Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Good morning Amy Johnsen. Well, let's take a look at our own country, the United States, and see what its demands have done to countries that are to the south of us. For example, for many years, Cuba, which the United States occupied and invaded, had an economy that depended exclusively for its survival on sugar and tobacco. The island of Cuba has extraordinary richness, that is to say it had the means to feed all Cuban people and yet, the food that was on the table of Cuban people was imported, to an overwhelming extent, from abroad at prices that were adverse to the Cuban economy. The same story of monoculture, dependence upon a single primary product, can be replicated to a more or less great extent in every single country to the south of the United States in the so called Western hemisphere. And as the United Nations Conference on development and technology has shown, it is replicated in Africa, south of the Sahara, and throughout many countries in the continent of Asia. The issue, therefore, is to encourage countries in the so called Third World to break free of this cycle of dependency and to enter into their own plans of diversification and development.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: We really produce an enormous amount of food, but the problem is that we cannot divide it correctly, genuinely and fairly. Our ego does not allow us to distribute products well and correctly, equally for everyone. Food is thrown out in some places of the world, while in other places, people starve to death. Such is our nature, and it will not change until we come to the final decision: that it is necessary to change our nature. And we will be able to do this; there is a method that helps us do this. I will try to reveal it further on, throughout the course of the questions. Until we change our nature from egoistic to altruistic, the situation in the world will not change either, and this polarization will become more and more diametric. We will see that the world really divides into places where people starve to death, and others where people burn and throw out food. We cannot do this because we cannot overcome our ego while remaining within the ordinary boundaries. We must reveal the universal law—the love and altruism that are inherent to nature. By seeing that all of nature acts this way, we will also be able to change ourselves, in order to prevent self-annihilation. Then everyone will become as one man with one heart, and we will be able to divide all products equally, so they will be balanced among everyone.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: Simplified, it’s a moral lapse in human society. It’s almost what I think of as the bystander phenomenon. We kind of know the problem exists, but we stand by idly and allow it to happen. It certainly has been known for quite sometime that there is sufficient food for everybody in the world, but the way that we set up our socio-political system, tariff structures that prevent food getting fair priced food to be imported. I kind of think we are going now 25 years when Frances Moore Lappé first published her book, “Diet for a Small Planet” and the institutions she set up put food first, that we know the dozen factors and variables that are resolvable, but for a failure of political leadership or citizen demand. The one thing I think that would be important for raising the consciousness of all individuals is to have each child that comes into school, the kindergarten, which is merely the child’s garden, to increasingly learn each year more sophisticated gardening, and in learning with gardening, learn their geography, their science, their math, the history. This used to actually be done if you look back about 100 years, there were school curricula designed around the garden, obviously, because we were an agricultural society. We have lost something in taking that out of the school system, and having them in classrooms, abstract, disengaged, all kinds of disembodied knowledge. So, it’s very wonderful to see people in Vermont, The Roots and Shoots program, actually start with the Three Sisters Gardens, in kindergarten of corn, and beans, and gourd, and increasingly teach more sophisticated gardening, and the curricula is focused around that. Likewise, the Alice Waters’ Chez Panisse restaurants in the United States have launched the Edible Schoolyard with this concept in mind that every child at least learn how to grow their own food, and by learning how to grow their own food recognize that it’s possible for all people to grow sufficient amount of food. One of my heroes for a long time has been John Jeavons and his group Bountiful Garden which shows that on a tenth of the space with simple hand tools, and a twentieth of the water, with no chemical input, people can grow an entire diet.

by Michael P. Totten

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mohammed Arkoun: For various reasons, difficult to mention, there is a deep disparity between countries with a dynamic and modern economy and countries which are not able to modernise their agriculture and which will therefore depend more and more on the production of economically and technologically advanced countries. There's also the demographic factor that played, since the 1960s, in the whole world and especially in countries that stayed in the background from the point of view of political and economic progress. And therefore we have today a kind of system of inequalities that works and rules the planet. Inequalities system in terms of production means and in terms of the exploitation of resources and raw material in countries which are in search of development, waiting for development, making development efforts, and unfortunately the great international enterprises are mainly in the West, the technology is mainly in the West, so inequalities have deepened since the 1960s. I always say 'the 60s' because it is from this moment on that there has been a widening demographic gap between the West and other countries because of the lack of democracy, the lack of economic development options, capable of taking the excess of the population into care, since the population born in the 60s, 70s etc, will build a majority of young people compared with the population, and that's why there will be considerable imbalances in the economic demand. It is evident that young people need to start up in life and therefore a housing policy, an education policy, a supervision policy, and a policy to avoid unemployment are needed.

