Hunger Myths

¡Hola! Everybody...
The way we look at ourselves is central to how we see the world. The way we see the world is central to how we see ourselves. In this way, our view of self and others is an ever-changing circle of influence -- a feedback loop. There is evidence, for example, that those who are happy see more positive aspects of the world than those who are depressed. We also know that living in an abusive or an overly restrictive environment (prisons are a prime example) can lead to depression. Today, I will use this framework in order to elaborate on world hunger...

* * *

-=[ Hunger Myths ]=-

The way I’ve heard it expressed, many Americans are inclined to think that if only the “third” world masses would stop having so many babies, they would have enough to eat. This is a convenient explanation because it has the advantage of easing our collective guilt because the implication is that starving people have only themselves to blame for their predicament. It’s the same defense mechanism used when addressing poverty or even immigration.

However, the data tells a different story. United Nations food and agriculture studies show conclusively that there is no obvious relation between hunger and population density. Yes, Virginia, I realize there are countries where people are both crowded and undernourished. Conversely, there are countries where people are starving despite a relatively low ratio of people to farmable land: Honduras and Angola, for example. And then there are countries with a far higher population density but much less hunger, China and Japan, for instance.

Once again, as is often the case, we find that a presumptive cause-and-effect relationship doesn’t stand up to close examination. The most likely explanation, according to decades-long studies at the Institute for Food and Development Policy, is that when hunger and population growth do go together it is because they are both the results of the same dynamic: powerlessness.

If a tiny number of rich people or multinational corporations control most of the land -- as is the case in Honduras and Angola -- then neither the size of the population nor the number of arable acres is the cause of the problem. Even relatively few people may be kept poor and hungry if they’re working for someone else. And even relatively plentiful cropland isn’t going to help if it’s being used to raise feed for cows that will end up as hamburgers on a McDonalds counter.

Having lots of children (in some parts of the world potential breadwinners) may be a rational strategy for survival when people live from hand to mouth. By the same token, well-meaning birth control programs alone cannot improve people’s lives. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that starvation is less a function of people having too many mouths to feed than of having too little control over their bodies, their land, and their future.

Here are some facts to ponder (adapted from the Institute for Food and Development Policy):

Myth: Not Enough Food to Go Around

Reality: 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.

Myth: Too Many People

Reality: 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.

Myth: 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. Indeed, environmentally sound agricultural alternatives can be more productive than environmentally destructive ones.

For a closer look at this issue, see the Institute for Food and Development Policy's website (click here)

Love,

Eddie