>It's tone-deaf to be sure. But the assumption, only 3 meals is acceptable, is certainly debatable

I'm not suggesting that only 3 meals is acceptable. I'm just saying if somebody wants 3 meals, which has been the standard for some time, and can't afford it, that is not good.

If somebody voluntarily cuts back on food that is fine. That is not what appears to be happening.

>Not to say 'let them starve'. But folks decide to cut back on food instead of other things, let's look at the bigger picture. That's fair, right?

Frankly, we don't know if they have also cut back on other things and food was the last to be cut back on. You are making an assumption that food was one of the first to be cut back on.

Look at these quotes from the article

>Other compromises include not turning heaters on, borrowing money and not treating a health problem in the face of the rising costs.

>21% of the parents surveyed said they have experience at least one instance of "not eating enough" in order to feed their offspring

I just think this may be similar to the 'think of the children!' argument. Seems like a slam-dunk. But everything is complicated.

In my student days I'd routinely miss a meal to make a class or see a movie or hang with friends. Didn't think anything of it.

Gotta be a big drag to have to ration food to your family. Not had to do that. Can imagine its more than a calorie thing - it's an emotional blow.