The Real Cost of Hunger
By George McGovern

It is impossible to evaluate with dollars the real cost of hunger. What is the value of a human life? The twentieth century was the most violent in human history, with nearly 150 million people killed by war. But in just the last half of that century nearly three times as many died of malnutrition or related causes. How does one put a dollar figure on this terrible toll silently collected by the Grim Reaper? What is the cost of 800 million hungry people dragging through shortened and miserable lives, unable to study, work, play or otherwise function normally because of the ever-present drain of hunger and malnutrition on body, mind and spirit? What is the cost of millions of young mothers breaking under the despair of watching their children waste away and die from malnutrition? This is a problem we can resolve at a fraction of the cost of ignoring it.

Measuring and Monitoring Prevalence Prevalence of undernourishment is measured by the share of a country's total population that is undernourished. On this map, areas in yellow have extremely low prevalence, while those in dark brown have very high prevalence. The boundaries and delineations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Courtesy of FAO/FIVIMS

Hunger is a political condition. The earth has enough knowledge and resources to eradicate this ancient scourge. Hunger has plagued the world for thousands of years. But ending it is a greater moral imperative now than ever before, because for the first time humanity has the instruments in hand to defeat this cruel enemy at a very reasonable cost. We have the ability to provide food for all within the next three decades. Consider just one encouraging statistic: When I ran for the presidency in 1972, 35 per cent of the world’s people were hungry. By 1996, while the global population had expanded, only 17 per cent of the earth’s people were hungry - half the percentage of three decades ago. This is an impressive fact, particularly in view of the gloomy prophecies of the 1960s that population growth was racing ahead of food production. Widespread famines across the Third World were also predicted. Clearly the gains in food production from scientific farming, including the Green Revolution, plus the slowing of population growth, have reduced hunger in the developing countries.

Here are some other encouraging statistics: the world now produces a quantity of grain that, if distributed evenly, would provide everyone with 3,500 calories per day, more than enough for an optimal diet. This does not even count vegetables, fruits, fish, meat, poultry, edible oils, nuts, root crops, or dairy products. Despite the dire predictions that the world’s population would soon outstrip food production, it has been the other way around: food production has risen a full 16 per cent above population growth. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has noted that 78 per cent of the world’s malnourished children live in countries with food surpluses. Clearly, this condition indicates a need for a keener social conscience and better political leadership. A 1996 United Nations survey that is regarded as the most accurate forecast available estimated that world population will peak and then level off near the year 2050 at just under 10 billion - an increase of 4 billion over the present total. Population may then decline somewhat, because of lower birth rates. Such predictions are uncertain. It may be that advances in medicine and health care will enable people to live longer, thus offsetting declining birth rates. Although a population of 10 billion will tax some resources, projected increases in food production indicate that the world can feed that many people a half-century from now. As we will see from the pages that follow, the nations and peoples of the world will have to take a series of common-sense steps to ensure that everyone is fed. But there is no need for panic or scare tactics. There is enough food to go around now and for at least the next half-century. The world is not going to run out of food for all. Those readers young enough to be around in the year 2050 will need to consider other measures that will take the world safely through the last half of the century, to 2100. But who can even guess what scientific gains will come into the hands and minds of future generations?

Having grappled for years with the global hunger challenge and the American domestic condition, I am sure that we have the resources and the knowledge to end hunger everywhere. The big question is: Do we have the political leadership and the will to end this scourge in our time?

One of my admired friends of long standing was the late Archbishop Dom Helder Camara of Brazil. He once observed: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” I learned much about the burdens and hurts of the poor from this good man.

Two questions need to be considered together in a treatise about world hunger: (1) What would it cost for the nations of the world, acting through the United Nations, to end hunger? and (2) What will be the cost if we permit hunger to continue at its present level? Of the scores of experts with the UN agencies in Rome chiefly involved in the global hunger issue, I have yet to meet a single one - conservative, liberal or mugwump - who does not believe that the cost to the world of hunger is vastly greater than the cost of ending it. I can think of no investment that would profit the international community more than erasing hunger from the face of the earth.

So what will it cost? Beyond what the United States and other countries are now doing, it will take an estimated $5 billion a year, of which $1.2 billion would come from the United States. If this annual allocation were continued for fifteen years, until 2015, we could reduce the 800 million hungry people by half. To erase hunger for the remaining 400 million would cost about the same if it were to be accomplished in the fifteen years leading up to the year 2030.

The United States Agency for International Development puts the cost at $2.6 billion annually, whereas the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the cost higher at $6 billion. My figure of $5 billion annually - which is based on my own judgement of the cost of some of the steps I would like to see taken, including especially a universal school lunch programme for every child in the world - is $2.4 billion higher than USAID’s but still a billion below the United Nations figure. I concur with the estimate of the respected Bread for the World Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, that it would take another $5 billion - largely in updating our food stamp programme - to meet the needs of the 31 million inadequately fed Americans. Thus, the total American cost internationally and domestically would be an additional $6.2 billion a year - a fraction of what we now spend on cigarettes, beer or cosmetics. If we decided to enact a modest increase in the minimum wage, we could cut the increase in food stamps in half.

Next Page of this article