World Hunger Index shows Improvement

[Michael Hardner]

The 2010 GHI report shows how the hunger situation has developed since 1990 at global, regional, and national levels. Globally, the GHI fell nearly one forth from 19.8 to 15.1. Regardless of this positive trend, the global fight against hunger is not reaching its goals fast enough. 29 countries still have an alarming (20-29.9) or extremely alarming (≥ 30) hunger situation. The global averages hide dramatic differences among regions and countries. The 2010 GHI had fallen by 14% in Sub-Saharan Africa compared with the 1990 GHI, by about 25% in South Asia, and by 33% in the Near East and North Africa. Progress in Southeast Asia and Latin America was especially great, with the GHI decreasing by over 40%.

link

Understandably, there is still much to be concerned about, however I do want to point out that world hunger is a problem that continues to shrink as time marches on.

Ghana - one of the poorest countries - is on track to eliminate hunger by 2015. and the number of hungry people has dropped under 1 billion since 2009.

There was a brief period of food spikes a few years ago, accompanied by posts that called attention to that. I feel that slow improvement also deserves to be pointed out from time to time.

[dre]

link

Understandably, there is still much to be concerned about, however I do want to point out that world hunger is a problem that continues to shrink as time marches on.

Ghana - one of the poorest countries - is on track to eliminate hunger by 2015. and the number of hungry people has dropped under 1 billion since 2009.

There was a brief period of food spikes a few years ago, accompanied by posts that called attention to that. I feel that slow improvement also deserves to be pointed out from time to time.

Some of this news is actually bad in the long term. One of the factors that has helped reduce hunger are massive agricultural subsidies in virtually every developed and semi developed nation that makes food cheaper. The problem is that is also prevents undeveloped nations from building an agrarian economy. In many cases local farmers cant compete even with farms in foreign countries hundreds or thousands of miles away.

So its a mixed bag.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of this news is actually bad in the long term. One of the factors that has helped reduce hunger are massive agricultural subsidies in virtually every developed and semi developed nation that makes food cheaper. The problem is that is also prevents undeveloped nations from building an agrarian economy. In many cases local farmers cant compete even with farms in foreign countries hundreds or thousands of miles away.

So its a mixed bag.

But... how has that changed ? I would think that, if anything, subsidies are being challenged more than in the past ?

[dre]

But... how has that changed ? I would think that, if anything, subsidies are being challenged more than in the past ?

From what Iv read western nations have absolutely refused to address agricultural subsidies. In fact theyve grown.

Heres an article that talks about it. The US, EU, and Japans agricultural subsidies combined are approaching the 1/2 Trillion dollar mark. These subisides cost the developing world and the poorest nations about 50 billion dollars per year in lost exports which is more money that all foreign aid to poor countries combined.

http://www.beinformedjournal.com/beinformed-journal/2010/8/11/us-farming-subsidiescost-us-taxpayers-billions-drive-develop.html

The Western governments' subsidized agriculture effectively drives farmers in poorer countries out of business and forces those countries to buy food from the Western countries, because it is cheaper than the food produced in their own country. This cycle of supply and demand ensures that there is always market for commodities from the developed world in the developing world.

Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting article in the NYT in July 2002, in which he says: "The U.S., Europe and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world's poorest people. "These subsidies are crippling Africa's chance to export its way out of poverty," said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.

Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that's about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right. "It's holding down the prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow, selfish interests of their own," Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich world's agricultural policy."

These policies have definately helped to feed people... but they deprive the worlds poorest people of everything else BUT food. In many cases farming is about the only thing these people can do, but we are driving local farms out of business, for the sake of our own self interest, and making it impossible for these countries to use an agrarian economy as a lynchpin from which other industries can grow. This is a huge problem because almost every country that has ever gotten anywhere has started out with this basic building block.

Edited October 21, 2010 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

From what Iv read western nations have absolutely refused to address agricultural subsidies. In fact theyve grown.

Wow. I had no idea that they had grown. Wow.

Heres an article that talks about it. The US, EU, and Japans agricultural subsidies combined are approaching the 1/2 Trillion dollar mark. These subisides cost the developing world and the poorest nations about 50 billion dollars per year in lost exports which is more money that all foreign aid to poor countries combined.

Governments hold a special place for farmers then ?

[bloodyminded]

Governments hold a special place for farmers then ?

