I have distinct memories from when I was younger and I would refuse to finish my dinner. I was a picky eater, which enabled teachers, family members, and other adults to coax me to finish my meal. They would say that I must because there were kids in Africa who didn’t even have any food. Over time, I realise that many others heard the same phrases spewed by adults, and I’m now beginning to realise how peculiar these tactics were. Because whilst these adults clearly understood that there was a problem in the world, they failed to realise the severity of food insecurity in the world—and by solely contextualising these problems to a single continent, failing to grasp how widespread this issue really is.
The truth is that food insecurity is a bigger issue than people realise, being prevalent in essentially every country. The common sentiment surrounding starvation is that it only occurs in lower economically developed countries (LEDCs) and is solely experienced by people who are homeless. However, in the United States, around 580,470 people on a given night were reported to be homeless (2020), but there were more than 38 million people experiencing some form of food insecurity every day. Even though some people may work a job and have shelter, they still can struggle to consistently afford nutritious and sustaining food. Why is this important to know? When we fail to understand who is impacted by a problem, we don’t take those people into account when coming up with a solution.
So, what actually causes food insecurity? The common sentiment shared by many people is that there simply isn’t enough food to go around. While this is true in some places where famine is experienced, this isn’t actually what makes up the majority of food insecurity, which has to do with the distribution and affordability of food. The type that is easily accessible to someone working a minimum wage job in most countries would be fast food, which wouldn’t be a problem, except that fast food is often made of large amounts of sugars and trans fat, which when consumed on a regular basis can result in other health conditions. Fresh vegetables, balanced meals, fruits and organic foods are all things people who can afford them end up taking for granted.
Not to mention that there are people who have no income whatsoever, and can’t even afford to purchase any food at all. Whenever I go back to India, I see people knocking on car windows in the middle of the street, desperate for even a few rupees so that they can buy themselves the smallest amount of rice. It’s incredibly heartbreaking to see because you know that if they don’t eat in a few days there is a high likelihood that they will die. It really angers me that there are some people in the world who cannot even afford a bowl of rice, and there are supermarkets and restaurants who throw away boxes upon boxes of perfectly good food just because it’s a day past its expiration date. The failure to properly distribute food equally results in plenty of people who cannot afford to purchase any food whatsoever.
But, who is responsible for helping these people? Who has the agency and power to actually enact change? No fear, Elon is here.
Above is a tweet from Elon Musk’s Twitter account saying that if the World Food Programme could explain how his money would solve world hunger he would be more than happy to sell Tesla Stock and contribute. Luckily for him, many others pitched in to answer Musk’s question. According to Bloomberg magazine, around 42 million people worldwide are on the brink of famine, and Musk could buy each of them a 43 cent meal for 365 days, totalling 6.6 billion dollars. Bloomberg opinion journalist Amanda Little admits that it will not solve world hunger completely, but it will increase the quality of life for many. However, the solutions for food security must exceed emergency aid, such as proper investments in long term solutions. Yes, Elon Musk can buy a 43 cent meal for 42 million people for a year, but what happens after that? What is even included in a 43 cent meal? Yes, people may have something to eat, but it’s doubtful that these meals are even sufficient to keep malnutrition at bay. The issue is, many people believe that if we just ‘buy more food’ world hunger will go away. But what they fail to recognise is that we need long term solutions that will sustain us far after Elon Musk and other billionaires have ceased donation. We cannot rely on inconsistent philanthropy to ensure human rights for all.
Some governments have taken steps to make food more accessible. Plenty of countries have subsidised the farming of vegetables with various nutrients, enabling the food to be sold at a lower price. Furthermore, many governments have some variation of a food stamps programme, which help people who have little to no income. In Ethiopia, government programs have been put into place to strengthen the yield of small-scale farmers and increase productivity by improving fertiliser and herbicides. This allows for more of the yield to be utilised and sold, and these changes have been reported by the International Water Management Institute.
This is where Elon and friends can come in! Governments need this little thing called tax money to afford to carry out all these initiatives. When billionaires are taxed appropriately, their money should go to these programs, which is how they can actually contribute. Otherwise, more often than not, billionaires get tax breaks on other ‘charity’ events, which are designed by their accountants to allow them to donate as little as possible while still not having to pay as much tax as they owe.
In the end, world hunger and food insecurity are huge, pressing problems. They aren’t hypotheticals and need to be tackled with the appropriate action as soon as possible. But, who knows? Elon has yet to sign a check for 6.6 billion dollars. We as a world have been talking about solving world hunger for decades, and little change has been made. Is all we can do at this point is cross our fingers and pray?
Works Cited:
Comments