Updated by Holly Poole-Kavana based on the book World Hunger: Twelve
Why so much hunger?
What can we do about it?
answer these questions we must unlearn much of what we have been taught.
Only by freeing ourselves from the grip of widely
held myths can we grasp the roots of hunger and see what we can do to end it.
Not Enough Food to Go Around
Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply.
Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,200 calories a day. That doesn't even
count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough
food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and
nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs - enough to make most people
fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough
food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products.
Nature is to Blame for Famine
Reality: It's too easy to blame nature. Human-made forces are making people
increasingly vulnerable to nature's vagaries. Food is always available for those who can afford it - starvation during
hard times hits only the poorest. Millions live on the brink of disaster in South Asia, Africa and elsewhere, because they
are deprived of land by a powerful few, trapped in the unremitting grip of debt, or miserably paid. Natural events rarely
explain deaths; they are simply the final push over the brink. Human institutions and policies determine who eats and who
starves during hard times. Likewise, in America many homeless die from the cold every winter, yet ultimate responsibility
doesn't lie with the weather. The real culprits are an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunities, and a society that
places economic efficiency over compassion.
Too Many People
Reality: Birth rates are falling rapidly worldwide as remaining regions
of the Third World begin the demographic transition - when birth rates drop in response to an earlier decline in death
rates. Although rapid population growth remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere does population density explain
hunger. For every Bangladesh, a densely populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or Bolivia, where abundant
food resources coexist with hunger. Or we find a country like the Netherlands, where very little land per person has not prevented
it from eliminating hunger and becoming a net exporter of food. Rapid population growth is not the root cause of hunger. Like
hunger itself, it results from underlying inequities that deprive people, especially poor women, of economic opportunity and
security. Rapid population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, education, health care,
and old age security are beyond the reach of most people. Those Third World societies with dramatically successful early and
rapid reductions of population growth rates - China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian state of Kerala - prove
that the lives of the poor, especially poor women, must improve before they can choose to have fewer children.
The Environment vs. More Food?
Reality: We should be alarmed that an environmental crisis is undercutting
our food-production resources, but a trade-off between our environment and the world's need for food is not inevitable. Efforts
to feed the hungry are not causing the environmental crisis. Large corporations are mainly responsible for deforestation -
creating and profiting from developed-country consumer demand for tropical hardwoods and exotic or out-of-season food
items. Most pesticides used in the Third World are applied to export crops, playing little role in feeding the hungry, while
in the U.S. they are used to give a blemish-free cosmetic appearance to produce, with no improvement in nutritional value.
Alternatives exist now and many more are possible. The success of organic
farmers in the U.S. gives a glimpse of the possibilities. Cuba's success in overcoming a food crisis through self-reliance
and sustainable, virtually pesticide-free agriculture is another good example. Indeed, environmentally sound agricultural
alternatives can be more productive than environmentally destructive ones.
The Green Revolution is the Answer
Reality: The production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth. Thanks
to the new seeds, millions of tons more grain a year are being harvested. But focusing narrowly on increasing production cannot
alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic power that determines who can
buy the additional food. That's why in several of the biggest Green Revolution successes - India, Mexico, and the Philippines
- grain production and in some cases, exports, have climbed, while hunger has persisted and the long-term productive
capacity of the soil is degraded. Now we must fight the prospect of a ‘New Green Revolution' based on biotechnology,
which threatens to further accentuate inequality.
We Need Large Farms
Reality: Large landowners who control most of the best land often leave
much of it idle. Unjust farming systems leave farmland in the hands of the most inefficient producers. By contrast, small
farmers typically achieve at least four to five times greater output per acre, in part because they work their land more intensively
and use integrated, and often more sustainable, production systems. Without secure tenure, the many millions of tenant farmers
in the Third World have little incentive to invest in land improvements, to rotate crops, or to leave land fallow for the
sake of long-term soil fertility. Future food production is undermined. On the other hand, redistribution of land can favor
production. Historically comprehensive land reforms have markedly increased production in countries as diverse as Japan, Zimbabwe,
and Taiwan. A World Bank study of northeast Brazil estimates that redistributing farmland into smaller holdings would raise
output an astonishing 80 percent.
