English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

5 answers

Yes and no. The US government sometimes pays farmers to either not plant anything in a field, or to destroy some or all of their crop. The reason is that the government is concerned about the prices of food, and this will keep prices high enough for farmers to be somewhat profitable. It's not very capitalistic, but if any politician were to suggest stopping this then they would lose the heartland vote.

In theory, they could send this surplus to other countries. However, there are two problems with this. One is that when a developing country gets more food, then the population will grow, there will be more people to feed, and the hunger problem is not solved. This happened when advances in agriculture increased the amount of rice available in Southeast Asia.

Second, many countries have problems with food because of corruption, and food doesn't end up feeding people the way it should. For instance, in North Korea all of the food aid that they get ends up in the black market, where a cup of rice or an egg costs as much as a month's salary of a well-paid government worker. Even though people there are starving, if we send more food it will do no good because whoever receives the food will charge exorbitant prices.

2006-12-01 13:11:16 · answer #1 · answered by jellybeanchick 7 · 0 0

Also, don't forget the stupidity of 3rd world country residents. Africa is a prime example. There are a huge amount of people who absolutely REFUSE to eat anything except a "traditional" diet of millet. This has nothing to do with nutrition or even personal preference. They believe millet has magical powers and that other food is cursed. Many other foods that are brought in by other countries lie around untouched, rotting, as people starve to death rather than eat it. Since millet has such poor nutritional value, this is very easy for them to do.

Ignorance to the point of immorality is the main cause of poverty and hunger....not lack of resources.

2006-12-01 21:12:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There is plenty of food, it's just very difficult to deliver it to the people of the world. Developing countries do not have the distribution capabilities, such as warehouses & roads to everywhere, etc. that we take for granted. Then there's the always present greed and coruption factors, such as the late Iraq / U.N. "oil for food" program...

2006-12-01 22:25:47 · answer #3 · answered by Lee W 4 · 1 0

as a matter of fact, so called 3rd world countries usually produce enough food for the people in them but because of corruption on both the local and government levels, the people dont get access to it so we in the U.S. have to go around fixing everyones hunger and medical problems. then, when we have to go into a country and weed out the corruption, everyone turns on us.

2006-12-01 21:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by whosajiggawhat? 2 · 0 0

Yes, but it's not that simple.

2006-12-01 21:00:11 · answer #5 · answered by Meg 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers