Home | About | Donate

Global Hunger and Undernutrition Could End by 2025


Global Hunger and Undernutrition Could End by 2025

Thalif Deen, IPS News

The United Nations aims to help eliminate hunger and undernutrition – described as two of “greatest scourges” facing humankind — by the year 2030.

But the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has launched an ambitious new initiative to help end global hunger by 2025 – five years ahead of the UN target.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Capitalism: it's what's for (or not) dinner...


A good place to begin: 500,000 homeless in the worlds largest economy. The money spent on one nuclear sub would put a roof over their heads and platters filled with nutritious meals.


Better yet, think of all the new, and regenerative vocations that will be created, vocations that could go to youth, homeless, women, etc. throughout the world. Corporations MUST be kept away from the trough though !


I learned nothing from this article except it is all inclusive with this organization and that organization and it is global.

What are the actual steps going to be that will obtain these goals of ending hunger and poverty? Is it Mansanto and all the other chemical industries and big agriculture? or are we going to do regenerative soil solutions and community/regional food production. Urban food production that really produces nutritional foods without chemicals which deadens the soil. Hydroponics and/or water conservation methods which will be necessary in the future of water shortages and droughts.
Please, details.


Yes and Santa Claus will bring candy and kittens to everyone who wants one

First of all in ten years the ice caps will have melted and the methane loop will probably have started.

Secondly the population increases at three additional people PER SECOND.

Other than that, great article.


Or, on the other hand the earth may well be in the final throws of the loss of arable land and the death of most higher level organisms on its surface. Who knows?


Half the grain grown in the United States is fed to livestock. A change in our diet to one that's plant based would free up vast quantities of food to feed those starving in this world. Most of the money allocated by our government as subsidies to farming goes to meat production. If we eliminated those subsidies and allowed meat prices to rise to proper levels our consumption would diminish substantially. This is something that has to happen since the public will not voluntarily reduce their consumption.


Back in 1976 the WHO stated that the money spent by all nations on their militaries in two weeks could feed clothe and house everyone on the planet for a whole year.So what has changed since then? Nothing, apart from stupidity, which has increased.


An article on this subject that makes no mention of global warming, structural adjustments, rule of financial capital and non-stop warmongering utterly fails the credibility test.


We can eliminate hunger in a much more more sustainable way than the methods these institutions likely have in mind, and just as quickly, without grabbing land and pouring RoundUp on seeds that the farmers have to buy new year after year. The UN generally seems to support BigAg. I'd like to see the details.

Don't think this article is a good match for CD. Ask Vandana Shiva and many others how much more effective, local, sustainable, organic farms are for feeding the communities and providing jobs and actually providing health and a healthier planet.


That's why local, sustainable farms are best. Hardly any distribution needed, hardly any (if any) chemicals needed, and each country could employ tons of people to help set up the farms. Agribusiness need not apply. Vandana Shiva is an excellent resource for the efficiency and healthy outcomes of local farming.


They won't voluntarily reduce their reproduction, either, unless the alternative is made both clear and compelling. And without repro reduction, no abandonment of flesh-eating will do any lasting good.


My first thought on reading that article was "what have they been smoking?!?"


Couldn't agree with you more. If we achieved both our stated goals, hunger could easily be eradicated.


How did the people get by in the 14th c. when there were no distribution networks to bring papaya to Blagoveshchensk or wheat to Bogota?


Or not. Most likely not.


And if those 8 billion people were vegetarians, we would not have a climate change problem at all.


Ridiculous! Abandonment of flesh eating will do a lot of long-term good. For example, the CO2 emission problem is cut in half when flesh eating is abandoned. How could that not be a long-term improvement? Why are you so eager to blame overpopulation? Try looking in the mirror for a change. If you eat meat, you are a part of the problem. The biggest part of the problem. 8 billion vegetarians could live on this planet with half of the CO2 omissions of the same population of meat eaters. I am sick and tired of everyone overlooking the meat consumption problem. It is over half of the problem and we must stop blaming over population as if that is the problem. It isn't. Over population of meat eaters is the problem.