by Mohammed Arkoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mohau Pheko: There is plenty of food in the world. It is not a question that there is a shortage. The reason why we are unable to feed everyone in the world is because food is a political issue, is a political tool. And therefore, it stands to reason that global corporations for example who produce food would want to create a scarcity or a false scarcity of food in certain areas so that they can then use that "scarcity" to feed people using food aid. It's very interesting when one looks at the politics of food that when people who really need food during times of hunger, during times of famine, there is no food to be found. And yet, in seasons when countries are able to produce surplus in their own countries and I have seen this in many African countries, where farmers will produce surplus and it is at that time when all of a sudden countries are forced to take on food aid when they don't need food. So, it stands to the question that food is a political tool. Food is certainly something that is fundamental for everybody, but it is a political tool that the big powers certainly use to create a false scarcity of food so that global corporations can participate in giving food aid to countries, which need food for example. So, I think that we have got to look at the way that food is manufactured, who controls the distribution of food, why certain countries and corporations are allowed and subsidized actually to produce more food than they should for profits. And I think that we need to look at food as something that is so fundamental that we have to ensure that people get it without making it a political tool and where people need food to provide it in a way that does not really create conflict and really create a political crisis for many of our countries. There is plenty of food in the world and there is absolutely no reason why we cannot give everybody food.

by Mohau Pheko

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Monira Rahman: Don't we produce enough food for everyone in the world? Is this the question of whether we are producing enough food or whether it is the question of the distribution amongst the people around the world? And I feel like it's important that - actually it is not the question of production. We have waste of food. We have enough food to distribute to the people around the world. So I don't see that this is the question of production of food. It's the question of distribution of food.

by Monira Rahman

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Nadja Halilbegovich: I think this has been a long -- centuries long struggle of the human kind to find a way for everyone to be fed, for every child to live a normal childhood, to grow up and their bodies develop, no one to starve, no one to die of death, of starvation and unfortunately we have not yet found a solution for this horrible problem. I think that we must especially in the developed countries we must use our resources and funds to help people in -- especially in crisis whenever we can and always so that we save children especially and all people of dying such horrible deaths of hunger. However, I think that sending food also is a band-aid solution. It’s just helping for the time being. So it’s good in the crisis situation and it should be done, but I also think that we should put our minds truly into finding other solutions, more sustainable solutions to fix this problem. We should first of all approach each country uniquely because every country has, you know, unique case of problems and why hunger is happening there due to either conflicts or environmental concerns or just poverty level in that country. So I think we should definitely find more sustainable ways to help the countries and that means going to the people, going to the country and finding the sustainable answers within those people, within that country so that we don't create dependency, but we create stability and sustainability. And one other way that I thought was something that would be a step forward to that is ending the practice of tied aid to developing nations and that is where they have to spend those funds buying services and resources from the wealthy countries because that is money that has to be used in that way and I don't think it promotes growth of that country as much as it could if it wasn’t tied. So I think that's yet another way of helping the countries to grow. Another one would be to cancel their debt, so that their resources are not soaked up by paying debt, but instead go to eradicating hunger, inspiring education and health services and just stabilizing the country. So there’re so many things we can do and we should always give food and give funds and take food wherever we can and help hungry people from those terrible deaths, but I think we need to find sustainable solutions as well.

by Nadja Halilbegovich

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Neela Marikkar: I think that distribution is highly flawed. It is not that we don’t manufacture and produce enough food. I think in this case the 80/20 principle applies, where 20 percent of the world’s population consume 80 percent. And I think this needs to be addressed. I think that it is possible to feed everybody. I mean if you take the cost of feeding the whole world, all the poor people in the world, it’s approximated at $11 billion a year. That is nothing. So, it’s not the question of producing food, it’s the question of the distribution, and ensuring that the people who need it get it. And, it can be managed very easily. I mean, if you take the increase in obesity in the developed world, compare it to the mal-nourished people in the underdeveloped world, I think that in itself is a clear indication of the flawed distribution. I think another issue also is the agricultural policies of the developed world. I think they are heavily subsidized. I think this has a huge impact on the underdeveloped worlds, because you have organizations like the World Bank and so on who bring in legislation, but who make recommendations to governments in the developing world, to cut subsidies, which makes it very difficult also for those who are growing food in the smaller developing nations. So, there are many challenges. But I go back to the fact that it is possible to feed everyone, it’s possible if the distribution is improved, and there is commitment to ensure that. People don’t need to starve, that there is enough food in the world today.

