In my previous post (post #3), I talked about the issue itself and the places in the world that are most common for experiencing hunger as an issue in their lives. That was on developed and developing nations, and how they help each other in some ways. I also gave you a lead on how the government and other organizations have taken care of the issue. So, in this post, I am going to talk about the government and other organizations, and how they have contributed in eradicating hunger as an issue or not. This post will include how the government and other organizations have contributed to solve the issue of hunger in our world today. In the end of the last paragraph, there will be a transition leading on to my next post.
According to Hilal Elver, she argues that “Although the world has succeeded in reducing poverty in accordance with the millennium development goal (MDG) targets, food security and adequate nutrition have not been achieved” (Guardian News). Elver is basically stating that even though systems like MDG tried to help reduce the issue of hunger, they failed to succeed at all. The MDG has declined to help reduce the issue of hunger because they “failed to treat food as a human right” (Elver). I concur that Elver said the MDG saw the issue of hunger as a non-existing difficulty of human right because my experience of seeing other people in the world experiencing famine confirms it. Food must be treated as a human right. Everyone needs food in order to survive because without it no one can live a healthy life. Not only did the MDGs fail to see hunger as “human rights” but, according to Elver, “Experience shows us that neither markets nor governments protect access to sufficient and nutritious food for everyone” (1). What Elver is saying is that the government and other organizations are too weak and ignorant to look at the bigger picture of hunger. These people that are starving to death may be at the point of choosing either between hope and moving on in life or giving up. As Josette Sheeran writes in her journal “How to End Hunger,” she claims that “Without food, people do one of three things: revolt, migrate, or starve. When governments can no longer provide food security, states fail” (5). Governments need to improve their game and help those poor people in suffering nations around the world and solve this issue of hunger. Furthermore, governments, organizations and even nations must help to solve hunger by reducing it or even getting rid of it for everyone’s sake.
Hilal Elver suggests that “The SDGs should encourage governments to work towards policy coherence: agricultural policies should be compatible with environmental sustainability and trade rules consistent with food security” (Guardian News). Hilal is saying that the SDG (sustainable development goals) needs to step up and advise the government to take an action on this topic because a good government system that supports a policy might create an active force in ending an issue. According to Clare Ulrich, she quoted Pinstrup-Andersen’s comment on the how biased the policies were without empirical evidence when he said: “It’s the combination of appropriate policies and the application of science that will make the difference in the lives of poor and hungry people” (18). Anderson is insisting that policies and science should work together to put an end to an issue. Since Andersen’s “current research focuses on the effects of globalization” (Ulrich, 18), he made a statement to Ulrich by saying: “his chief interests is to gather empirical evidence that he can use to propose international and domestic policy interventions that will change the outcome of globalization to enable poor people to escape poverty, redistribute income more equitably, and support sustainable development” (Ulrich, 18). I agree with Andersen’s statement when he made a comment saying, “Once people earned their Ph.D.’s, they would conduct research according to what they thought farmers needed rather than ask the farmers what they wanted” (Ulrich, Page #18) because those scientist need to consider digging more into the needs of farmers, rather than focusing on the general idea. As a fact, it is a good idea to see the main cause of hunger rather than focusing on the bigger picture. In addition to science and empirical evidence, as I mentioned earlier, the government needs to act now because progress have not been made in solving hunger in our world today.
The case of hunger needs to be fixed because innocent people are losing their lives. Governments, together with other organizations, must act now because “Acting now can also avoid higher economic and human costs down the road” (Sheeran, 4). It will help us have a better economic cost and we may even save a lot of lives. I am on the same page of the idea that we should act now because if we don’t, then those delays would mean “lost and shattered lives for the youngest and most vulnerable, and a future of poverty for their families, communities, and countries” (Sheeran, 4). That would not be a better outcome so we must not allow such things as losing lives and living in poverty in this world. According to Jennifer Clapp, she writes that “Uneven distribution of both food production and food trade, and poor access to food, are the key reasons that people continue to go hungry in this world of plenty” (3). It is accurate that uneven distribution of food production and trade, and poor access to food cause people to go hungry in this world because in my experience of watching documentaries and video clips about the people who are experiencing starvation confirms it. Also “Poor weather, economic difficulties, and violent conflict create short- and even long-term food shortages affecting millions of people” (Andersen, 26). Basically, Andersen is saying that hunger could come from poor weather conditions, economic difficulties and violent conflicts in the lives of those innocent people around the world. Just to be clear, “Hunger is not just a problem of consuming too little food. Diets may also lack vitamins and minerals” (Andersen, 26). With that being said, “Roughly 75 percent of people in the developing world consume too little iron: one billion suffer from anemia as a result” (Andersen, 26). In other words, Andersen believes that when people lack too much iron in their body systems, they may suffer from starvation because having to eat less each day may result in harmful life. According to Hilal Elver, she stresses that “The world produces enough to feed 10 billion people. Poverty and hunger prevail because of economics, not scarcity” (Guardian News). I’m of two minds about Elver’s claim that poverty and hunger prevail because of economics, not scarcity. On the one hand, I agree that we live in a world where there is enough to feed 10 billion people. On the other hand, I’m not sure if scarcity causes poverty and hunger to prevail. It is a known fact that a lot of developing countries are so poor that they do not have enough to eat. After talking about developing countries in my previous paragraphs, we can come to a conclusion that hunger and poverty exist because of both economic and scarcity and other causes of hunger that I mentioned earlier. Also with all those effects and impacts that hunger has in our world today, could we think of a better way to work our way out of hunger? What might be some possible solutions to end hunger in our world?
Elver, Hilal. “Why are there still so many hungry people in the world?.” Guardian News 19 Feb 2015. Print.
Ulrich, Clare. “Enlightened Policies Can Benefit The Poor And Hungry.” Human Ecology 33.2 (2005): 16. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Sheeran, Josette. “How To End Hunger.” Washington Quarterly 33.2 (2010): 3. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Clapp, Jennifer. “World Hunger And The Global Economy: Strong Linkages, Weak Action.” Journal Of International Affairs 67.2 (2014): 1. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Pinstrup-Andersen, Per. “Feeding The World In The New Millennium.” Environment 43.6 (2001): 22. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.