Goal 5:

Universal food support for every member of society.

Obstacles

Implementation

Food support does not necessarily imply government handouts, food stamps, or other direct support. Much of the malnutrition is a result of economic disparity. When better programs for the old, young and infirm are in place, better nutrition will follow. Likewise, with worker's rights which are discussed later, the achievement of that goal will also help achieve this one. There is a need for a transition mechanism to support those in need as well as those who "fall between the cracks" because of some temporary situation. Resistance to this goal can usually be tracked to an implicit "slacker" belief. With the amount of surplus food available the associated direct costs are minimal and the indirect benefits of reducing malnutrition's side effects should be sufficient to make the program viable.

To eliminate hardship in the 10-20% of the population that is undeserved is well within the capabilities of our present economy. Modest degrees of reallocation of resources are all that is needed. The benefits to society in improved productivity, lower health, and policing costs will easily exceed the expense and the psychic benefits in the form of less worry and stress are immeasurable.

For the undeveloped world there are issues of the total amount of food being available to support the population. In most regions famine or chronic insufficiency is caused by war or civil strife. Areas that were living in a poor, but sustainable, manner during peacetime become unable to feed themselves during conflicts. In many cases the shortage of food is part of the strategic plan of one side or the other. Many conflicts are over territory or ethnic differences and the goal is some sort of ethnic cleansing. Food becomes another weapon. The solutions are related to the causes. Elimination of the conflict will allow for resumption of sustainable food sources. In the interim the usual humanitarian techniques are needed. The fact is that much of the rest of the world sees no self-interested reasons to intervene in local conflicts and thus they tend to last much longer than would otherwise be the case. International bodies have not yet developed mechanisms to deal with this problem.

The other reason for insufficient food supplies is because of corruption and dictatorships within the local government. These days Zimbabwe is a perfect example. Supply aid (even development aid) in such circumstances is unlikely to provide more than palliative solutions. Once again the solution is to use international pressure to reform or replace governments which are doing a disservice to their citizens. This is not as hard as it appears. Most of these abusive governments depend upon the world closing their eyes to the personal aggrandizement of the leaders. Allowing things like private imports (smuggling) and access to international funds via secret bank accounts keeps these rulers from feeling the consequences of their actions directly. Corruption vanishes when those getting the illicit funds can't launder them through banking black holes like Switzerland or the Bahamas. The US has shown it can track "terrorist" fund transfers when it wishes, the world community just has to be as willing to do the same with corrupt officials.

There have been continuing questions about whether imported food tends to damage local farm economies. This is a big enough question that it needs to be treated separately. How adequate food supplies are created for a region on a sustainable basis is important, but the real first step is to adopt the goal itself. After that alternative intermediate steps can be debated or tried to see what works best.