|
A Brief Understanding of
Hunger and its Resolution
It is helpful to begin with our own attitudes about food. If we
can appreciate the powerful personal context for food that we
bring to any understanding of hunger we can avoid paternalistic
or self-defeating solutions. In this, the generation of
abundance, we often do not appreciate food for what it really is
as we enjoy the enormous variety and preparations that are
available to many of us. We have gone beyond complex gourmet
preparations to have dozens of television shows depicting the
fastest chefs or the most creative exotic concoctions – and not
just in the U.S. One can see this as a celebration of abundance
or as a circus of gluttony, yet a core understanding is often
missing.
Food is one of the most
primal ways to transmit culture and traditions (along with
language and music) and thus holds a pivotal cross-generational
importance for most of us. Even so, it is easy to forget that
its relevance is even more profound: food is literally life.
(Even the healthiest person cannot live more than about three
weeks without food or about 3-4 days without water).
If food is indeed life then why do we really abuse, waste or
discard so much of it? If we have enough, is that all that
matters? I would say that our ideas and attitude about food
impact others to the point of death. I would like to share some
remarkable information on why that is so and what you can do
about it.
Famine is a natural or
man-made emergency that can make headlines but it only accounts
for less than 10% of world hunger.
Understanding the intrinsic sacredness of food enables us to
appreciate it more and to empathize with the suffering of not
having it. An understanding begins with compassion or at least
the desire to know why one in seven of us is starving.
The other 90% is chronic,
persistent hunger and doesn’t look like famine. Chronic hunger
is not enough of the right kind of food over a long period of
time. It is not always visible and it is almost silent.
Many people are surprised to learn that hunger is not
about enough food production. Some of the hungriest people
live in countries that produce more than enough food. India, for
example, is the country with the largest number of hungry people
and also has millions of tons of surplus food in government and
private storage. It is not alone in this. Politics and money
keep food from those that need it and demonstrate quite starkly
that markets often do not work for the poorest.
Free trade and
liberalization have helped to reduce food costs but do not make
a difference to the 1 billion poorest who often lack access to
markets and live on less than one dollar per day.
For the poor, at least some local self-subsistence is
critical. To do that communities require a measure of
organization and capacity building so that people participate
fully. This creates opportunities for learning mutual
self-sufficiency and opens further possibilities that range from
better market negotiations and political representation to scale
economies for transportation, fertilizer, renewable energy, etc.
World food production (per
capita) has grown by 17-20% in the past 40 years But in 33 poor
countries the average person still gets less than 2200 kcal day
– some much less.
A strong and resilient community
provides the fundamental foundation of sustainable
development. Such a community tends to emphasize shared
responsibility and participatory decision-making that involves
women, elders, and youth. Once organized, the community is
better able to build and maintain necessary physical
infrastructure such as a community farm or a basic food storage
and processing (i.e. cleaning or drying) facility. From the
ground level social structures or market structures of such a
community or groups of communities emerge local institutions
that can range from micro-finance operations, to seed banks, to
providers of technical assistance.
About 7 million children
will die this year from various illnesses as a consequence of
chronic hunger. That is 14 children each and every minute. Most
are under 5 years old.
Sharing and reinforcing training across communities
improves sustainable resource management in a region and can
increase agricultural productivity by developing and sharing
basic techniques such as drip irrigation and systems such as
organic or Permaculture that have been demonstrated to better
withstand weather shocks (drought & deluge), provide superior
nutrition diversity, and are independent of external supplies of
costly fertilizers and agro-chemicals.
A community can also reduce its future risks by catalyzing
similar action in surrounding areas. Such affiliations not
only reduce risks of catastrophic crop failure in a region but
also permit more stable management of resources such as water,
or community pasture and forests. Networks also facilitate local
credit and savings structures as well as providing a united
political voice that are both rare in poor rural areas.
The number of malnourished
people has grown threefold in Africa since 1970.
Organized communities that have developed the capacity
to manage themselves democratically, and actively include women,
youth and elders, can often make other necessary advances that
contribute to reduced hunger and improved well-being. These
include primary health care (for example, water-borne disease
from lack of sanitation is a major killer of the malnourished)
and basic education and literacy. With enough food, basic health
care and some education, communities can avoid many
catastrophes.
Many aid or charitable projects have made only a modest
impact on hunger because they have historically addressed
only a single or few concrete issues and have a tendency to
target the easy changes such as financing some infrastructure or
providing a service, or even free seeds. They have rarely
addressed the core issues of community empowerment that are
fundamental in order to build the necessary frameworks for all
sorts of sustainable development. Most aid projects are
short-lived and seldom extend beyond 3 years. Efforts or
projects that are primarily dependent on outside funds are
inherently too paternalistic and are simply not sustainable.
Money is, of course, necessary but it is not the primary need.
There are far too many examples reflecting a naïve notion that
throwing considerable amounts of money at a project or community
will fix things.
This is certainly not comprehensive but I hope that having a
basic outline of what appears to work will make your choices or
efforts more successful in preventing and reducing hunger among
the world’s most vulnerable people. Of course, most folks are
not prepared to go and work directly on such issues, yet there
are a number of worthwhile organizations that do. A few
actually do so in a sane and cost-effective manner. You can.
check some out and see if any of them appeal to you, then
consider volunteering or supporting their efforts directly.
While our governments and some of the multilateral agencies (I
have worked for several) may not always make much of a
difference on these issues, you and I can do so individually –
see links below.
Perhaps the most
powerful effort we can make is also one of the simplest.
Start with ourselves and with those around us such as family or
friends and set an example by simply being mindful of our own
eating. I find it helpful to pause before eating to acknowledge
gratitude for simply having enough and also to offer a simple
wish for those that do not. When I forget to pause, some of my
family and friends do it and serve as a helpful reminder to be
aware and in the present. Such mindfulness enables us to
understand that food gives life and is thus sacred and worthy of
respect even when abundant. The pause and the moment of
appreciation also seem to make the food taste even better
somehow (except maybe for haggis that seems to be exempt from
tasting good, unless of course you're a Scot or a Hun…just
kidding).
If you are interested in taking further steps, on our Links
page you will find some organizations that are working on the
core issues. Each has its own approach, so it should be easy to
contact one that aligns with your preferences. [Link
to resources]
Thanks for making a difference,

Daniele Giovannucci
1 Many leading industrial nations agreed to spend 1%
of their GDP on development issues in poorer regions and only a
handful have actually kept their promise (most are
Scandinavian). Some have not only declined to honor the promise
but actually choose to spend exponentially far more on
military-industrial “donations” to other countries than on
humanitarian aid.
- View in PDF (47KB)
- Link to resources |