World Hunger

World hunger refers to the global population meeting the United Nations (UN) definition of hunger or undernourishment. The UN defines hunger as painful or uncomfortable sensations that occur when an individual does not consume enough dietary energy, or food. Chronic hunger or undernourishment occurs when an individual regularly does not consume enough calories to live actively and healthily.

In the early 2020s world hunger was increasing after nearly a decade in decline. About 10 percent of the global population—up to 811 million people—met the UN definition of hungry in 2020. Increases in the number of hungry people include global conflict and war, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Food Programme, a UN agency that coordinates the distribution of food aid, notes that the number of people facing acute food insecurity—inconsistent or uncertain access to sufficient food—reached a record 345 million in 2022 and as many as 50 million people may have begun 2023 on the brink of famine (Chilkoti, 2022).

According to the nonprofit organization Action Against Hunger USA, the threshold for food deprivation, or undernourishment, is 1,800 calories per day, the minimum energy required for normal adult human functioning. That threshold is especially difficult to meet in the developing world, where the vast majority of hungry people reside. Extreme poverty and lack of access to nutritious food directly contribute to malnutrition in at least twenty-five countries, but hunger is most prevalent in Asia, where more than half the world’s undernourished people live, and in Africa, home to more than one-third of the world’s hungry (Koenig, 2022).

Overview

War and conflict along with extreme weather and disparities exacerbated by global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic are the main factors that have contributed in modern times to rapidly growing food insecurity, which is most concentrated in ten countries: Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Pakistan, and Yemen. However, Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Myanmar also are of critical concern (Reid 2022).

The World Food Programme has described the hunger crisis as seismic and attributed it to a deadly combination of circumstances, with conflict still the biggest driver. Fully 60 percent of the world’s hungry people live in war-torn or violent regions of the world. The impact of war is evident in Ukraine, which was invaded by Russia in February 2022. Production of maize, rice, soybean, and wheat all fell in 2022, according to the World Food Programme. Ukraine is a major source of wheat. War disrupted agriculture as well as distribution of food crops. The Russian invasion also caused prices of fertilizer to increase 50 percent, according to the European Commission. Russia was the world’s top exporter of nitrogen fertilizers, the second largest supplier of potassium, and the third-largest exporter of phosphorus fertilizers. After the Ukraine invasion, shipping costs and energy prices increased as well.

The Economist noted that people in conflict zones go hungry for a host of reasons. In countries such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and Yemen, hunger is tied to farming disruptions, while in Pakistan and the Horn of Africa, flood and drought are to blame. Globally enough food is produced to feed everyone, but even wealthy countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom and large food-producing nations including Brazil and India grapple with poverty and hunger.

Further Insights

While hunger concerns have reached crisis levels worldwide, the number of people at risk of starving also has grown at an alarming rate, according to the Global Network Against Food Crises. Lack of food has far-reaching consequences, including chronic health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes as well as obesity because individuals who are unable to afford nutritious meals often buy less expensive, packaged foods.

Women—who are more likely to be poor and to deny themselves food to feed their families—are at particular risk of hunger and food insecurity. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported in 2021 that 31.9 percent of women in the world were moderately or severely food insecure compared with 27.6 percent of men, and the gap was widening. Children are at severe risk. Hunger stunts brain development and reduces immunity, and even a few months of poor nutrition in childhood can reduce a person’s chances of living a healthy, productive life (Chilkoti, 2022). According to the World Food Program USA, 45 percent of lives younger than five years are lost to hunger and hunger-related causes.

Proposed solutions have not been widely effective. In 2015, world leaders gathered to establish the UN’s seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for a better world. Among them was the commitment to end hunger and malnutrition by 2030, ensuring that all people, especially individuals living in poverty and vulnerable situations, have sufficient and nutritious food throughout the year (Koenig, 2022). However, according to 2022 projections, the world is unlikely to achieve this goal, nor are most indicators on track to meet global nutrition targets. The food security and nutritional status of the most vulnerable population groups is expected to further deteriorate due especially to the health and socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 report. Previous recommendations regarding increased aid by wealthier countries to poorer countries have not been fully achieved, and current political, economic, and health crises have only worsened the problem.

