Some say calculation based on politics | Others argue it is based on reality and serves a purpose
MONTREAL — The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization made a dramatic announcement this autumn about the extent of hunger in the world.
It said the number of chronically malnourished people in the world is actually 13 percent lower than it had announced after the 2008 financial meltdown and commodity price spike. Instead of one billion hungry, the new figure is 870 million.
The FAO said it was a problem of flawed data it received from member countries.
Governments, international organizations and aid groups use the world hunger count calculation to gauge progress in achieving the FAO millennium goal of cutting the number of hungry in half to 400 million. The goal was set in 1995 at a world food summit and has since fallen out of reach.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
However, is that vast number a credible gauge of world hunger?
Opinions were divided during a McGill University conference on global food security last week.
American food expert Robert Paarlberg, a political science professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, argued in an interview that the hunger count is a “bogus” number created more for political purposes than accuracy.
“When I think back to 2008, I remember that the World Bank did a back-of-the envelope calculation that put an additional 100 million people in poverty because of spiking food costs,” he said.
“The FAO had a conference and needed a dramatic number, so that’s where one billion came from. I don’t think it is a real number and I don’t think a global number makes sense or really matters.”
Paarlberg said country-by-country surveys of child hunger and growth stunting “actually shows childhood hunger and its effects is declining, so that is good news.”
Canadian officials involved in aid and development work had a different view.
Neither Jean Lebel, vice-president of the International Development Research Centre, nor Paul Hagerman, public policy program director for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, said the world hunger count is a precise number, but both argued in interviews it is indicative of the problem and an important benchmark.
“By tradition, the big numbers generated by the United Nations are the product of a bit of science and a lot of back-of-envelope calculations,” Lebel said.
“Still, I think it is probably close to the real situation, and I think it is useful, keeping us on our toes and reminding us that we are still on a journey of dealing with hunger in a food-rich world.”
Hagerman said he considers the hunger count number “approximately right,” but its importance is greater than its precise accuracy.
“I think it is important to have an index that indicates if progress is being made or not,” he said.
“And for an organization like ours, it is a very important barometer to motivate our supporters.”
