Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, the intention of producing food is not always to feed the hungry stomachs. The purpose normally to grow more and more food is basically to profit out of it and to gain money out of it, not to feed the hungry poor. And, that’s why as more and more inventions are made to grow more food, some people who control the food business are benefited out of it and the food does not go to the people who need it. Secondly, in the developing world where the farmers produce food, the production expense sometimes is more than what they are able to sell in the market. And, that’s why they are not the one who can preserve the food material properly and then further distribute it when it is needed. So, the preservation is also a big thing. Again, the whole control of keeping the food in their houses is in the control of rich people and they know when to take it out and when the market demands. So, it is market-driven, not driven by the need of the hungry people. And, thirdly, the distribution. In many countries, there is no proper distribution of food material in time. The transportation, the communication is a major problem. And, that is also resulting in the scarcity of food in some parts, as well as overproduction in other parts.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: It’s basically a problem of distribution because we do produce enough food; we do produce enough food to feed the whole world. So, basically what we have here is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of choice. It’s a problem of political choice. And, I think most of all, it’s a problem of fear. We would be able to with our technology and our knowledge right now, our ways of logistics, our insight in the world, we would be able to feed the whole world. It is in fact one of the UN 2020 development goals that we should be able to feed the whole world. So, why don’t we do it? Basically, it’s about some people in part of the world fearing losing instead of sharing. I think that what we should do concerning this question is that we should get a lot of people around the world to look into the overall system of distribution of economics and find out ways to distribute without fear. It is may be also a problem of the states where you are not able to feed your people of choices there. The question could be put in a way that you would put blame on some part of the world, which would be the Western world. I think to blame is uninteresting. I think to look into developments and possibilities are interesting. So, it is not a question of blame. It should be a question of development.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: It is hard to understand that food cannot be distributed in the world in a way, which gives everyone enough. But human egoism exists and it is very large. In Germany there is the saying "Holy Saint Florian (among other functions the patron saint of fire fighters), spare my house, put fire to another house". This means egoistic behaviour and the drive for survival make sure that there is too much in one place and too little in another place. I really wonder why mankind is not able to distribute their sources and means in a way to provide enough for every human being.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: We produce more than enough food in the world to feed everybody. But, the human animal is much more concerned in the world today with the exploitation of its own self. So, we have food getting dumped. We have food getting tossed overboard ships. This world is not at all interested in feeding itself because the human animal has become so predatorial, has become so governed by self-interest where the ego supersedes every single thing else in the world. We are not at all interested in feeding those among ourselves who might be needy because then that takes away from us that which makes us believe that we rule over fellow beings. Human beings are governed by greed; human beings are governed by avarice. Human beings are much more concerned with making themselves stand above the rest of those who might be like them because then that takes away their own sense of importance, their own sense of being in control of the destinies of others. Human beings have contributed to genocide, to holocaust, to the decimation of entire populations of human being. So then, we are not at all interested in the feeding of other human beings because that would take from us, I would believe, our sense of being able to determine the faith and the destinies of others. I think that there is absolutely no reason for any member of society, for any sector of the human race to go hungry. But, I believe that until such a time comes when expansionism, when colonization, when the need to create poverty and starvation in order to prop ourselves up becomes an entire aberrance and abomination and a thing that is seen as being purely and completely inhuman and de-humanize. Perhaps all over these days, we can learn first to respect life, to respect ourselves and to see it is only by promoting world peace that we can all of us survive.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: I think this has to do with profit for the businessmen that will be able to produce food. They will be more interested in getting imported rather than to helping to feed everyone in the world. So they argue, who will be to produce food to feed everybody in the world, but impacted the people who will be able to do that will be concerned with their own profit and therefore not so [ethical]. And also like unequal treaties, so the way of doing business with food are not really doing and looking in a very equal way that the typical different treaties in limiting or promoting trade that will lead to equal distribution of food.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: The key is what is the standard of "enough". If it is considered as the basic needs for people to survive as animals in the nature, the food we are producing is already enough. However, food is always distributed unfairly in this world. Thus, some people may have possessed too many resources and food, while some other people do not have enough. For example, obesity exists in many areas; the large amount of food wasted in China everyday could possibly be enough to feed everyone in Africa.