Well...for big Agri-Business. Insofar as smaller farmers might benefit sometimes, that's incidental, the same way that "tax cuts for the middle class" are arguably incidental to the real purpose.

[Michael Hardner]

Well...for big Agri-Business. Insofar as smaller farmers might benefit sometimes, that's incidental, the same way that "tax cuts for the middle class" are arguably incidental to the real purpose.

But protection for farming has been around for longer than corporate farming has, hasn't it ? Dairy, Poultry and Egg marketing boards have been around for as long as I remember, and I didn't even hear the term 'corporate farms' until the 70s or 80s.

[dre]

Wow. I had no idea that they had grown. Wow.

Governments hold a special place for farmers then ?

Part of is that governments hold a special place for ANY industry that greases the right palms and spends enough on the legalized bribery / lobbying game.

But origionally I think the subsidies were there to prevent these countries from doing the same thing to us that we are now doing to them... Undercutting our farmers, and putting them out of business. Western countries did not want to wind up being big food importers because its position of stategic weakness.

So theres those two aspects of it. I think the biggest factor though is the political changes in most western countries and replacement of representive government with the "pay for play" system that has happened to various different degrees throughout the developed world.

[dre]

But protection for farming has been around for longer than corporate farming has, hasn't it ? Dairy, Poultry and Egg marketing boards have been around for as long as I remember, and I didn't even hear the term 'corporate farms' until the 70s or 80s.

Absolutely... it started out as naked protectionism driven by strategic interests. We didnt want our farms to have to compete with foreign farms where workers cost 10 cents an hour.

[bloodyminded]

But protection for farming has been around for longer than corporate farming has, hasn't it ? Dairy, Poultry and Egg marketing boards have been around for as long as I remember, and I didn't even hear the term 'corporate farms' until the 70s or 80s.

Fair enough; and I certainly don't know the history of the business. But government protection of an industry that is indisputably necessary is one thing; economic protectionism for some "farmers" (big business) at the expense of other farmers (small, third world farmers) and the potentials for infrastructure growth within third world nations and communities...well, that's imperialism, and is something else altogether.

Edited October 21, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Moonlight Graham]

Fair enough; and I certainly don't know the history of the business. But government protection of an industry that is indisputably necessary is one thing; economic protectionism for some "farmers" (big business) at the expense of other farmers (small, third world farmers) and the potentials for infrastructure growth within third world nations and communities...well, that's imperialism, and is something else altogether.

I don't see how that's imperialism. It is rather exploitation or protectionism.

It's good to see an improvement in hunger index #'s, however given the dynamics of global trade and with the large agriculture subsidies in the west, i don't see this hunger improvement getting increasingly better by any significant margin. In fact it may be a blip.

Hunger in the 3rd world is not a problem of access aka a lack of available food, its a problem of people not able to afford the food that is being sold locally. Also, because big agri-corps own much of the land that locals use to own in ie: latin america, plus an increase in urbanization in many areas, many people do not own their own land to even produce their own food for subsistence.

We are, in a large sense, killing millions of people in order to increase our own profits.

[bloodyminded]

I don't see how that's imperialism. It is rather exploitation or protectionism.

Making up the rules for other nations (sometimes with the threat of military action, which is then sometimes enacted, often through proxies) for the sake of our profitability is imperialism by definition, I would think.

As you say,

We are, in a large sense, killing millions of people in order to increase our own profits.

I don't see how this isn't imperialism.

However, the word itself doesn't matter too much, I suppose.

[Michael Hardner]

It's good to see an improvement in hunger index #'s, however given the dynamics of global trade and with the large agriculture subsidies in the west, i don't see this hunger improvement getting increasingly better by any significant margin. In fact it may be a blip.

Not a blip, but in fact an understandable improvement in hunger percentages going back many decades.

[Oleg Bach]

If you have not noticed - packaging of food is being shrunk..You get less for the same price and more..Me _ I am the canary in the gold mine-- I feel fairly strong..but yesterday a couple of people commented on my stature..including my over weight and hedonistic X - wife..."you are getting skinny" - well - it's because I survive on one meal a day lately..if I hustle..and my waist is almost down to what it was when I was 20....my point is- I will surive...all - I come from a long line of genetically tough people-- but most of YOU will not survive - when hunger comes to vist North America..and it will!