NFL and Chunky Soup, Click for Cans 2006 to fight hunger:

[babylonsister]

Click here:
http://www.chunky.com/clickforcans.aspx

The competition is heating up.

This year, one NFL team will earn a donation of Campbell's® soup to the food bank of its choice. How much soup? We'll get the official stats for all the players on the winning team's official roster and donate one can for every pound the total team weighs! So far, the Green Bay Packers remain the undefeated Click for Cans champs – will they stay on top, or will they get a run for their money this year? It's up to you!

Don't be discouraged if your team doesn't get the most clicks. The team that improves the most in the number of clicks from last year will also receive a donation! We'll donate 2006 cans on behalf of the team that shows the most improvement in the number of clicks from last year.
Just click to fight hunger.

Visit Chunky.com every day to click on your favorite NFL team. The team with the most clicks and the team with the most improved clicks by midnight on December 15, 2006 will earn donations of Campbell's® soup.

The more times you participate, the more votes your team will have. So come back every day, and let your buddies know so they can vote too!

[nam78_two]

1. K&R.nt

[fishnfla]

2. We cream them every year

get it? cream? soup?

[Monkeyman]

9. Last Game of the Season Cream

Bears

[rodeodance]

3. "very low food security" category replaces Hunger at the USDA

"very low food security" category replaces Hunger at the USDA

[rodeodance]

4. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html

Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry

By Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 16, 2006; A01

The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience "very low food security."

Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word "hunger" to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.

Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, "We don't have a measure of that condition."

The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined "very low food security" to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group.

The United States has set a goal of reducing the proportion of food-insecure households to 6 percent or less by 2010, or half the 1995 level, but it is proving difficult. The number of hungriest Americans has risen over the past five years. Last year, the total share of food-insecure households stood at 11 percent.

Less vexing has been the effort to fix the way hunger is described. Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound."

[KamaAina]

5. Who dat say dey gonna feed dem Saints? Who dat?

According to reports, foodbanks in Southeast La. are virtually empty. Even if you aren't a "Born Again Baghead" like yours truly, you might consider throwing 'em your clicks anyway.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. good point

I'm a Steelers guy, but you make a good point about voting for the Saints. Done.

Lol at "born-again baghead"!

[babylonsister]

6. Kickin' for cans! nt

[brer cat]

8. I'm all for feeding the hungry, and appreciate help

from large corporations. But Campbell's is feeding them very high sodium which is not good for anyone, and heavily contributes to our society's problem with hypertension. Children especially are being brought up to be salt-heavy users by these prepared foods that are giving a day's worth of sodium per serving.

Flame away if you wish. I did challenge the "feel-good" of this thread...but it would be better to feed the poor with good nutrition. Campbell's can (and does in some cases) reduce the sodium.

[babylonsister]

10. Free food for poor, hungry people is not a bad thing and the

beneficiaries might even like the sodium. My mom taught me, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."