by Neela Marikkar

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Oliviero Toscani: The problem is not the quantity of food. The problem is that there are a lot of people who are starving and the politics of their country or their place is not human. It's not fit, it's not civilized, it's not human. So the problem is political and of course the problem is distribution. Distribution define the reason why people are starving and of course the politics of the land, the work of the land, what should produce and how much and how. So, it’s basically a distribution problem and a political problem. And we are not civilized yet. We are not civilized yet. We are not civilized yet.

by Oliviero Toscani

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Oscar Olivera: In my opinion it is not right to say that we are those who basically produce the food. It is right to say that our hands produce the food, in the same manner as the human endeavour of the countries produces the worlds´ richness, but the economy is conceptualized in order to bear all that we produce, a hole generation of richness, strictly to the banc accounts of the worlds´ great powerful economic interests, whereas we are being disappropriated at the same time. These great interests are not out to feed everyone in the world, the only thing they want is to realise profit and if this means hunger and misery in the world, then this is what they are going to do, in the sense of making us believe that it is not [ ]. The worlds economy in no conceptualized in terms of human interests, the economy is simply conceptualized in order to ensure that the profits go directly to the interests of the international business companies and to the imperial governments which support this form of economy [with financial and national help]; an economy which is characterized by exploitation and by exfoliation of our common knowledge, and it is at no point an economy who works in order to maintain, to guarantee the existence, not only of the human race, but of humanity itself.

by Oscar Olivera

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Paul Knight: I think it comes down to market forces at the end of the day. One benefit of economic growth, the individual benefit and prosperity, because of this they’re not necessarily prepared in a world that doesn’t support community engagement more than the individual’s benefit and wealth and the growth in this. We can’t get them to think differently and then start to spread the wealth around. The other issues we have is with economic exchange between countries and the costs in doing that and the opportunities for one country to trade off what they have to another country regardless whether it’s in raw resources or in a produced product. So we’re not going to get an opportunity under the current economic climate where we would be looking forward to spread our food around the world to feed the people that are starving today. It’s not a good position to be in but the only way it’s going to change is by really reflecting on what we do as a collective, as a human beings we really need to be thinking no, this isn’t the way. There’s got to be something greater that we can be doing for all of humankind rather than looking for individual benefit. In the current economic environment it’s not conducive to that. So we really do need to be focused on total economic change, not just tinkering around the edges, if you like. It’s the overall structures that need to be deconstructed so that we think differently about those things so that we’re focusing more as a collective. So we have the opportunities for whole communities to be engaged in this process.

by Paul Knight

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Pauline Tangiora: Food is priced at market price which the world expects to receive back after it’s gone through the system. If the glut of food that is produced is sold or given away to those who can ill afford it then the market price will drop. Therefore, we need to be aware that this is part of capital building by those who control the market.

by Pauline Tangiora

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Pico Iyer: Because the world is not set up equally. And often I think when we give money and food to the poor countries, it gets diverted. Vietnam, according to William [Surecross], manufactured a whole famine 25 years ago in order to seduce money from the richer countries and money that never found its way to the people who most needed it. We send money to leaders and the money seldom goes beyond the leaders. And yet, at the same time, all things in the world are unequally distributed - happiness, wisdom, history, a sense of humor, beauty. And I think the hope is that ultimately as things develop, things will even out. All the inequities will in some ways cancel one another out as Albert [Kamu] wrote about his native Algeria. It's much poorer on paper than France, and yet it’s much sunnier. There's an inequality of climate as well as of resources. And even as the Algerians looked to Paris for many things that they don't have, the Parisians may look and travel to Algeria to get things that they don't have and couldn't have. So, the inequality of food around the world is a source of real sadness. And yet we must think of other kinds of food: spiritual food, emotional food, the food of community. And those are always hard to export, but they're also easy and important and worthwhile to develop within ourselves. I don't think the problem lies in our intentions, but perhaps just in the networks of distribution.