The Free Market Can End Hunger
Reality: Unfortunately, such a "market-is-good, government-is-bad" formula
can never help address the causes of hunger. Such a dogmatic stance misleads us that a society can opt for one or the other,
when in fact every economy on earth combines the market and government in allocating resources and distributing goods. The
market's marvelous efficiencies can only work to eliminate hunger, however, when purchasing power is widely dispersed.
So all those who believe in the usefulness of the market and the necessity
of ending hunger must concentrate on promoting not the market, but the consumers! In this task, government has a vital role
to play in countering the tendency toward economic concentration, through genuine tax, credit, and land reforms to disperse
buying power toward the poor. Recent trends toward privatization and de-regulation are most definitely not the answer.
Free Trade is the Answer
Reality: The trade promotion formula has proven an abject failure at alleviating
hunger. In most Third World countries exports have boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened. While
soybean exports boomed in Brazil - to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds
of the population. Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil,
those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad. Export
crop production squeezes out basic food production. So-called free trade treaties like NAFTA and WTO pit working people in
different countries against each other in a ‘race to the bottom,' where the basis of competition is who will work for
less, without adequate health coverage or minimum environmental standards. Mexico and the U.S. are a case in point: since
NAFTA we have had a net loss of over a million jobs here in the U.S., while Mexico has lost 1.3 million in the agricultural
sector alone and hunger is on the rise in both countries.
Too Hungry to Fight for Their Rights
Reality: Bombarded with images of poor people as weak and hungry, we lose
sight of the obvious: for those with few resources, mere survival requires tremendous effort. If the poor were truly passive,
few of them could even survive. Around the world, from the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico to the Landless People's Movement
in South Africa, wherever people are suffering needlessly movements for change are underway. People will feed themselves,
if allowed to do so. It's not our job to ‘set things right' for others. Our responsibility is to remove the obstacles
in their paths, obstacles often created by large corporations and U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies.
More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry
Reality: Most U.S. aid works directly against the hungry. Foreign aid can
only reinforce, not change, the status quo. Where governments answer only to elites, our aid not only fails to reach hungry
people, it shores up the very forces working against them. Our aid is used to impose free trade and free market policies,
to promote exports at the expense of food production, and to provide the arms that repressive governments use to stay in power.
Even emergency, or humanitarian aid, which makes up only eight percent of the total, often ends up enriching American grain
companies while failing to reach the hungry, and it can dangerously undercut local food production in the recipient country.
It would be better to use our foreign aid budget for unconditional debt relief, as it is the foreign debt burden that forces
most Third World countries to cut back on basic health, education and anti-poverty programs.
We Benefit From Their Poverty
Reality: The biggest threat to the well-being of the vast majority of Americans
is not the advancement but the continued deprivation of the hungry. Low wages - both abroad and in inner cities at home
- may mean cheaper bananas, shirts, computers and fast food for most Americans, but in other ways we pay heavily for
hunger and poverty. Enforced poverty in the Third World jeopardizes U.S. jobs, wages and working conditions as corporations
seek cheaper labor abroad. In a global economy, what American workers have achieved in employment, wage levels, and working
conditions can be protected only when working people in every country are freed from economic desperation.
Here at home, policies like welfare reform throw more people into the job
market than can be absorbed - at below minimum wage levels in the case of ‘workfare' - which puts downward
pressure on the wages of those on higher rungs of the employment ladder. The growing numbers of ‘working poor' are those
who have part- or full-time low wage jobs yet cannot afford adequate nutrition or housing for their families. Educating ourselves
about the common interests most Americans share with the poor in the Third World and at home allows us to be compassionate
without sliding into pity. In working to clear the way for the poor to free themselves from economic oppression, we free ourselves
Curtail Freedom to End Hunger?