Viewpoints

In 1990, the World Bank suggested wealthy countries should share 0.7 percent of their gross national product (GNP) with poor countries to reduce poverty by as much as 40 percent by the turn of the millennium (Andre and Velasquez, 2014). That figure has become a broad international commitment among wealthy countries, with five (Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the United Kingdom) meeting or exceeding that benchmark. The average for all wealthy nations is about 0.3 percent. However, countries with the most means to aid less-affluent nations often do not do so. Less than one half of one percent of the total world GNP aids poverty-stricken nations. The United States lags other wealthy countries in its generosity. Although the United States provides more assistance than any other country, it shares a smaller proportion of its GNP than other wealthy nations. In 2019, aid from the United States totaled 0.2 percent of its GNP (Ingram, 2019).

Some have asked whether wealthy nations have a moral obligation to help people in poor nations. Some ethicists argue against any such obligation and say moral duty calls people to maximize human happiness and minimize human suffering. Put simply, they believe that keeping others alive has long-term negative consequences. From their perspective, helping poor nations ultimately will produce more suffering than it will alleviate because nations experiencing the most poverty also have the highest birthrates. One report estimates that more than 90 percent of total world population growth between 2022 and 2025 would happen in developing countries. Aiding those countries would increase survival and reproduction and more heavily burden the world’s limited food supply, some argue. As populations increase, so will land degradation. Land available for food production will decrease, threatening the survival of future generations of all people (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Another argument against foreign aid for developing countries is that it rarely reaches the intended beneficiaries. More often, this argument holds, foreign aid ends up on the black market, subsidizes the military of oppressive governments, or benefits local elites. Argument also has been made that foreign aid reduces benefitting countries’ incentive to achieve self-sufficiency through food production or population control programs. Poor dairy farmers, the argument goes, might struggle to compete against free milk, increasing poorer countries’ aid dependence.

Some ethicists say that justice requires fair distribution of benefits and burdens and that nations that have planned for their citizens’ needs should be rewarded while poorer nations, which according to this argument are less responsible, should suffer consequences for spending instead on lavish projects or military regimes. These ethicists argue it is unjust to ask responsible nations to bear the burdens of irresponsible nations. Another anti-aid argument involves the basic right to freedom and the right to freely choose how to use resources legitimately acquired (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Others support aid. They maintain that wealthy nations must aid poor nations because of a moral obligation to prevent harm as long as comparable harm to self does not result. Suffering and death from starvation are harms that can be prevented through minor financial sacrifices by wealthy nations. Many childhood deaths are preventable by provision of simple, inexpensive remedies for easily treatable conditions. The argument has been made that the aid needed to prevent a majority of child illness and death due to malnutrition equals the money spent in the United States to advertise cigarettes (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Some argue that aiding the poor in other nations may inconvenience wealthy nations but ignoring the plight of starving people is morally reprehensible. Prominent among these thinkers is Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer, who has argued that allowing a person to die from hunger when one can easily prevent such a death is morally akin to killing another human being; the objection that such deaths are unintentional is irrelevant. He uses a thought experiment to illustrate his position: Imagine seeing a child drowning in a pond. Most people would jump in to rescue the child without worrying about the expensive phones or other items in their pockets—the cost of such property is inconsequential when weighed against the life of the child. Individuals could aid desperately impoverished people separated from them by geographical distance very easily by donating a similar amount of money. Singer’s approach comes down to a firm belief that if an individual has an ability to prevent harm, the person must indeed prevent harm (Van Wyk, 1988).

Robert Nozick made a hybrid argument by defending absolute duties to do no harm but denying that any duty to benefit others exists, while German philosopher Immanuel Kant, an Enlightenment thinker, argued that all people have imperfect duties to help others. A middle ground argument is that some formula might determine a fair share that each citizen of a developed country should contribute to those in distress in that country as well as to that country’s share of helping people in other nations. If nations make such a formula part of their tax structure, then citizens can fulfill their moral duties by paying their taxes (Van Wyk, 1988).

