End Petitions to End Hunger

Today, I was going to write about the upcoming World Summit on Food Security hosted by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the major UN organization concerned with food, hunger, nutrition, agriculture, etc etc etc, and highlight the rising role of business in ending hunger. Then I checked out their website. And I, with a great deal of respect for FAO's ongoing struggle to contribute to sustainable development, got rather pissed off.

What got me was the call on the website for a global petition to end hunger, a problem that effects over 1 in 6 people around the world. It's a serious problem in sustainable development. Those numbers have only gone up in recent years, due largely to domestic food prices, lower incomes and increasing unemployment - a result in part to the financial crisis slowly rippling down and around the world.

Why are people hungry? They can't afford to buy food or are not able to produce their own. Solution? Various solutions can (and have) included: lower food prices, enable them to produce their own food (or produce higher quantities/better yields), enable them to buy food (cash transfers, for example), increase their income/spending power, end extreme poverty, food programs (giving out food during certain periods/for specific groups of people), improving access/transportation/distribution (so that the food we have goes to the people who need it.

And in my experience of having watched the number of hungry people grow, petitions are not going to do anything. They may even make the situation worse. People will think that if they sign a petition to 'end hunger', that counts as doing something that addresses the serious systemic challenges that are at the heart of why people continue to starve when we, at least theoretically, produce enough food to feed everyone. It's not as if if everyone suddenly said, oh, this is bad, it's gonna stop. I don't know anyone who says, hungry people is good. This is the same reason that I get frustrated about movements such as the 'end poverty now' campaign. Does it raise awareness? Yes. Does that awareness do anything to create sustainable change for sustainable development? Sometimes - right now, I'm not convinced. Do we need massive public action? Maybe. The critical question is, action to what effect, and to what impact? I think there is a recognition that this is a scandal, but I would not say this is a time for mobilization. It's a time to assess which actions will be most useful, and how are we going to address the systemic causes of malnutrition. There is, historically, real resistance to looking at the root causes of hunger. And it is that which we must do.

Instead, the UN Secretary General is going to go on a fast - part of FAO's going 'hungry to protest hunger'. I'm a fan of direct action, including fasting, where it is appropriate, and I always respect those who choose to deny themselves in hopes of furthering the public good. But will his fast tackle the systemic problems? Will it change the way people see this issue? Or will he just arrive on Monday rather tired and hungry, and not able to work well?