By these criteria, the United States is poised to do well, but France would come out on top, according to the study of 21 countries conducted by economists at Oregon State University.

“It’s important to know this because yields of most rain-fed grains and oilseeds remain highly variable despite decades of agronomic advances,” said the study’s lead author, Jeff Reimer. “Their yields depend largely on weather. Research shows that climate change may increase variability in yields of some crops.”

As Americans prepare for Thanksgiving, a new report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found that food insecurity in the United States was increasing. that in 2008, 85.4 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the year.

According to ERS, food-secure households had consistent access to enough food for active healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year.

The remaining 14.6 percent (17 million households) were food insecure, according to the ERS report.  These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources, the report said. 

The prevalence of food insecurity was up from 11.1 percent (13 million households) in 2007 and was the highest observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995.

About one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.7 percent of all U.S. households), the report said, had very low food security, up from 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007, and the highest level observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995.

In households with very low food security, the report said that the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity. The other two-thirds of food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in federal food and nutrition assistance programs, or obtaining emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens.

 Even when resources are inadequate to provide food for the entire family, children are usually shielded from the disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake that characterize very low food security.according to the report.

“ However, children as well as adults experienced instances of very low food security in 506,000 households (1.3 percent of households with children) in 2008, up from 323,000 households (0.8 percent of households with children) in 2007.” the report said. “On a given day, the number of households with very low food security was a small fraction of the number that experienced this condition “at some time during the year.”

Typically, the report said, households classified as having very low food security experienced the condition in 7 or 8 months of the year, for a few days in each of those months.

“On an average day in late November or early December, 2008, for example, an estimated 1.1 million to 1.4 million households (0.9-1.2 percent of all U.S. households) had members who experienced very low food security, and children experienced these conditions in 86,000 to 111,000 households (0.22 to 0.28 percent of all U.S. households with children),” the report said.  ”The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably among different types of households.”

According to the report, rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the Federal poverty line, households with children headed by single women or single men, and Black and Hispanic households.

Food insecurity, the report said, was more common in large cities and rural areas than in suburban areas and other outlying areas around large cities.

According to the report:

*Regionally, food insecurity was most prevalent in the South, intermediate in the Midwest and West, and least prevalent in the Northeast.

*Food-secure households spent more for food than food-insecure households. In 2008, the median U.S. household spent $43.75 per person for food each week—about 14 percent more than the cost of USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (a low-cost food “market basket” that meets dietary standards, taking into account household size and the age and gender of household members). The median food-secure household spent 18 percent more than the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, while the median food-insecure household spent 10 percent less than the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. Some food-insecure households turn to Federal food and nutrition assistance programs or emergency food providers in their communities when they are unable to obtain enough food.

*Fifty-five percent of the food-insecure households surveyed in 2008 said that in the previous month they had participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs—the National School Lunch Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the new name for the Food Stamp Program), and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

*About 20 percent of food-insecure households obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year, and 2.6 percent ate one or more meals at an emergency kitchen in their community. used public or private food and nutrition assistance programs.

The key is good nutrition. Promote health, you’re on the path of eliminating poverty.

According to a new report from Cornell University researchers, nearly half of American children – including 90 percent of black children and 90 percent of children who spend their childhoods in single-parent households – will eat meals paid for by food stamps at some point during childhood.

Just because food is cheap and plentiful, it doesn’t mean it’s nutritious. Good nutrition starts at childhood and is a foundation for a healthy and productive as the child matures into adulthood.

Researchers tracked diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol in a national survey of more than 15,000 working-age adults, according to the article.

“ Based on questionnaires, medical exams, and lab test results, they found that about half of uninsured people who had diabetes or high cholesterol were unaware of it, compared with just under one-quarter of insured people who did not know they had these conditions. High blood pressure, however, was undiagnosed in about a quarter of both uninsured and insured people,” the article reports.

Once diagnosed, the report found that hypertension was poorly controlled in 58 percent of uninsured people and 51 percent of those with insurance. The treatment gap was larger for high cholesterol: 77 percent of uninsured versus 60 percent of insured people had inadequately treated levels.

Mandatory health insurance will pay for itself as healthy people are productive people. And healthy productive people will help dig the nation out of its trillion dollars debt.

The sad fact of the IDF report is that the brunt of the epidemic is among low and middle-income countries and affecting more people of working age than previously believed.

Reforming the health care system isn’t good enough, especially if there isn’t a component addressing why more and more people are demanding improved health care services that costs lots of money. Providing incentives to people to take better care of their lives and help prevent diseases, such as diabetes, and penalizing those with higher health care premiums who fail to practice preventative health care measures, such as diet and physical fitness.

For health care reform to work there has to be a degree of personal responsibility on how people take care of themselves. Taking another pill that’s now more affordable doesn’t address the cause of the disease. In the case of diabetes, in many cases, a lifestyle change becomes a critical component to treating the cause.

IDF predicts that diabetes will cost the world economy at least US$376 billion in 2010, or 11.6% of total world health care expenditure. By 2030, this number is projected to exceed US$490 billion. More than 80% of diabetes spending is in the world’s richest countries and not in the poorer countries, where over 70 percent of people with diabetes now live. The United States accounts for $198 billion or 52.7% of total diabetes spending worldwide.

Regardlessof health care reform and accessibility to health care coverage, if you don’t address the cause of the problem, the expense is still going to magnify itself dramatically. There’s no government solution to personal responsibility. America is going to have to start looking at itself if it really wants to address health care reform. It’s all about good choices and that starts with each and everyone of us.

A recent study from the University of Oxford had researchers examined the effects of a very high-fat diet and a very low-fat diet on 32 rats on their ability to remember their way through a maze and on their performance on a treadmill.

The researchers found that after just a few days on the high-fat diet — consisting of a whopping 55 percent of calories from fat — the rats had more trouble recalling how to get through the maze, and they also performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill after just a few days on the high-fat diet, compared to when they were on a diet consisting of only 7.5 percent of calories from fat.

The researchers said they also have performed similar studies on humans, but those results haven’t been published yet. Assuming the human studies show comparable results, what does that mean for your diet?

Well, probably not much, at least if you tend to stick close to official recommendations for fat intake. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines have long suggested that total fat intake for adults be anywhere from 20 percent to 35 percent of total calories. That’s nowhere near the low-fat diet of 7.5 percent of total calories or the high-fat diet of 55 percent of total calories used in the rat study.

Now, if you tend to binge on high-fat foods over the course of a few days, you might find your poor diet has an effect — either on your cognitive ability, your physical ability, or both. But certainly that wouldn’t be the only reason to switch back to healthier eating habits: High-fat diets are associated with higher risks of heart disease and some types of cancer, especially diets high in saturated or trans fats.

In fact, official guidelines recommend keeping saturated fat to 10 percent of calories consumed, and eliminating, if at all possible, trans fat intake. That means, for example, if your recommended calorie intake for the day is 1,600 calories a day (the amount recommended for sedentary women age 51 or older), you should limit saturated fat to 18 grams or less. If you consume 2,400 calories a day (recommended for active women ages 14-30 or most sedentary men ages 16-40), limit saturated fat to 26 to 27 grams.

The other 10 to 25 percent of calories from fat should come from monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Check Nutrition Facts labels for good sources.