Jackson Free Press

Sometimes, it seems my life centers on food: what kind of coffee with breakfast, where to eat lunch, what's for dinner. I talk about food while I'm eating with others. Is it good? Have I had better? Did the recipe come out right? What doesn't often enter into my conversations about eating—and probably doesn't come into play for most of us—is whether I have the resources to eat today.

For millions of Americans—including disaster victims, children, the working poor, unemployed and homeless people, those with disabilities and the elderly—thinking about food isn't about its quality. Instead, their question is whether they will eat at all today—or tomorrow. The term to describe that state—not knowing where your next meal is coming from—is "food insecurity."

Talking about hunger is an odd, disconnected conversation in America. It's hard to understand that in the "land of plenty" many people—some estimates say as many as 37 million—won't eat today. Not because they choose not to. They won't be able to eat because they can't afford food.

It's a conundrum. Rural areas, those capable of growing the most food, report the highest levels of hunger. Obesity and diabetes, problems stemming from too much of the wrong foods, are epidemics. We grow vast amounts of edibles to feed other edibles—such as corn to feed cows, pigs and chickens—and ship food all over the world to satisfy our appetite for foods we can't grow locally. We grow plants for fuel, frequently for a net fuel loss because agriculture uses fossil fuels. Government subsidizes agri-businesses, while promoting the end of programs that feed people in need.

Hunger is a severe problem in Mississippi while, at the same time, we have extremely high rates of obesity.

"Nearly one in five of Mississippi households struggled to provide enough food," Warren Yoder, executive director of the Public Policy Center of Mississippi, says on the nonprofit Inside Mississippi website, about 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Most of these families try to cope by switching to a less healthy diet just to have some food for the family. In four out of 10 of these struggling families—those with very low food security—even those cutbacks were not enough and usually, someone had to go hungry."

Hunger and obesity, which are often two sides of the same coin, both have long-term consequences on the health, education and productive future of children, states the PPCM website. Hungry children can't concentrate to learn, and obese children are inherently unhealthy, frequently carrying their bad health into truncated adulthoods.

The problem exhibits a fissure between reality and illusion. The illusion is that we can ignore hungry people or that they alone are responsible and can solve their problems on their own. The reality looks more like this: Nearly 331,000 students in Mississippi—67 percent—were eligible for free or reduced lunches in the 2007-08 school year, meaning they come from households with incomes of less than $26,845 for a family of four (to qualify for free lunches). In Jackson, nearly 80 percent of kids qualify.

Hunger and its corollary, poverty, are not intractable problems, despite their historic prevalence. To make an impact, though, we have to become smarter about them—first, by acknowledging their affect on us. We pay the price every time a hungry child flunks out of school, every time a person chooses illegal activities because no other opportunities exist for them, every time we finance another industry in Mississippi that won't pay a living wage to its workers, every time an uninsured man or woman makes use of an emergency room because he or she can't afford basic, preventive health care.

It's a tough, Gordian-Knot kind of problem. Yet, as with numerous social-justice issues, many progressives spend inordinate amounts of energy trying to change the minds of people whose fundamental ideology doesn't seem to include solving them. We could better use all that energy for solutions. Here are a handful of ideas to begin turning that particular boat around.

First, let's stop trying to prove that today's free-market economy isn't working. It's working just fine for lots of folks, especially for those in charge of spending our treasure. Trying to change their minds is akin to trying to talk your dog into becoming a vegetarian—it won't work. But the results of hunger and poverty—crime, and an ignorant and unhealthy populace, for example—affect even masters of the universe. It's those effects progressives must focus on to craft saleable solutions, instead of trying to guilt people who are doing just fine—or those convinced they'll get there some day—into doing the right thing.

Second, stop entertaining the notion that we don't have enough money. Money is not the problem; it's merely the prevailing symbol to measure problems. Couching every issue into terms of how much money it will take to solve it leaves us impoverished, spiritually and literally. America, and even Mississippi, has enough money to do what we want to do—if and when we decide to do it. That's a big caveat, but fighting over every issue in economic terms is a losing proposition where poor people are involved. Money follows purpose. Progressives desperately need new symbols that resonate and move people to action. Let's find a conversation that overrides the talking points about our perceived lack of funds for social good.

Third, it's highly unlikely that lasting change will come from on high. The government is not going to solve hunger—especially not in our current political climate—so stop hoping it will. The powers that be won't magically change their minds on how to spend it. Change comes from the ground up; it won't flow downhill. (See the cover story on page 14 for a great example of one person making a difference.)

Fourth, media must stop giving oxygen to political spin, and news consumers must demand better. Not every story has an equivalency. If someone is lying, it's not enough to give an opposite and equal soundbite-worthy reaction. Media must say the words: What you just heard is not accurate—and here's why. That's anathema to a ravenous 24-hour news cycle, so it's up to news consumers to choose carefully who we'll patronize. We must learn to discern between a public-relations statement and real news. We need to tame our prurient instincts and stop letting shiny objects distract us.

Fifth, we all have to give up the notion that any of this is easy or that change will happen overnight. It's significant, and as with all important, vital work, it's hard and will take time. That's OK. It's alright to stumble and even to fail sometimes. Not trying, giving up, or being satisfied with condemnation and hand wringing won't change a thing.

Forget fighting. What counts is action—one foot in front of the other, always taking the next step. Be thankful you're not hungry, and share your paradigm-busting ideas below.