Reality: There is no theoretical or practical reason why freedom, taken
to mean civil liberties, should be incompatible with ending hunger. Surveying the globe, we see no correlation between hunger
and civil liberties. However, one narrow definition of freedom - the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth-producing
property and the right to use that property however one sees fit - is in fundamental conflict with ending hunger. By
contrast, a definition of freedom more consistent with our nation's dominant founding vision holds that economic security
for all is the guarantor of our liberty. Such an understanding of freedom is essential to ending hunger.
Note: for a full list of references see Lappe,
Frances Moore, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset. 1998. World Hunger: Twelve Myths. New York: Grove Press.
1.Data calculated from FAOSTAT. 2005. Rome: United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization.
2.Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics. 1995. New York and Geneva:
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Tables 7 and 8.
1.Sen, Amartya. 1981. Poverty and Famines. Oxford: Clarendon
2.Timberlake, L. and A. Wijkman. 1984. Natural Disasters: Acts of God or Acts of Man? London and Washington, DC:
3.Messer, Ellen. 1996. Hunger as a Weapon of War in 1994. Pp. 19-48 in The Hunger Report: 1995, ed. Ellen Messer
and Peter Uvin. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
1.Merrick, Thomas. 1994. Population Dynamics in Developing Countries.
pp. 79-105 in Population and Development: Old Debates, New Conclusions, ed. Robert Cassen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
2.Bread for the World Institute. 1996. Hunger, 1997: What Governments Can Do. Silver Spring, MD.
Bank. 1994. Human Development Report.
1.Vandermeer, John and Ivette Perfecto. 2005. Breakfast of Biodiversity:
The Truth about Rainforest Destruction. Oakland: Food First Books.
2.Nicholls, Clara Ines and Miguel Altieri. 1997. Conventional
Agriculture Development Models and the Persistence of the Pesticide Treadmill in Latin America. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 4:93-111.
1.Shiva, Vandana. 1991. The Violence of the Green Revolution:
Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.
2.Pearse, Andrew. 1980. Seeds of
Plenty, Seeds of Want: Social and Economic Implications of the Green Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
1.Sobhan, Rehman. 1993. Agrarian Reform and Social Transformation.
2.Thiesenhusen, William C. 1995. Broken Promises: Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino. Boulder:
3.Griffin, K., A.R. Khan, and A. Ickowitz. 2002. Poverty and the distribution of land. Journal of Agrarian
1.Collins, Joseph and John Lear. 1995. Chile’s Free Market
Miracle: A Second Look. Oakland: Food First Books.
2.Bello, Walden. 1994. Dark Victory: The United States, Structural Adjustment
and Global Poverty. London: Pluto Press, Food First Books, and Transnational Institute.
1.(World agricultural commodity export data) FAOSTAT data. 2005.
Rome: Untied Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
2.Goldsmith, Edward and Jerry Mander, eds. 1996. The Case Against
the Global Economy and a Turn Toward the Local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
1.Wright, Angus and Wendy Wolford. 2003. To Inherit the Earth:
The Landless Movement and the Struggle for a New Brazil. Oakland: Food First Books.
2.Collier, George. 2005. Basta! Land
an dhte Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. Oakland: Food First Books.
1.OEDC. 2003-4. Total DAC Aid at a Glance. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/39/23664717.gif
2.Lappe, F.M., R. Schurman, and K. Danaher. 1987. Betraying the National
Interest: How U.S. Foreign Aid Threatens Global Security by Undermining the Political and Economic Stability of the Third
World. New York: Grove Press.
1.Sklar, Holly. 1995. Chaos or Community? Seeking Solutions,
Not Scapegoats. Boston: South End Press.
2.Untied States Conference of Mayors. 2002. A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness
in America’s Cities: A 25-City Survey, December 2002. Washington DC: United States Conference of Mayors.
A., L. Busch, W. Friedland, L. Gouveia, and E. Mingione, eds. 1997. Food Security and Agricultural Trade under NAFTA. Minneapolis:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
1.Shue, Henry. 1980. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence,
and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Institute for Food and Development Policy Backgrounder
2006, Vol.12, No. 2