Percentage of household classified as having ‘very low food security’ in America is as follows:

* Americans, who are worried about running short of food before they got money: 98 percent.

* Americans, who cannot afford balanced meals: 94 percent

* Americans going hungry because of lack of money to buy food: 60 percent

* Americans who skipped meals because of lack of money: 96 percent.

These are some of the figures listed in the Washington Post to report USDA’s declaration to cease to be colloquial with the word “hunger” and preferably go for a sophisticated interplay with the phrase low food security. The discernment of readers being quite obvious in this regards, speaks of the diplomatic way of counting hunger by numbers, which as per facts has tagged 38 million people as ‘food insecure’.

What sarcastically stares at the face of USDA, are evidences from families across the US reported to have found creative solutions to skip meals in order to manage to have a meal for the next day. Even cruel is yet another fact provided by America’s Second Harvest, a food-bank network and advocacy organization households concerning one working member are the fastest growing group needing emergency food aid with number of hungry mounths rising to 39 percent.

It apparently seems ridiculous for George Bush to address the ‘food-security’ situation as a fabrication by the opposition. Considering the stance of USDA in covering ‘hunger’ into ‘food security’ and ‘food insecurity’, what appears is that it is doing Bush more good than bad.

America’s image as a ’superpower’ crumbles more than its Twin Towers when we consider illustrations from millions of families choose between eating and paying bills, even more making their children feed by skipping medical bills, medicines for epilepsy, chronic diseases and some like Wreatha Hankins deciding to sell her soul for food.

At the end of the day every ‘food insecure’ American feels ‘hungry’ and every year USDA takes the blame on itself by icing it with concepts and philosophies. Is the USDA alone responsible for ‘food security’? Is George Bush going to take responsibility of food stamp cuts that will eliminate benefits for approximately 300,000 people primarily in low-income working families? Is Bush ready for a comparison to Indian Food problem?

While there can be infinite facts that can be given to prove that USDA has a better business to do rather than salvaging its image, what is more important now is to accept the fact that 38 million starving Americans speaks of unequal economic distribution in a nation with economic plenty.