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Yes, I think this is a very good question. It's something that I've thought about as a child. A little girl in Africa used to think that why is it that some people go hungry and others don't? It's almost something about one half of the world [slims] and the other half starves. I don’t know why we can't feed everyone. I come from a culture, an [original] culture in Australia, which says, you know, you always give something to each. You always share what you've got and you certainly your meal. That's the traditional background I came from and that is being lost of course in some ways, but as we live in a more competitive society. But this idea of why don't we feed other people I guess it's got to do with distribution. It's got to do with wars. It's got to do with greed and maybe people aren't in the position to buy food. There's draughts. There's all sorts of things. Sometimes I feel helpless about this but I'm actually not hopeless. I think the fact that this question is being raised in a forum like this and many people are listening and will be part of them will be participating in it all over the world raises my hope. I see it comes from a woman who is almost half my age and today by today it would have been nice if I could actually give a really positive answer to this question.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: It’s a very interesting question. The production of food in the country is important because people can’t live without food. But, then, when we come to the real production of food, the question here is who is responsible for the production of food? Can we all stand up and go out there and start producing food? And if we do that, what is the implication thereof? And of course, here we find a lot of elements, the elements of, can all of us really produce food? You’ll find two dynamics here. There are external factors that [binds] the people from the real production of food, which of course include other – amongst other factors, do people have skills, do they have capacity enough to produce enough, do they have resources, do they have knowledge of production? And if they does have this knowledge, are they able to implement and put these functions into practice? Are they able to get there and have this thing of food production in place? And the other element is, if they are able to produce this food, are they having enough capacity to – can put the food on the market? Who are the consumers of our food really? Because, there’s another thing, all these things come to us all. It means, if we – if all people of the world are able to produce food, it is imperative for us to dwell on this food production so that we are able to deal with poverty. The country as a society is food really is really going to be affected by poverty, and there would be no prosperity if there is no food. And therefore, we all need food for our livelihood and this will as well open up lot of opportunities for communities to participate in the different levels. And therefore, it is important that we be able to produce this food. Let’s join hands. If all are able to do that, let’s join hands and produce this food for the benefit of everybody in the society.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: And really we can produce food sustainably without depleting the earth, but we are not doing it because at the moment our food system not only agriculture, but the whole way we distribute and consume package and consume food and shift them all over the world is just unsustainable. We can change it, we have all the means of changing it but our governments, those who are in power are completely dominated by the old ideology and they are unwilling to change it. Furthermore, we have an unprecedented corporate control of the whole food supply chain and that is -- that goes hand-in-hand with intensive industrial agriculture. That is the system that is threatening the food security not only of developing nations but also of the rest of us.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: After the food is produced, then it must be sent into the markets. The problem isn’t the production of food. Limited debates and the issues are not there. The question is, what to do with enough food in the world once they enter into the markets. I think the forces that drive the production of food are linked to economics. The forces that drive the necessity to feed everyone else in the world, those are not linked to economics. Those are linked to issues of social justice, equality, self-determination, sovereignty. So we need to de-link the connection between the production and sales of food to issues of social justice, of human rights, accountability. Only then will we be able to properly answer this question.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: The question is: do we really produce enough food, that is available for everybody? Is it possible to distribute all the food, that is produced to all places in the world, in the way that it can be paid for? It would be better maybe if more food would be produced in the areas where it is needed, anddelivered and distributed there and not just to produce food in a highly efficient way and then bring it to countries that can afford to buy this foods. A very good possibility obviously is to do as biological and organic and appropriate for that particular region as possible. Then people start to have enough food there and so don't export it, just leave it there, if you can, and then from that a real economical globalization and trading of the other food can go on. But at first, there has to be money and time and enough food for people to take care of these problems.