Mar 6, 2010 2:54:09 PM cite

There are people going hungry in even the richest nations on this planet. However, it is often not from the lack of food but from the lack of funds to purchase food. That said, many people need to understand that food is fuel for our body and does not always have to have a new or unique flavor. Balanced meals of appropriate caloric value are attainable for costs that would allow access and/or distribution to the entire planet. Unfortunately, for many parts of the world, a full stomach is not enough. Flavor and packaging sells and we fall for it.

by compton

Feb 8, 2010 5:41:15 AM cite

Feeding the world wouldnt make rich nations rich, the wealthy profit over poverty in other countries. Economics 101

by Galactus

Feb 5, 2010 12:01:33 PM cite

I think we should always help, and we don´t have to be selfish, but we have to be carefull because almost of the money a1nd food that is given to the 3rd world countries, to help, sometimes don´t go to the right way, and is lost to people that don´t need it.

by Jane

Jan 14, 2010 12:46:40 AM cite

The reason we don't is because we wall ourselves off into private clubs called countries instead of existing as a global community

by Munnin

May 14, 2009 5:52:07 AM cite

Is there enough food being donated?

by wwegal

Aug 24, 2008 8:35:22 PM cite

There seems to be plenty of misinformation and assumptions involved with this topic. The U.S. is the 3rd largest producer of wheat. That's right, third !!! China is the largest producer of wheat, and India is the second largest producer of wheat. The first two producers comsume almost all they grow. The U.S. is able to produce more than it comsumes because the free market enviroment we enjoy creates superior technology and profit incentive. It would be impossible for the U.S. to feed 6 billion people. So, the same old blame America crowd continues to spread lies and misinformation about how evil and selfish our country has become. Fact: Most starving nations survive with the help of the U.S., even North Korea, who we fought in the 50's, receives food aid from America. Where is China and India? Most people that criticize and blame America have never left her safe shores to see for themselves what other nations are like.

by Bubblehead

Jan 5, 2008 2:36:01 AM cite

Because we are insane and disconnected.

by awarrumbungle

Dec 13, 2007 9:25:20 AM cite

Ever felt a need to express your voice and opinion but can't find an opportunity to do so? In a time of politcal and economic change, www.politomics.org allows you to exchange your ideas with other passionate individuals on virtually any social issue.

by worldonfire

Dec 3, 2007 8:24:15 AM cite

Because it is not a priority. If the developed nations of the world decided that a minimum education of 12 years, 3 bowls of rice a day, adequate clothing, potable water, a safe, warm, and dry shelter, some means of self-sufficiency and basic medical care were a priority, it would become a reality. The trillions of dollars spent in Iraq just as easily could have been spent bettering the lives of thousands of people. The war was deemed a priority, the betterment of the 'have' nots was not. Another reason is that there is no monetary profit to be made. When the welfare of our fellow man/women becomes a greater priority than profit margins some changes may be seen. Possible, but not very likely anytime soon. aries4548

by aries4548

Oct 3, 2007 9:09:29 AM cite

here's an answer I got from someone who works for cooperative extension service in Michigan when i asked the same question. i am still contemplating the answer, but it sounded true to me. Government's/countries, including the u.s., do have more than enough food. i asked why in particular government pays u.s. farmers to NOT grow food and pay them to do so, In part, the answer was to keep the price of agriculture foods where the government wants them (price control). The other half about not feeding the world has to do with some countries/gvnmnts do not WANT those people feed. If you think about it like I did later, it makes sense. What happens to people when not nourished by food? Brain and body becomes basically decayed. Those people no longer can think about anything like politically change or other important issues, just on ly think about food. That makes the governments stronger and can control the people. They use this power in whatever way they want, whether to keep control in the country, to 'state' on t.v. look our people are starving..so they get help..not that the help goes to the people. I still can't figure out why they would want to people to continue to starve. seems they'd want people who were stronger to support -grow stronger as a nation. cant answer that part-im not twisted like some government/countries.

by ljhlah

Mar 16, 2007 9:07:49 PM cite

Good Questions. In fact it costs some armies more to keep a man alive than to kill him. It is the wierdos ruling the world. The Control freaks. Gaz

by Gaz

Sep 9, 2006 7:25:44 PM cite

It would be better for developed nations to take the time to teach poorer nations "how to fish" - so to speak. However prosperity lives in the province of economic stimulation. Money making takes precedence in thriving nations so there is no interest or gain in developement of that nature. If food were oil or uranium it would be a different matter. So long as economics dictate our doings, urges and very lives the unfed poor must continue to depend upon the kindess of strangers. The only answer is to so change the concept and nature of economics wherein economics is dependent upon the welfare of all. Concurrently we would do well to educate the poor about the need to control population stress. Food and numbers.

by notcriswell