If all food produced worldwide every year was counted, there would be enough to feed double the world’s current population. So why is it that 36 million people die of malnutrition every year? World hunger is a vast and complex problem and no single action or practice can be pinpointed as the true cause. Similarly, no single solution exists to solve the issue in its entirety. However, ending the practice of destroying food products with the intent of increasing prices would be a crucial step in ending global malnutrition.
The act of destroying or withholding crops in order to drive up prices has occurred since the Great Depression, during which 257 million bushels of grain were stockpiled in order to raise prices. Today, the United Nations reports that many governments and corporations commonly destroy food to create an artificial scarcity. For example, in the
United Kingdom, 17 million tons of food are plowed into landfills every year – more than five times the amount needed to feed the three million starving people in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to the Laws of Supply and Demand, as the supply decreases and the demand remains stable, prices must increase, thus allowing corporations to amass a significantly higher profit when a portion of crops are destroyed. However, this practice is unacceptable when one in every seven people globally suffers from malnutrion.
A critical issue that must be faced when addressing world hunger is the cycle of poverty in which many become entrapped. Starvation is a trap in and of itself. According to the World Hunger Education Service (9/9/06), malnutrition causes poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment, and thus leads to even greater poverty by reducing a person’s ability to work. Simply, when an individual is starving, he cannot maintain a job and support himself or family. Without a job, he makes no money to buy food, in turn, further deteriorating his health and ability to work.
Corporations and governments must consider the implications of destroying their crops. While destroying products may help to raise prices immediately, other courses of action could develop a broader market in the future while helping to alleviate a humanitarian disaster. If a corporation were to set aside a certain percentage of their production and donate it instead of destroying it, they could still drive up the prices (by decreasing the supply) while also helping people who are severely malnourished. If the corporation were to feed these people with donated food, the impoverished would be healthier and would have one less obstacle in getting a job and escaping poverty. When they are nourished and able to work, they can earn a salary that would enable them to buy their own food from the company. Since the impoverished were never able to interact in the economy, they were not a significant part of the supply and demand cycle. However, the corporation could evnetually bring them into the consumer pool, increasing demand, limiting supply, and generating a strong profit.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I remember when I was starving, going to the grocery store, or watching other people eat, and being surrounded by food I could not eat without stealing.
www.worldcantwait.com
I didn't know we produced that amount of food. . .Its pretty sad that we are selfesh and can't come together as "MEGA NATIONS" and make this thing work!