Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Tania Bruguera: I think that one thing that happens is that capitalism needs to have the key, this means the system of work that can [inaudible]. Capitalism is a system with cheap human labour and therefore I think that hunger was used a lot, that hunger has been a kind of currency, a strong currency, a currency of exchange, this means it´s a way of, I think, keeping the people a bit, I say, under control, a way of keeping the persons under control and even creating a larger difference between one group or another what is very important for the power, without clearly distinguishing who is in a postion of power and who is not. And I think that unfortunatly it´s something so basic, so unbelievably basic and human is food, and this is what is used a bit, like the [inaudible] to distinguish between the different people in a society and of course poverty is a way of manipulating the people. It´s a quiete inhuman way of manipulating the people. Anyway there is a problem which is the problem of fear, the fear that people could have of sharing and the fear that the people could have of feeling in a postion [without power].

by Tania Bruguera

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Tavis Smiley: If we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, then why don't we? I think the answer here is rather simple. It’s a lack of courage, a lack of conviction, and a lack of commitment about the least among us. We in fact produce enough food to feed everyone in the world and we don’t primarily because those persons who are the least among us, those who are politically, socially, economically and even culturally disenfranchised, their concerns have not risen high enough on the world’s agenda. I live in the United States of America, and even in our own country we have hunger. We throw away more food every day in the United States than we need to. And so this problem we have of not feeding everyone in the world, even though we produce enough food to do so, really starts with a lack of courage, a lack of commitment to those persons who are the least among us. And that’s why this conversation today, to raise these unvoiced questions and address these challenging issues on behalf of those persons who are the least among us is so critically important.

by Tavis Smiley

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Tegla Loroupe: Answertext will be available soon.

by Tegla Loroupe

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Thenmozhi Soundararajan: I think it’s primarily a question of that there’s a lack of political will. It’s not profitable to solve the food security issues of our time, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not an imperative of our generation to really deal with that. Particularly, when you look at the UN has set up a series of goals to look at development across the board internationally called the ‘Millennium Goals.’ I think food security is one of the biggest issues to really look at with that. The Nobel prize-winning economist, Amartya Sen said, “There’s no such thing as a political food problem.” I think it’s one of the things of our generation to really make this a political question for our generation. I think that, unfortunately, even with modernity and with the technological advances that we do have, we’ve seen consistently time and time again in the 20th Century governments undermining the food security of their own nations for their own greed and I’m hoping that we can actually change that. I think one of the things, though, that we should really be wary of in looking at how to solve food security problems is that we don’t apply big box solutions and technological solutions that come from the West and try and create a model that applies for all countries. I don’t think that there is one model for development. I don’t think there is one model for technological development. I think that the more locally-grown sustainable agricultural economies that we create where local farmers and local production is empowered with a greater diversity of seeds and foods and crops that are better, I think that we will be able to move into the 21st Century. But I think if we look at trying to create an industrial model around food, we’ll consistently see food failures like the what we see now where you have huge amounts of agro crops that are grown and destroyed primarily to support and subvert markets based on who can profit from that. I think what we’re also doing when we do that is we eradicate our rich history of seeds and really subvert the local farmer for the corporate international farms. I think that to really have an enlightened approach what food security means we need to really realign the way we look at international solutions being jointly led in a multi-dialogue like this.

by Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Tu Weiming: The serious problem of the over capacity of many major agriculture economies in the world to produce the food sufficient for all members of human community, and yet this – if not a deliberate attempt, this is lack of political will, the lack of really understanding of the overall situation. The question about food has been so politicized that it is not simply the question about availability of food, it is a question of distribution, question of infrastructure mechanism that would be able to spread to move these kind of food to the rest of the world. And yet most of the countries have adopted protective measures, especially powerful western countries, in order to preserve the level of support of their agricultural sector. In this sense in the whole world there's such a difference between the abundancy of food on the one hand and the lack of the basic food and therefore suffering from starvation. And that kind of inequality cannot be easily resolved without the participation of the most powerful nations and exercise certain kind of political will which has to be enhanced by the direct participation of the civil society as a whole. Without the participation of the civil society, it’s difficult to imagine that a government themselves overwhelmed by various kinds of local interests would be able to help the various countries that require the aid of various kinds of food. And I think one particular problem that we face is that there’s no international global mechanism through which the distribution of food can be made. However it is important to bear in mind that once the politicization of food as an integration of a governmental policy to its agriculture, the possibility of overcoming that serious issue becomes even more aggravated. That’s the reason why the use of food as a political weapon is unpardonable.

