Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Food for thought: despite cheaply produced food people still are going hungry

find_the_fun

Active member
Feb 1, 2012
166
I saw an ad asking for donations to a food bank and it hit me. After World War II many countries declared a "war on hunger". It was believed that solving the worlds food crisis would put an end to war. Many countries, such as the U.S.A., began mass producing cheap foods that are highly refined. Governments subsidized farmers and guarantees were made to buy crops even if they were spoiled. For more information see "The No-Nonsense Guide to World Food".

After seeing the ad I realized this "war on hunger" must have been a failure. There are still food backs and people claiming they can't afford food. But then I thought, on a number of occasions pan handlers don't want food and only want money (though they claim the money is for food) probably to support their drug addiction. This makes me wonder if it is useful to donate food to food banks.
 

CaptainBlack

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
890
I saw an ad asking for donations to a food bank and it hit me. After World War II many countries declared a "war on hunger". It was believed that solving the worlds food crisis would put an end to war. Many countries, such as the U.S.A., began mass producing cheap foods that are highly refined. Governments subsidized farmers and guarantees were made to buy crops even if they were spoiled. For more information see "The No-Nonsense Guide to World Food".

After seeing the ad I realized this "war on hunger" must have been a failure. There are still food backs and people claiming they can't afford food. But then I thought, on a number of occasions pan handlers don't want food and only want money (though they claim the money is for food) probably to support their drug addiction. This makes me wonder if it is useful to donate food to food banks.
You are confusing giving food to charities for local distribution to the needy with charities helping the needy in less developed parts of the world. Giving food by individuals is of no use in the latter case as the transportation and handling costs are prohibitive.

CB
 

Jameson

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,043
It depends on how you think of useful and for whom it is so. The combination of food waste in some countries combined with lack of food in others is an indication that there is a problem but the problem isn't the ability to provide it. There are many things that could be done if that was the only common goal of all countries but won't. I personally agree that it's natural to try to help those nearest to you first and with food this makes actually feeding people with what you give more realistic. I find it really interesting how people decide to donate to various charities and what in the end persuaded them.
 

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,192
World hunger isn't a production problem - the US alone could feed the world. In fact, a couple of states in the Midwest could feed the world. It's a distribution problem. Food donations given to third-world countries in Africa, e.g., run into the problem of dictators seizing all the food, and giving none of it to the poor. This is a case of benevolence gone bad - you simply have to follow out the logical consequences of your benevolence. Not all recipients for donations are going to use it wisely.
 

find_the_fun

Active member
Feb 1, 2012
166
World hunger isn't a production problem...It's a distribution problem.
Agreed. What I wonder is if the governments stops supporting low quality food (e.g. subdising corn crops to make processed foods cheap) would there still be enough food to feed the world? If yes, why hasn't the government stoped already, corporate pressure?