• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Promise and PerilThe World Food Summit: Five Years Later*
Pattrice Le-Muire Jones, May 2002
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................1Introductory Remarks.......................................................................................................................................................................4Response to
New Challenges to the Achievements of the World Food Summit Goals
............................................6Response to
Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger 
...................................................................................................10Response to
Mobilizing Resources to Fight Hunger 
.............................................................................................................14Assessment of 
1996 Plan of Action
in Current Context.....................................................................................................16Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................................20Concluding Remarks......................................................................................................................................................................22Selected References.........................................................................................................................................................................23
*
 A project of the
Global Hunger Alliance,
endorsed by the following organizations:
Xwe African Wild Life Research and Investigations Centre (South Africa)Dialogues for Development and Social Integration (Cameroon)Fondation Kashiba (Democratic Republic of the Congo)Diversity, Nature, and Animals Network (South Africa)FARMAPU-INTER & CECOTRAP-RCOGL (Rwanda)Learning and Development Kenya (Kenya)Obomo Self Help Group (Kenya)Awaz Foundation Centre for Development Services (Pakistan)Wildlife Protection Association of Australia (Australia)Development VISIONS (Pakistan)Slavonsko-Baranjsko Drustvo za Zastitu Zivotinja ZIVOT (Croatia)Advocates for Animals (Scotland)Progetto Vivere Vegan (Italy)Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (USA)People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (USA) Jewish Vegetarians of North America (USA)Farm Animal Reform Movement (USA)Food and Social Justice Project (USA)Farm Sanctuary (USA)
(c) 2002 Global Hunger AlliancePermission to reprint for educational or other non-profit purposes is granted.
 
Executive Summary
Global Hunger Alliance is an international coalition of non-governmental and civil society organizations united in support of effective, equitable, ethical, and environmentally sustainable solutions to hunger and malnutrition. Theconsensus position of all partners in Global Hunger Alliance is contained in the Statement of Principles appended tothis document. This paper represents the consensus position of the endorsing organizations listed on the title page.This position paper is offered as guide for the participants in World Food Summit: Five Years Later (WFS:fyl)and the NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty.
Introductory Remarks
Partners in the Global Hunger Alliance have identified two classes of initiatives most likely to result insignificant progress toward the elimination of hunger and malnutrition and one class of initiatives likely to becounterproductive. The classes of initiatives most likely to result in significant progress are:(1) initiatives that make meaningful progress toward “elimination of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries” [1996 Rome Declaration on World FoodSecurity, paragraph 5].(2) initiatives that increase “the production and use of culturally appropriate and underutilized food crops,including grains, oilseeds, pulses, root crops, fruits and vegetables” [1996 World Food Summit Plan of ActionObjective 2.3 (c)] in low-income regions. The class of initiatives that are likely to be counterproductive is:(1) initiatives that call for or tend to lead to intensification of animal agriculture. These include any initiatives that would install new large-scale industrial or ‘integrated’ livestock production and processing operations; initiatives that would devote funds intended for hunger relief to theinfrastructure needed for such operations; initiatives that would lead to intensification or commercialization of existing livestock operations; initiatives that would lead to an increase in monocropped land devoted to theproduction of livestock feed; and initiatives that would compel governments of low-income or transitionalnations to accommodate corporations wishing to locate contract livestock production farms or industrialprocessing facilities on their lands.
Response to
New Challenges to the Achievements of the World Food Summit Goals
Intensive animal agriculture is one of the chief causes of hunger and malnutrition, in part due to theinefficiencies that occur when plants are cycled through animals prior to human consumption and in partdue to the soil degradation, water pollution and depletion, and fossil fuel demands associated with this formof food production. Yet, intensive animal agriculture is increasing in regions already struggling with hungerand malnutrition. Continued expansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations will createprofits for corporate agribusiness, including not only the transnational producers and vendors of animal-based commodities but also the suppliers of inputs such as genetically modified seed for feed; the pesticidesand fertilizers needed to grow livestock feed; the growth hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals utilized inintensive animal agriculture operations; and the specialized equipment needed for these capital-intensiveoperations. In contrast, the interests of neither farmers nor consumers will be well served. Continuedexpansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations can only lead to more pollution, lessbiodiversity, more disempowerment, and less food security for the people of those nations. The farmers of the world already produce enough food to feed everyone an adequate diet. Onlyinefficiencies in usage and inequalities in distribution prevent us from ending all but that portion of hunger
1
 
that is directly related to catastrophic events. Furthermore, while the earth’s resources cannot continue tosupport the unsustainable and unhealthy patterns of consumption now common in affluent nations, thoseresources are more than sufficient to support projected population increases, provided that everyoneconsumes the sustainable, predominantly plant-based diet endorsed by the World Heath Organization.Foods derived from traditional and locally-improved food plants are nutritionally adequate and far saferthan animal-based foods or foods made from genetically modified plants. Plant-based foods contain all thenutrients required for healthy growth and vigorous activity whereas animal-based foods lack many essentialnutrients, including most vitamins and minerals, as well as fiber. Plant-based diets are less costly than dietsbased on animal products, even when the costs of vitamin or mineral supplements are factored into theequation. Plant-based foods are free of cholesterol and saturated fats and are not tainted by the hormones,drugs, and microbial pathogens commonly found in animal-based foods. Production of animal-based foodsis related to the spread of zoonotic diseases, which are particularly hazardous in regions with high rates of HIV/AIDS. Overconsumption of animal-based food products is related to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension,and various cancers. The costs of such health problems, in terms of both health care and lost productivity, faroutweigh any of the alleged benefits of increased access to animal-based protein.
Response to
Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger 
Participants in WFS:fyl must have the political courage to identify and circumvent the self-interestedinfluence of agribusiness upon food and agriculture policy. The influence of corporations vested in thelivestock industries has been widespread, affecting not only governmental policy makers but also technicaladvisors associated with FAO and other international agencies. This is due not to duplicity on the part of theexperts but to the enormous power of agribusiness to shape opinion in defiance of facts.WFS:fyl participants from affluent nations must have the political courage to confront and work to endoverconsumption by the citizens of their own nations. Because ill health is associated with overconsumption,such interventions may be most easily effected from a public health perspective.Public funding for food and agriculture is of utmost importance due to the inherent conflicts betweenthe interests of providers of private capital and the interests of low-income farmers and consumers.Work toward long-term solutions to hunger and malnutrition must be accompanied by sufficient directaid, so that currently malnourished people can regain the vitality needed to fully participate in their ownempowerment. So that this empowerment is genuine rather than illusory, food aid must not be used to forcenations or populations to accept unpopular political or economic ‘reforms’ favored by the donors.
Response to
Mobilizing Resources to Fight Hunger 
Resources must be mobilized both for immediate hunger relief and for the redevelopment of sustainableand self-sufficient agriculture in low-income food-deficit nations (LIFDNs). The fastest and fairest routes toincreased financial resources for LIFDNs are debt cancellation and unconditional direct contributions.While information and technical assistance should be provided upon request, vital resources must not bewithheld from LIFDNs electing to pursue their own courses of agricultural development, whether or not thosecourses are consistent with the wishes of international agribusiness or the economic theories that have driventhe free trade movement.
Assessment of 
1996 Declaration and Plan of Action
in Current Context
In the past five years, much has been learned about the diseases and other health hazards associated with
2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...