by Tu Weiming

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Udi Aloni:

by Udi Aloni

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Valentina Melnikova: The question contains a contradiction. Nobody has to feed another man if the last has physical abilities to support himself and his family. The question is that we cannot speak only about distribution. Of course there is justice, and there are principles of charity, but healthy and able to work people should not wait that someone brings them ready food. The problem is that independence has to be developed all over the world, in all locations, because biological human history shows that people are able to survive and to live and to reproduce even in hard climatic circumstances. That’s why the responsibility of mankind today is to try to use all means everywhere where there are human communities to enable people to support themselves and every society to live independent and to develop in cooperation with other nations and countries yet contributing to the economical development of humanity and to the production of food and of clean water.

by Valentina Melnikova

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Vesna Pesic: Answertext will be available soon.

by Vesna Pesic

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Viviana Figueroa: When there was the crisis in my country in Argentina in 2001 this question came up/arose like one of important worries. If we produce so much food, why exiss so much poverty. The truth is that if we produce more food, and if people only buy things to satisfy their requirements, the problem won't disappear, but the situation will deteriorate. In my country in Argentina, when there was the crisis by that the second world manufacterer [sogetrangénica] was also affected, they didn't produce enough food for all people. The truth is that non-tranditional farmers generally replaced traditional farmers. The consequence was a big economic dependency concerning the prices, the production,... Independent of now much they produce, the poverty doesn't decrease. It isn't possible to give food to all people all over the world, because actually the background-problem is that the farmers and the indigenous population havn't any guarantee of rights to bide the seeds and to sow them again/resow them. ... higher quantity, lower time and lower prices and actually the rights of the farmers to bide the seeds aren't garanteed/assured. The situation will [become aggravated] over the years. There will be more people who can't nourish depending on the prices of the market of those products. That's why I think that in view of producing enough food to feed everyone in the world if there isn't any [restrictive/confining] power and if the right to continue supporting and protecting traditional seeds isn't respected, there won't change anything.

by Viviana Figueroa

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Wim Wenders: Because basically producing food is no longer a matter of feeding people like it was initially in the story of mankind. People were hungry so they made sure that everybody in the clan could eat. The stronger got the best pieces of course from the beginning. There wasn’t much else to do then that, eating and surviving. Then people began to do other things. Wars, for instance, so there were warriors and they did not have time to look for food. It had to be procured for them. So somewhere along the road the commerce of food started, and more and more professions came up that we are not primarily concerned with producing food but with other issues science, medicine, the arts. Food had to be paid for by all sorts of services. These services had better reknown, better reputation in the ancient and oldest work, the one of the farmer or the butcher. But then again in times of crisis and disaster, the farmers often survived better than the scientist and the artists. The warriors were always better off. They just took the food by force. So back to your question. Can we produce enough food for everyone on the planet? Probably, for a while at least. Why don’t we then? Because that would be considered bad business? That sounds very cynical but we have to get at the root of it. You see the concept of abundance is not the same as enough for all. There is no more abundance. If the food resources are spread out to everybody who is hungry, there would be just enough and the rich countries with their people wouldn’t have the security anymore of being the lands of plenty. They just become the lands of enough just like every body else. That thinking would have to be changed and we, the rich, would have to give up on the idea of constant surplus. It is our surplus that is missing somewhere else. Everybody who has ever traveled to a Third World country knows that but that rarely leads to a change of thinking. I mean we are unable to deal with our own surplus at home; we mostly throw it away although around the corner already somebody needs it. If you could actually personalize these relations between people who have too much and people who don’t have enough to 1 on 1 or 1 to 10 or 1 to 100, the things would really change rapidly. If I could dispose of a certain percentage of my taxes, for instance, and direct that same amount to real place with real needs and people I can visit…[audio ends]

by Wim Wenders

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Yungchen Lhamo: I think if we eliminate our greed and then if we think about other living beings, if we learn to sharing then I think maybe this won’t happen. And I think now people who try to help other people, I think this is such good in the world. There is certain things now start people where and change, try to change.

by Yungchen Lhamo