They talk of food security. According to the 'Sallies' it's bad and it's getting worse.
Are they telling us over a quarter of kids, 27% of kids to be precise, can't get food?
The definition they use is the United Nations one: "people having access to safe and nutritious food towards a healthy life".
That’s the problem with people like the 'Sallies' quoting groups like the UN. What the UN mean in that circumstance is the sort of food security you have in Gaza, i.e. none.
Or they mean food security in flood prone regions, or drought prone regions. That definition is not designed for wealthy, first-world countries, of which we are one.
So I fear the Salvation Army are misinterpreting what the UN means, either deliberately or not, and using it for political purposes, like the idea that we can't get access to foods.
They then make claims around cost, which is of course different to access. Cost can prevent access in the sense you can't afford it. They sight meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables.
In this they are, in part, wrong as well.
But, just quickly, they argue that the food we sell to the world should be prioritised first to locals here. They don’t for a moment suggest who would pay for that, but I am guessing the Government.
So the major income earner for the country should be adjusted until we all get all the meat and butter we want, should it?
Anyway, to their claim on dairy, meat, and vegetables. Yes, we know why dairy prices are high – that’s actually good for the country.
Meat can be expensive but doesn’t have to be that expensive and fruit and vegetables are not up in price. In fact, the latest numbers show it's down and in any given season fruit and veges can be a bargain.
So the upshot of their plea is it is, as always, driven by emotion, not fact, and to be blunt, I don't actually believe in excess of a quarter of all kids in this country don’t get food.
Part of it will be bad parenting and bad choices.
To solve a problem, if there is indeed a problem, you need fact, an understanding of the fact and logical, sensible solutions, not emotive, clickbait alarmism that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
That’s the problem with people like the 'Sallies' quoting groups like the UN. What the UN mean in that circumstance is the sort of food security you have in Gaza, i.e. none.
Or they mean food security in flood prone regions, or drought prone regions. That definition is not designed for wealthy, first-world countries, of which we are one.
So I fear the Salvation Army are misinterpreting what the UN means, either deliberately or not, and using it for political purposes, like the idea that we can't get access to foods.
They then make claims around cost, which is of course different to access. Cost can prevent access in the sense you can't afford it. They sight meat, dairy, fruit and vegetables.
In this they are, in part, wrong as well.
But, just quickly, they argue that the food we sell to the world should be prioritised first to locals here. They don’t for a moment suggest who would pay for that, but I am guessing the Government.
So the major income earner for the country should be adjusted until we all get all the meat and butter we want, should it?
Anyway, to their claim on dairy, meat, and vegetables. Yes, we know why dairy prices are high – that’s actually good for the country.
Meat can be expensive but doesn’t have to be that expensive and fruit and vegetables are not up in price. In fact, the latest numbers show it's down and in any given season fruit and veges can be a bargain.
So the upshot of their plea is it is, as always, driven by emotion, not fact, and to be blunt, I don't actually believe in excess of a quarter of all kids in this country don’t get food.
Part of it will be bad parenting and bad choices.
To solve a problem, if there is indeed a problem, you need fact, an understanding of the fact and logical, sensible solutions, not emotive, clickbait alarmism that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
And the Sallies have always been well endowed with money so time to put the money where their mouths are, or at least where the need is greatest.
Can’t disagree more on one point, Mike. NZ is neither wealthy nor first world.
That is a belief much aligned with fairy tales (or Maori myths) that start: ‘once upon a time …’
I am very sceptical of the ideal diet recommended by nutritionists. Just what proportion of the world meets this? The majority get along. What proportion exceeds it to a damaging degree? Many of our supposed poor very obviously do. I have yet to read any detailed breakdown of the expenditure of the supposed poor. With purchase by card should nowdays be easy to monitor for anyone sufficently bold. Where parents both work traditional meals can be a burden. But very many of those claiming food penury have time on their hands. I suspect much would be achieved if we taught home science in place of stone age hobby language.
Cost is the MAIN impediment to access worldwide.
Countries with endemic hunger issues such as India may also be food exporters (as India is). I recall buying Ethiopian broccoli and cauliflower in Holland at the height of the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s.
Children tend to have very limited access to money. The children of poor, negligent parents in a country such as NZ may indeed suffer from food insufficiency because nobody is buying food for them and they can't afford it themselves.
Having said all that, I would posit that most of that quarter of all children probably lack quality rather than quantity of food. "Toss the kids a bag of crisps to keep them quiet" is an approach to child nutrition I saw plenty of when living in an Aboriginal community in Cape York.
What does food security even mean? It doesn’t sound like genuine hunger. More an expanded amorphous concept designed to promote the expansion of welfare.
To answer the question posed by Anon 1111, the definition of food security used by the 1996 World Food Summit, is when "all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."
Having seen appalling scenes in many countries, I can assure Anon 1111 that food INsecurity is a very real thing. I'm not only talking about children fighting with dogs over scraps of rotting meat on giant rubbish heaps in India but indigenous communities in Australia where 1 in 4 children were described in official reports as undernourished, a mild term given some of the realities.
Just the Sallies getting political again.
This topic was also in an article last Tuesday and written by an economist Dennis Wesselbaun in which he said 900,000 Kiwis experience food insecurity.
The comments posted then focused on the difference between malnutrition and under nutrition . We also in NZ have one of the worst stasts. on obesity .
It is no accident there is a higher number of junk food outlets in lower decile areas and since these foods are perversely manufactured to be addictive the two problems are in the same area
,
If this topic is to be discussed properly , Mike , both these aspects of food consumption need looking into .
I know of someone who got a meal at the homeless center in South Auckland , They said it was one of the best meals they had had since it came from excess from restaurants. There is another problem -wasted food .
Post a Comment