in the particulars. Perhaps , for the sake of the issue, you would elaborate.

[Lord Umbarger]

I've often heard that hunger was responcible for a lot of lost revenue caus but, I've never seen an atual dollar figure attached to it before. It's a damn shame that in the United States, the land that pays farmers to let fields go untilled and even pays them to plow acres of food under, that we can have people going hungry. It's unconcionable.

[Lt_Ripley]

We subsidize farmers not to grow for, not for the sake of just not growing food, but to grow certain types of food. Fact is, the United States produces far more food than our population could ever eat. The problem is not the amount of food being produced.

it's the wealthy that get those subsidies -

my family used to have a small dairy farm and had to convert to renting the land to Kelloggs for corn in order to survive. no subsidies there. the little farmer is mostly over looked.

The budget-busting $180 billion farm bill enacted before the 2002 elections not only encourages the crop overproduction that depresses crop prices and farm incomes, but also undermines trade and encourages other nations to refuse American exports.

Perhaps worst of all, farm subsidies are not distributed to the small, struggling family farmers whom lawmakers typically mention when defending these policies. Rather, most farm subsidies are distributed to large farms, agribusinesses, politicians, and celebrity "hobby farmers." This paper analyzes how Washington distributed farm subsidies in 2002 and illustrates that farm subsidies continue to represent America's largest corporate welfare program.

How Farm Subsidies Target Large Farms

Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards. Growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice receive more than 90 percent of all farm subsidies: Growers of nearly all of the 400 other domestic crops are completely shut out of farm subsidy programs. Further skewing these awards, the amounts of subsidies increase as a farmer plants more crops.

Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most land, but also are the nation's most profitable farms because of their economies of scale--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. Farm subsidies have evolved from a safety net for poor farmers to America's largest corporate welfare program.

With agricultural programs designed to target large and profitable farms rather than family farmers, it should come as no surprise that farm subsidies in 2002 were distributed overwhelmingly to large growers and agribusinesses--including a number of Fortune 500 companies. Chart 2 shows that the top 10 percent of recipients received 65 percent of all farm subsidies in 2002.6 At the other end, the bottom 80 percent of recipients (including most family farmers) received just 19 percent of all farm subsidies.

[Lt_Ripley]

Taxpayers lose 10 cents of every subsidy dollar to fraud, estimates Roger Viadero, former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

The conservative Heritage Foundation and other observers on the right and left say that farmers' long-term dependence on government payments invites comparison with the nation's welfare system.

Last year, subsidies cost federal taxpayers about half of the $45.1 billion spent on welfare and food stamps. In 51 of Georgia's 159 counties, subsidies cost more than welfare and food stamps last year.

How your tax dollars prop up big growers and squeeze the little guy

By DAN CHAPMAN , KEN FOSKETT and MEGAN CLARKE

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on Oct. 1, 2006

Farmers from Georgia to California planted millions of acres of cotton last spring knowing their crop will probably sell at a loss this fall.

But they planted anyway, confident that American taxpayers would bail them out with billions of dollars in subsidies. Just as they did last year, and the years before that.

U.S. subsidies for cotton and selected other crops, born in the Great Depression to protect against the occasional bad year, have become a multibillion-dollar entitlement. The program undermines free trade and props up big farmers at the expense of small growers both here and abroad.

At least 30 types of subsidies insulate many of the nation's 2.1 million farms from loss or disaster, a degree of government protection unsurpassed in private industry.

Last year the subsidies cost $23 billion, almost all from taxes. Of that, cotton growers collected $3.4 billion.

The government pays if farmers grow too much, or nothing at all. It pays when it rains too much or too little. It pays much of a farmer's insurance premium and then, acting as the insurer, helps pay off losses.

By guaranteeing growers a minimum price, subsidies encourage them to plant what Washington will pay for, not what would earn a profit on the free market.

"We're just playing a game," said Stephen Houston Sr., a Miller County cotton farmer. "[Market] prices don't have anything to do with what we're doing. We're just looking at the government payments."

It's called "farming the subsidy," and it has turned many farmers -- once symbols of self-reliance -- into government dependents.