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: Thanks to the advanced technology there is enough food for all the people in the world. Only due to the bad distribution of this food, as by the international funds or the World Trade Organization, there is hunger in the world, especially in the most impoverished countries. I recommend to read Yan Sígles' report on this subject. There are many reasons: insufficient education of impoverished communities, so that a poor peasant is not able to do the cultivation especially while agricultural companies use advanced machinery and systems that poor peasants are never going to afford; Distruction of fields continues, caused by the use of insecticides that destroy the biodiversity and the soil; Not enough fields are at people`s disposal; Lack of technology, to make any improvement possible; Missing resources. People abandon their rural communities and move to big cities where the situation is even worse: there are less possibilities to get food and the poverty encreases. Increasing exploitation of the soil turnes it into deserts as it already happens in many regions of our planet, wood trade on the black market, for example, keeps it going. Hunger has many explanations but no justification.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: It is because in any way human beings have egos. People have thinking in their mind that it is fine if we are satisfied or become rich. In the world, there is enough food, but if people only think about themselves or own country, then the food does not spread in the poor countries and the countries in poverty. Therefore, we must throw away such an egoistic mind, and it is necessary to consider about the world in the 21st century and the way to spread the food all over the world in the future. In some certain rich countries, there are overeating, dainty eating, edacity and food satiation. As a result, people throw away their food. How waste and nonsense this is! However, those people get sick, such as, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes by the overeating. We must throw away our Egoism and the mind that we eat as much as we can eat. I think that it realizes a filled good even world when we divide our food into people in poverty. Otherwise, we should change our way of eating through small appetite principle. The small eating doesn't make people sick. Moreover, we can live in a correct way of life and have spiritual minds. When all people eat lightly, then I think that food spreads evenly all over the world. And if each one loses one’s Egoisum and thinks about other people all together, we can share food equally over the world. First of all, the person who lives in the rich countries should change his way of eating. They should be small eaters.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: This is a very good question. Why don’t we? Yes, this is my question too. There are so much hunger in all over the -- you know, especially so-called developed country. Why isn’t enough food is produced? That’s a very important thing, that’s a basic need of a person to eat well. When you eat well at least three times a meal then you can think very clearly and then everything comes. So, I think, that we have to really, really concentrate to have agriculture especially third world countries, so called, to agriculture, better agriculture, so that, because these people -- majority people live in the villages and the grass root people. So, it's so important to have enough food for the people. When you see in the world, especially in the children in all these countries, some part of Asia and Africa there is not enough food, malnutrition and that is a question because I travel to all these places and I always think how sad that there is not enough food for everyone. I think food is a very essential thing to a life, to think clearly, to be feel as a part of human being. So, it's very important we should produce enough food just to have these people can have three times meal, just to have enough meal. And it's a basic need and I think as a human being we all have to think about it so the world can produce enough food so there is no hunger anymore in the world.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: There are many reasons for this and one of them actually or coincidentally relates to the first one, the question just before this, which is economic globalization. The interests of some subset of people comes before the interest of the large number of people. And that’s what for results, in some people even though they have excess food they’ll rather throw it away, than give it to people who need it, who are starving. And, that’s the short answer. It’s a short-sided thinking of some set of people and it’s not to some people who indulging short-sided thinking. Most human beings, most of the time indulged in short-term thinking. So the solution are of all this. The question is, of course, why is it there? And the reason answer is, and we can talk in terms of concrete reasons in many ways as to which countries do we engage and which government wants to give subsidies to their own farmers and why do they want give subsidies? Is it because they want to get votes? Or who knows 20 million other things. But the real issue is how does one get out of that problem? How does one make sure that the resources of this planet are not wasted? Food that is produced is not thrown away, and it goes to people who need it. And once again, the only way to do that is for us all to get involve. For us all to play a role and figure out ways to make sure that food get channeled and this has to be done one step at a time, one day at the time. I don’t think the problem is going to go away within a few years, unfortunately. It has been with us for a very long time. We will have to have all the men engaged with it, we allow to all the men, will have to become little more active, give up a little more of our comforts and figure out ways in which we can talk to the governments and make it obvious to them that by giving the food to the people who need it, they themselves will benefit in the long run. That those people who do get the food now, even though, it will hurt the farmers of the filthier countries, giving away food to people who need in the long run will produce all kinds of good things. One of the easiest one of being that those people will be able to make things that are not make-able in other parts of the world, their own wonderful abilities, their own food, styles and culture.

by Mayank Mehta

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