Weaponizing Food Worsens Starvation

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram  and Nadia Malyanah Azman

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jun 17 2025 (IPS) - Wars, economic shocks, planetary heating and aid cuts have worsened food crises in recent years, with almost 300 million people now threatened by starvation.

Why hunger?

World food production has increased almost fourfold since 1960. FAO statistics indicate enough output to feed the world’s eight billion plus another three billion!

Clearly, inadequate food due to population growth cannot explain persistent hunger. Yet, the number of hungry people has been rising for more than a decade. So, why are so many hungry if there is more than enough food for all?

The multi-stakeholder 2025 Global Report on Food Crises  (GRFC) notes 2024 was the sixth consecutive year of high and growing acute food insecurity, with 295.3 million people starving!

In 2023, 733 million people experienced chronic hunger. Over a fifth (22.6%) of the 53 countries/territories assessed in this year’s GRFC were especially vulnerable.

Food output in 2024 continued to rise. In 2022, the world produced 11 billion metric tonnes of food, including 9.6 billion tonnes of cereal crops, such as maize, rice and wheat.

Most hungry people are poor. The poverty line is supposed to reflect the poor’s ability to afford basic needs, mainly food. But the discrepancy between poverty and hunger trends implies inconsistent data and definitions.

Over 700 million worldwide survive on less than $2.15 daily without enough food. Presumably, the 3.4 billion with less than $5.50 daily can barely afford enough nutrition.

New World Bank data estimates 838 million, 10.5% of the world’s population, were in extreme poverty in 2022, 125 million more than previously estimated. It expects one in ten (9.9%) to be in extreme poverty in 2025, with about 750 million hungry.

The extreme poverty line is now $3/day instead of $2.15/day. The poor comprised almost half (48%) the world’s population in 2022. With bleak medium-term growth prospects and inequality still growing, their prospects look especially dismal.

While dietary or caloric energy is essential for human activity, adequate dietary diversity is crucial for human nutrition. Hence, the poor typically cannot afford to eat enough, let alone healthily.

Women and girls are generally more likely to go hungry than men, with hunger rates in women-headed households usually higher. UN-recognized ‘indigenous peoples’ are under 5% of the world’s population but account for 15% of the extreme poor, suffering more hunger than others.

Why food crises?

The multi-stakeholder 2025 Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) notes 2024 was the sixth consecutive year of high and growing acute food insecurity, with 295.3 million people starving!

Worsening conflicts, economic crises, deep funding cuts and less humanitarian assistance all threaten food security. As planetary heating worsens, those experiencing acute food insecurity will likely increase again this year.

Food insecurity has worsened in 19 countries/territories, mainly due to internal conflicts, as in Myanmar, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Even before the aid cuts, half the countries/territories featured in GRFC 2025 faced food crises. Despite La Niña rains, droughts in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan are expected to worsen.

USAID and other recent aid cuts have defunded food programmes for over 14 million children in Sudan, Yemen and Haiti alone. G7 countries are expected to cut aid by 28% in 2026 from 2024. Meanwhile, the GRFC 2025 reported humanitarian food assistance “declined by 30 percent in 2023, and again in 2024”!

In 2024, 65.9 million in Asia were food insecure, the worst in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Food crises threatened 33.5 million, or 44% of those in the eight MENA territories assessed in GRFC 2025.

Starvation as weapon

The number of starving people more than doubled in 2024! Over 95% of this increase was in the Gaza Strip or Sudan. Wars destroy and disrupt food production and distribution. A famine was declared in Sudan in December 2024, with more than 24 million starving due to the civil war. 

Sudan has the largest land area for farming in Africa. Two-thirds of Sudan’s population relies on agriculture, but the ongoing conflict has caused the destruction and abandonment of much farmland and infrastructure.

Despite the Sudanese military’s devastating factional war, the country remains the world’s largest exporter of oily seeds (groundnuts, safflower, sesame, soybean, and sunflower), reflecting its agronomic potential.

Many more are starving in Haiti, Mali, and South Sudan. The UN’s Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) deems such starvation, death, destitution and severe acute malnutrition “catastrophic”.

Food deprivation has become the primary Israeli weapon against the people of Gaza. Gaza’s 2.1 million Palestinians have been at “critical risk” of famine due to the Israeli blockade on food and humanitarian aid since October 2023!

Despite official Israeli denial of mass starvation, growing international outrage, including from some of its staunchest allies, has forced the Netanyahu government to gloss over its actions. In May, it set up the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to “calibrate” calorie rations to continue starvation but not to death.

