Eating is such a fundamental aspect of our existence, that I find it strange that anyone should question the wisdom of proposing that FAO should do all in its power to ensure that everyone can eat three meals a day, says Brazilian José Graziano da Silva.

- Claudius

As a third pillar, I want to see FAO and other international agencies ensure greater fairness in the management of the global food system. Some people ask me how I can propose such an ambitious agenda when the world is embroiled in a mix of really serious crises –high oil and food prices, slow economic growth, looming threats of climate change, shortages of land and water, and so on.

I believe that ending hunger, putting food production on a sustainable footing and improving global governance are part of the solution to these crises. Eating is such a fundamental aspect of our existence, that I find it strange that anyone should question the wisdom of proposing that FAO –which was set up in 1945 to end hunger– should do all in its power to help ensure that everyone can eat 3 meals a day.

For years, the world’s farmers and fishermen have produced ample food for all people to eat enough for a healthy life, but almost 1,000 million people –one in seven of the earth’s inhabitants– are still chronically hungry. This is not because there is no food. But because they do not earn enough money to pay for the food they need. And, when this happens, they live in a hunger trap from which escape, through their own means alone, is virtually impossible. As anyone who misses a few meals knows, hunger makes the body weak and diminishes concentration. Long-term hunger has dire effects.

It prevents adults from working, and it stops children from learning at school. Undernourished persons are more susceptible to disease and their life expectancy drops. If a mother is hungry during pregnancy and cannot provide enough food for her babies before their second birthday, they will be disadvantaged for all their life. A widely held view is that people are hungry through their own fault. In practical terms, however, most people who suffer from hunger are the inadvertent victims of global and national economic growth processes that have the side-effect of widening the gap between rich and poor. We now know that investing in hunger eradication, especially through programmes that provide extremely poor families with regular and predictable grants to allow them to eat adequately, is not charity but a high-yielding investment ‒and the yield is all the better when women take command of the grants.

This type of social protection enables people to stand on their own feet, and starts the processes of economic growth where it is most needed, in the poorest communities. Translating unmet food needs into demand can stimulate local production, especially by small-scale farmers if they receive adequate support to turn their potential productivity in actual gains. Public action is key to ignite this. Having dedicated myself to rural development for over three decades, I know that increasing production in poor rural communities of developing countries has many positive spill-over effects. Like many other people, I view access to adequate food as a human right. As an economist, I also know that satisfying that right for hundreds of millions of people will not only end needless suffering on a vast scale but also herald a new age of prosperity throughout the world and contribute to lasting peace. And having held high level positions in Brazil and internationally, I know that political commitment and involvement of society as a whole can go a long way in this direction. This is not mere wishful thinking. With my own eyes, I have seen what has happened in countries that have taken the hunger problem seriously. Ask any Ghanaian, Vietnamese or Brazilian about the impact of their anti-hunger programmes, and I am sure that they will confirm my impressions.