Critics say subsidies fuel overproduction and depress market prices, harming farmers in developing countries who receive little or no government support. President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and the World Bank concur.

Four West African nations alone estimate lower prices cost them $150 million to $250 million in cotton sales a year.

"I used to think America stood for fairness and fair trade," said Bafing Diarra, a cotton farmer in Mali. "I don't anymore."

Nothing symbolizes the global dispute more than cotton -- Georgia's No. 1 cash crop.

Over the next three days and next Sunday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution will explore the topsy-turvy logic of farm subsidies, which breed a cycle of overproduction that triggers even more payments.

The newspaper will show how subsidies, while supporting thousands of American farm families, paradoxically keep some smaller growers -- both in the United States and abroad -- from earning a decent wage.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/cotton1.html

[Guardsman Bass]

For every $ that goes to feed the hungry, only 10 cents is left after is passes through bureaucracy. Department of this and that takes much of it to pay governement workers, benefits, retirement packages so they can feed the poor. So, the poor is still hungry and the governement worker is set for life. Then election comes, same CRAP, Democrats accuse the Republicans of starving the poor and they want more money.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, rather than your unsubstantiated belief that government programs will just not work, leaving the poor hungry? Frankly, you've shown, at least in your previous post, that you have little actual understanding of the situation, since there are verifiable standards of malnutrition, and it has a particularly devastating effect on children who suffer it (hence why Head Start was created).

As for the "not a matter of the amount of food produced", BrucePrime, that actually is correct. The problem is that you can not simply dump more food on the market without basically killing prices and bankrupting farmers in the process (or rather, since the major agro-businesses generally have good lobbyists, leading to higher subsidies to compensate for the lower prices). It probably would be easier just to raise the amount food stamps buy.

[SEI 312]

$800 a year per household and still hungry Americans, I have no problem if the govt bumps it up to double, triple our quadruple that, if it ends hunger in America, I'm all for it

[ships-cat]

I'm suspicious - to say the least - of this $800 figure.

Increase food stamps (as one example) - and run the risk of increasing the dependency culture.

It might be more useful to look at the reasons WHY people are hungry, rather than just shoveling food aid at them.

As an illustration, the West has shoved enough food aid into various African countries to feed.. well.. everyone. And the result ? Hunger and more appeals for aid.

Meow Purr.

[AROCES]

Do you have any actual evidence for this, rather than your unsubstantiated belief that government programs will just not work, leaving the poor hungry? Frankly, you've shown, at least in your previous post, that you have little actual understanding of the situation, since there are verifiable standards of malnutrition, and it has a particularly devastating effect on children who suffer it (hence why Head Start was created).

As for the "not a matter of the amount of food produced", BrucePrime, that actually is correct. The problem is that you can not simply dump more food on the market without basically killing prices and bankrupting farmers in the process (or rather, since the major agro-businesses generally have good lobbyists, leading to higher subsidies to compensate for the lower prices). It probably would be easier just to raise the amount food stamps buy.

YES! The evidence is right there every election. Politicians asking for more and more, putting guilt on voters, using the poor as a political tool.

Tell me, if there are people LIKE you portray yourself as so loving and sooooooooooo caring about the poor, then why do you wait for the governement, a politician or a STUDY and simply not just go out there and help them. Do a foundation or something, not just vote for someone who would help the poor and in the same time advance your preferred agendas. Well???

Edited June 11, 2007 by AROCES

[Sadonis]

We like our people not to starve....

I'm sick of people saying we should help Africa. To hell with Africa atm...we have our own issues. A lot of starving people here too and our government has to do what's best for the people(at least in this sense).

We have Peace Core and all of that but people just think American's are self-centered. *shake head* To anyone that thinks that...go **** yourself. EVERYONE is self-centered. I really don't care if they don't act like it. If helping someone helps yourself, then you're self-centered(you get...strange pleasure from helping people? Warm fuzzy feelings at the bottom of your heart when you spend millions?).

Ehhh....

America likes funny people. Starving people=rude, humorousness people. Full people=funny people.

[Lord Umbarger]

There is no excuse for people to have to go hungry in America. No excuse at all.