by Pico Iyer

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Rachid ElDaif:

by Rachid ElDaif

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Raymond Federman: That is a very profound question. Yes, there are too many people starving in the world. One could answer almost with a joke saying because some people, especially fat people, eat more than others, and there are, indeed, people in certain parts of the world that eat and eat, and there is so much food that is being thrown away, and I know of that because I live in America where everyday in the restaurants, they throw away food that could be fed. The problem is that food must be bought. We buy our food and because we have to buy our food, those who have more money can buy more food. Those who have no money buy less food. And also, one of the great problems is that at certain parts of the world where what we call food that is to say natural products that grow, the vegetable food, meat even, cannot be produced, so we must a find a way to share more in the natural resources of this planet. Through their organization that do give food, but what hurts me the most is when I see on television children starving in certain parts of Africa, I have, myself, starved coming from a very poor family, and I’ve often said to my mother, “I’m hungry”. We must find a way to distribute the food, and the world’s food should not become something that one must buy, because you have more money than someone else, you can eat more than someone else. These are an interesting problem. I think the first thing one must do is try to stop the waste of food, even the control that certain countries have over the production of food. Why don’t we produce the maximum and distribute the maximum to those countries that need it?

by Raymond Federman

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Robbie Conal: We don’t mean to produce enough food for everyone in the world. It’s just happening to us because of the technology of agriculture and the abundance of genetic engineering. We produce food as a commodity. We don’t produce it as a present or a gift to the rest of the world. Production in the United States or in capitalist countries is predicated on making a profit from consumption of your product. And you don’t really profit by giving food to the rest of the world and the rest of the world cannot really afford to pay the prices that would make the selling profitable for us to service our profit margins. In the United States, we pay farmers, not to produce food, maybe as much as we pay them to produce it. And there are certain countries we won't sell anything to, whether they need it or not. That’s not very nice, is it? I think we should be nicer about it. Yes, let’s give everybody food. It’s actually criminal that that structure of making food a commodity and making a profit on other people’s hunger, goes on in the world. There must be another structure for intercourse and exchange of basic needs that would be more equitable and as I say friendlier because we are friendly people. We don’t want anybody to be hungry. So, what’s up with that? What are we doing? Why aren’t we doing it that way? And then really the idea of to make a profit of your needs, your basic human needs is not such a good idea. Maybe it’s immoral.

by Robbie Conal

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Rodrigo Baggio: This is a very good question, very strategic for the future of our countries. Yes, we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. We don't do it because of economic reasons of the companies and enterprises which produce this food practically only with the objective to make more profit. It is important that we try to create conditions for an even distribution of these products. Yes, it is important that these enterprises make profit for their shareholders in a responsible way. But it is very important that more social responsability can be developed within these enterprises, global politics and global strategies of food distribution. It is very sad that we live in a world in which people die day by day because of hunger. It is very important that an effect of solidarity, a strong mobilization can sensibilize and show these enterprises and companies that it is fundamental, yes, to create internal and corporative politics of food distribution, the distribution of these alimentary products. This can inclusively support and strengthen the market of these enterprises, simply because the consumer will perceive that the entreprises, from which they buy products, are contributing to the construction of a better world and reducing the hunger which exists in our world. Our world is so rich.

by Rodrigo Baggio

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Roland Berger: Well, the simple answer would be that where food is produced in abundance, it isn't consumed in abundance and the other way round where food is needed, it isn't produced in abundance. So we have to surmount a logistic problem but in reality it isn't that easy. We have to assure that on the one hand poor countries, countries in general and people who haven't enough food can get food wherever it is possible, to have the possibility to buy it or to get it for free and on the other hand to enable them to grow the food they need themselves. That has already worked. India which had problems with famine has become a country that exports cereals. That means that we the developed industrial countries have to open our markets to agrarian countries, to emerging and developing countries which do very well in farming. One of the big difficulties and sins is the fact that the rich industrial countries especially in Europe and in the USA try to protect their markets with custom duties and subventions and that these countries don't give the developing and emerging countries the possibility to sell their excellent and self-produced food. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many differences in the worldwiede distribution of food.

by Roland Berger

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Sanar Yurdatapan: Well, the answer is unfortunately very short and very easy to understand. It’s fair that if only the money spent for armament all around the world could be decreased only 5%, this could be enough to feed all the people in the world. I repeat, if we can reduce only 5% of the expenses we spend for armaments all around the world, that would be the end of hunger all around the world.

by Sanar Yurdatapan