Related IPS Articles

• Food Systems Worsen Diets, Health

• New Approaches Urgently Needed to Tackle Resurgent Social Crises

• Trade Liberalisation Kicked Away African Development Ladder

• Stagflation: From Tragedy to Farce

• US Leads Sanctions Killing Millions to No End

• Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation

• Trade, Currency War Weapons Double-Edged

Available online at: Weaponising Food Worsens Starvation

Malnutrition Not Due to Cash Poverty Alone

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Mar 26 2025 (IPS) - The World Bank set its US ‘dollar-a-day’ poverty line using its 1990 data. Despite many doubts and criticisms, its poverty numbers fell until the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

Cash measures

The Bank claimed credit for reducing poverty in the three decades before 2020, mainly due to rapid growth in China. But official poverty estimates elsewhere have generally declined more slowly, if at all.

Poverty has long been seen in terms of inequality, as people generally feel poorer compared to others. Meanwhile, explanations of poverty differ considerably, with many calling for better policy measures.

For decades, the Bank refused to address inequality, focusing instead on poverty. Efforts to improve poverty measurement have long been driven by the belief that policy cannot be improved without better estimating it.

Measuring or estimating cash incomes has inevitably been prioritised. But the focus on money incomes poses problems. Money measures of poverty can be helpful but also deceptive. For instance, many children from urban households with incomes above the poverty line remain undernourished.

However, incomes above any arbitrarily set poverty line do not necessarily ensure well-being. This has generated interest in poverty indicators other than money incomes.

Such criticisms reflect a money fetish and the widespread practice of measuring welfare, well-being and poverty in cash terms. Recognising the value of other poverty indicators is now uncontroversial.

Dimensions of poverty

Yet many still want a single composite multidimensional poverty index despite its well-known problems. A dashboard of several key dimensions of poverty, rather than a single composite index, offers much more relevant information to improve policymaking.

Aware of such problems and limitations, OECD and UN Member States have not approved of composite indices. Neither adopted the pioneering work on composite indices by the most influential statistician of both bodies.

Composite indices, such as the human development index, have only been adopted and used by UN funds and programmes, which do not require Member State approval or review.

Meanwhile, lower infant and maternal mortality have accounted for over 80% of improved life expectancy in many developing countries. Low-cost reforms for safer pregnancies and births have significantly extended average life spans at low cost.

Food security

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has long defined food-secure households as those with enough income to afford enough carbohydrates or dietary energy (typically measured in calories or joules) for a sedentary lifestyle.

Despite this low bar and its methodological problems and limitations, undernourished or ‘food-insecure’ households have increased worldwide since 2014, growing for years while the World Bank’s estimate of poor households continued to decline!

According to the Bank, the number of poor worldwide only increased for the first time since the 1990s during the pandemic, both absolutely and relatively. This discrepancy between multilateral poverty and undernourishment trends has triggered debates over the significance of different well-being and deprivation measures.

Various controversies and doubts about Bank poverty numbers have prompted many to regard undernourishment as a better indicator of deprivation and lack of well-being than the poverty measure.

Although income inequality trends are moot and the subject of much dispute and controversy, disparities worldwide have risen again in recent years.

Meanwhile, dollar billionaires have proliferated worldwide as inequality has worsened. As income and wealth inequalities worsen, some convergences have also occurred, causing both trends to be mixed and uneven.

With rural impoverishment spreading worldwide, urbanisation has grown while reducing rural food production for household subsistence consumption. Rural households typically produced food for own consumption by breeding animals, harvesting fruits and vegetables, or even gathering food available nearby.

However, urban areas offer far fewer subsistence production and consumption opportunities. Cash incomes and spending increasingly determine food consumption, including personal nourishment.

Nutrition matters

As man does not live by bread (‘carbs’, i.e., dietary energy from carbohydrates) alone, a more holistic approach requires a more comprehensive approach to human nutrition.

Comparisons of the physical development of children of food producers and cash croppers suggest that household money incomes have not always determined the nutritional status of many.

Food producers’ children are generally better off than those of cash croppers. Why? Probably, food producers are far more likely to provide adequate nourishment to their families regardless of cash incomes.

Thus, children of food producers meet many of their food needs without buying them on the market. Hence, the common presumption that higher cash incomes ensure well-being, including nutrition, is doubtful.

Malnutrition challenges our understanding of well-being and its complex determinants. Many now suffer malnutrition, not only due to both macro and micro-nutrient deprivation but also due to the growing significance of diet-related non-communicable diseases.

As with obesity and overweight, diabetes incidence has risen with new consumer preferences. Incomes, the media, and other influences increasingly shape lifestyles with significant consequences for nutrition and health, many of which are perverse.

Related IPS Articles

• Food Systems Worsen Diets, Health

• Address Malnutrition with Food Insecurity

• Rethink Food Security and Nutrition Following Covid-19 Pandemic

• Address Malnutrition, Not Just Food Security

• Build Healthy, Sustainable Food Systems to Fight Malnutrition

• Tackle ‘Hidden Hunger’ by Improving Food Systems

• Opinion: Better Nutrition for Better Lives

• Progress Against Undernutrition, But Uneven

• The World Sees Progress Against Undernutrition, but it’s Uneven

• Tackle Malnutrition Now

Available online here: Malnutrition Not Due to Cash Poverty Alone

Food Systems Worsen Diets, Health

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jan 21 2025 (IPS) - Corporate-dominated food systems are responsible for widespread but still spreading malnutrition and ill health. Poor diets worsen non-communicable diseases (NCDs), now costing over eight trillion dollars yearly!