Some who favor providing foreign aid say justice demands compensation for those suffering at the hands of others. Much of the poverty in developing nations, they argue, is due to unjust and exploitive governments and corporations in wealthy countries. The protectionist trade policies of wealthy nations, for example, have driven down the price of poor nations’ exports. Trade barriers cost developing countries $50 to $100 billion a year in lost sales and depressed markets. Furthermore, poor nations’ massive debt burdens are created by developed nations’ inflated loan interest rates. According to one report, since 1988, $50 billion has been transferred annually from poor to wealthy nations to service these debts (Andre and Velasquez, 2014). Those firmly on the side of foreign aid argue further that no evidence exists that such aid will lead to rapid population growth. Instead, they cite research that shows that as poverty decreases, fertility rates decline because economically secure people have less need to have large families to ensure they will be supported in old age. As infant mortality declines, so, too, does the need to have more children as insurance against the likelihood that some will die. With more aid, they argue, population growth will be under control (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Some ethicists argue that wealthy rather than impoverished countries threaten the world’s resource supply. The average American, for example, uses up to thirty times more resources than the average Asian or African. Therefore, policies meant to decrease consumption by wealthy nations are the better option (Van Wyk, 1988). They dispute the argument that foreign aid rarely accomplishes what it was intended to. They note that many countries have significantly reduced poverty and moved from dependence to self-reliance thanks to foreign aid. Instances in which impoverished people have not benefitted from aid can be addressed. More effective ways to combat poverty in these countries might include canceling debts, loosening trade restrictions, or improving distribution of direct aid (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Some philosophers argue that all human beings are entitled to what is necessary to live in dignity. This includes a right to life and a right to the goods necessary to satisfy basic needs, including food. This right supersedes the rights of others to accumulate wealth and property. When people are without the resources needed to survive, those with surpluses are obligated to help (Andre and Velasquez, 2014).

Experts say the gap between wealthy nations and poor nations will likely increase. How wealthy nations respond to the plight of poor nations will depend on how they view their moral duty, accounting for justice, fairness, and the moral rights of all human beings and in keeping with the results of a harms vs. benefits analysis.

A report released in 2022 found that almost 90 percent of surveyed international food security and nutrition experts believed that global hunger would continue to rise over the next decade without bold moves (Devex, 2022). Two-thirds believed that achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of zero hunger by 2030 was still possible by implementing changes. The experts surveyed recommended localized, collaborative, and innovative approaches; high-impact, evidence-based initiatives; and more government accountability. They believed an end to hunger was achievable but would not meet the UN’s 2030 goal.

About the Author

Sandra Snyder earned her Bachelor of Arts in Communication from the University of Scranton in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1993. She worked as a newspaper journalist—writer, editor, and columnist—for more than twenty years before making a career change into nonprofit development. She works as a grant writer and fundraiser for the Diocese of Scranton, where part of her role involves securing the necessary funds to support food kitchens, food pantries, and other anti-hunger initiatives. She has researched both local and national hunger in support of grant proposals to fund these initiatives in Northeastern and North Central Pennsylvania. Outside of her full-time job, she works as a freelance writer and editor.

Bibliography

Action Against Hunger. (2023). World Hunger Facts. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/.

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2014). World Hunger: A Moral Response. Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v5n1/hunger.html.

Chilkoti, A. (2022, November 18). Global Hunger Is Now More a Problem of Price than Availability. The Economist. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2022/11/18/global-hunger-is-now-more-a-problem-of-price-than-availability.

Devex. (2022, January). Zeroing In on Ending Hunger: Perspectives on the Challenges, Priorities, and Critical Next Steps. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from pages.devex.com/zeroing-in.html.

Ingram, G. (2019, October 15). What Every American Should Know about U.S. Foreign Aid. Brookings Institution. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/.

Koenig, D. (2022, April 4). 5 Worst Spots for Hunger. World Vison. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.worldvision.org/hunger-news-stories/5-worst-spots-hunger#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20of%20the,other%20region%20in%20the%20world.

Reid, K. (2022, July 6). 10 World Hunger Facts You Need to Know. World Vision. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.worldvision.org/hunger-news-stories/world-hunger-facts.

Van Wyk, R. (1988, April). Perspectives on World Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties. Public Affairs Quarterly, 2(2), 75–90.

World Food Programme. (2023). A Global Food Crisis—2023: Another Year of Extreme Jeopardy for Those Struggling to Feed Their Families. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis.

World Food Program USA. (2021, October 4). 10 Facts about Child Hunger in the World. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from www.wfpusa.org/articles/10-facts-child-hunger/.