Unhealthy food systems

A recent UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) study of 156 countries found that such food systems account for unsafe food and diet-related NCDs.

FAO estimates related ‘hidden costs’ at about $12 trillion annually, with 70% ($8.1 trillion) due to NCDs such as heart disease, strokes and diabetes. Such costs significantly exceed these food systems’ environmental and social costs.

FAO’s annual State of Food and Agriculture 2024 (SOFA) investigated hidden costs worldwide. These were primarily health-related, followed by environmental degradation, mainly in more ‘industrialised’ agri-food systems in upper-middle and high-income countries.

SOFA 2024 builds on the 2023 SOFA. The two-year study uses true cost accounting to estimate significant costs and benefits of food production, distribution and consumption.

The study estimates “hidden costs and benefits”, including those not reflected by market prices. The latest SOFA updates cost estimates, classifies them by agrifood system, and proposes solutions.

The report identifies 13 dietary risks with health implications, with significant differences among various food systems. Inadequate consumption of whole grains (the leading dietary risk in most food systems), fruits, and vegetables is the worst, while excessive sodium and meat consumption cause significant health risks.

Hidden costs

SOFA 2024 identifies historical transitions from traditional to industrial agrifood systems, their outcomes, and hidden costs. It distinguishes six food systems worldwide – traditional, expanding, diversifying, formalising, industrial, and protracted crisis – and links each to hidden costs.

This approach enables a better understanding of each system’s unique features and the design of more appropriate policies and interventions.

However, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake is the main concern during protracted crises – e.g., prolonged conflicts, instability, and widespread food insecurity – and in traditional systems with low productivity, limited technology adoption, and shorter value chains.

Excessive sodium consumption is another significant health concern, rising as food “systems evolve from traditional to formalising, peaking in the latter and then decreasing in industrial systems”.

Meanwhile, processed and red meat intake rises with the shift from traditional to industrial systems. Meat is one of industrial food systems’ top three dietary risk factors. Adverse environmental impacts of unsustainable agronomic practices contribute significantly to hidden costs.

Such costs – due to greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen runoffs, land-use changes, and water pollution – rise with diversifying food systems. Rapid growth typically involves changing food production and consumption, costing $720 billion more yearly.

Formalising and industrial food systems also incur significant environmental costs. However, countries facing protracted crises face the highest environmental costs, equivalent to a fifth of their output.

Social costs, including poverty and undernourishment, are most significant in traditional food systems and more vulnerable to protracted crises, incurring around 8% and 18% of GDP, respectively.

Such high social costs emphasise the urgent need for integrated efforts to improve livelihoods and well-being, reflecting stakeholder priorities and sensitivity to local circumstances.

Collective action

SOFA 2024 seeks to promote “more sustainable, resilient, inclusive, and efficient” food systems. It uses true cost accounting to identify hidden costs, going well beyond traditional economic measures such as the gross domestic product (GDP).

Using realistic and pragmatic approaches, policymakers make better-informed decisions to enhance food systems’ social contributions. More comprehensive approaches should acknowledge the crucial contributions of food systems to food security, nutrition, biodiversity, and culture.

Such transformations require transcending conceptual divides, ensuring health, agricultural, and environmental policy coherence, and fairly sharing costs and benefits among all stakeholders.

The report stresses that this requires collective action involving diverse stakeholders, which is difficult to achieve. Such stakeholders include consumers, primary producers, agribusinesses, governments, financial institutions, and international organisations.

Addressing hidden costs affects various stakeholders differently. Appropriate frameworks, supportive policies, and regulations ease implementation and minimise disruption by adopting sustainable practices early and protecting the vulnerable.

Recommendations

Recognising food systems’ adverse consequences for diets and health, the report makes several key recommendations quite different from those of the Davos World Economic Forum-compromised 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. It urges:

• incentivising the promotion of advancing sustainable food supply chain practices and balancing among food system stakeholders.

• promoting healthy diets by making nutritious food more affordable and accessible, reducing adverse health consequences and costs.

• using labelling, certification, standards, and due diligence to reduce greenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions, harmful land-use changes, and biodiversity loss.

• empowering society with comprehensive, clear, accessible, and actionable food and nutrition education and information about food choices’ health, environmental, and social impacts.

• using collective procurement’s significant purchasing power and influence to improve food supplies and the environment.

• ensuring inclusive rural transformations while reducing hidden health, environmental and social costs.

• strengthening civil society and governance to enable and accelerate sustainable and fair food system innovations and enhance social well-being, especially for vulnerable households.

Available here online: Food Systems Worsen Diets, Health