promise and peril? the world food summit: five years later

8/14/2019 Promise and Peril? The World Food Summit: Five Years Later

1/24

Promise and PerilThe World Food Summit: Five Years Later*

Pattrice Le-Muire Jones, May 2002

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................1Introductory Remarks.......................................................................................................................................................................4Response to New Challenges to the Achievements of the World Food Summit Goals ............................................6

Response to Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger ...................................................................................................10

Response to Mobilizing Resources to Fight Hunger .............................................................................................................14Assessment of 1996 Plan of Action in Current Context.....................................................................................................16Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................................20

Concluding Remarks......................................................................................................................................................................22Selected References.........................................................................................................................................................................23

* A project of the Global Hunger Alliance, endorsed by the following organizations:

Xwe African Wild Life Research and Investigations Centre (South Africa)

Dialogues for Development and Social Integration (Cameroon)Fondation Kashiba (Democratic Republic of the Congo)Diversity, Nature, and Animals Network (South Africa)

FARMAPU-INTER & CECOTRAP-RCOGL (Rwanda)Learning and Development Kenya (Kenya)

Obomo Self Help Group (Kenya)Awaz Foundation Centre for Development Services (Pakistan)

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia (Australia)Development VISIONS (Pakistan)

Slavonsko-Baranjsko Drustvo za Zastitu Zivotinja ZIVOT (Croatia)Advocates for Animals (Scotland)

Progetto Vivere Vegan (Italy)Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (USA)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (USA) Jewish Vegetarians of North America (USA)

Farm Animal Reform Movement (USA)Food and Social Justice Project (USA)

Farm Sanctuary (USA)

(c) 2002 Global Hunger Alliance

Permission to reprint for educational or other non-profit purposes is granted.


2/24

Executive Summary

Global Hunger Alliance is an international coalition of non-governmental and civil society organizations united in support of effective, equitable, ethical, and environmentally sustainable solutions to hunger and malnutrition. Theconsensus position of all partners in Global Hunger Alliance is contained in the Statement of Principles appended tothis document. This paper represents the consensus position of the endorsing organizations listed on the title page.

This position paper is offered as guide for the participants in World Food Summit: Five Years Later (WFS:fyl)and the NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty.

Introductory RemarksPartners in the Global Hunger Alliance have identified two classes of initiatives most likely to result in

significant progress toward the elimination of hunger and malnutrition and one class of initiatives likely to becounterproductive. The classes of initiatives most likely to result in significant progress are:

(1) initiatives that make meaningful progress toward elimination of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries [1996 Rome Declaration on World FoodSecurity, paragraph 5].

(2) initiatives that increase the production and use of culturally appropriate and underutilized food crops,

including grains, oilseeds, pulses, root crops, fruits and vegetables [1996 World Food Summit Plan of ActionObjective 2.3 (c)] in low-income regions.

The class of initiatives that are likely to be counterproductive is:(1) initiatives that call for or tend to lead to intensification of animal agriculture. These include any initiatives that would install new large-scale industrial or integrated livestock

production and processing operations; initiatives that would devote funds intended for hunger relief to theinfrastructure needed for such operations; initiatives that would lead to intensification or commercialization of existing livestock operations; initiatives that would lead to an increase in monocropped land devoted to theproduction of livestock feed; and initiatives that would compel governments of low-income or transitionalnations to accommodate corporations wishing to locate contract livestock production farms or industrial

processing facilities on their lands.

Response to New Challenges to the Achievements of the World Food Summit GoalsIntensive animal agriculture is one of the chief causes of hunger and malnutrition, in part due to the

inefficiencies that occur when plants are cycled through animals prior to human consumption and in partdue to the soil degradation, water pollution and depletion, and fossil fuel demands associated with this formof food production. Yet, intensive animal agriculture is increasing in regions already struggling with hungerand malnutrition. Continued expansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations will createprofits for corporate agribusiness, including not only the transnational producers and vendors of animal-based commodities but also the suppliers of inputs such as genetically modified seed for feed; the pesticidesand fertilizers needed to grow livestock feed; the growth hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals utilized inintensive animal agriculture operations; and the specialized equipment needed for these capital-intensiveoperations. In contrast, the interests of neither farmers nor consumers will be well served. Continuedexpansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations can only lead to more pollution, lessbiodiversity, more disempowerment, and less food security for the people of those nations.

The farmers of the world already produce enough food to feed everyone an adequate diet. Onlyinefficiencies in usage and inequalities in distribution prevent us from ending all but that portion of hunger

1


3/24

that is directly related to catastrophic events. Furthermore, while the earths resources cannot continue tosupport the unsustainable and unhealthy patterns of consumption now common in affluent nations, thoseresources are more than sufficient to support projected population increases, provided that everyoneconsumes the sustainable, predominantly plant-based diet endorsed by the World Heath Organization.

Foods derived from traditional and locally-improved food plants are nutritionally adequate and far safer

than animal-based foods or foods made from genetically modified plants. Plant-based foods contain all thenutrients required for healthy growth and vigorous activity whereas animal-based foods lack many essentialnutrients, including most vitamins and minerals, as well as fiber. Plant-based diets are less costly than dietsbased on animal products, even when the costs of vitamin or mineral supplements are factored into theequation. Plant-based foods are free of cholesterol and saturated fats and are not tainted by the hormones,drugs, and microbial pathogens commonly found in animal-based foods. Production of animal-based foodsis related to the spread of zoonotic diseases, which are particularly hazardous in regions with high rates of HIV/AIDS. Overconsumption of animal-based food products is related to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension,and various cancers. The costs of such health problems, in terms of both health care and lost productivity, faroutweigh any of the alleged benefits of increased access to animal-based protein.

Response to Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger Participants in WFS:fyl must have the political courage to identify and circumvent the self-interested

influence of agribusiness upon food and agriculture policy. The influence of corporations vested in thelivestock industries has been widespread, affecting not only governmental policy makers but also technicaladvisors associated with FAO and other international agencies. This is due not to duplicity on the part of theexperts but to the enormous power of agribusiness to shape opinion in defiance of facts.

WFS:fyl participants from affluent nations must have the political courage to confront and work to endoverconsumption by the citizens of their own nations. Because ill health is associated with overconsumption,such interventions may be most easily effected from a public health perspective.

Public funding for food and agriculture is of utmost importance due to the inherent conflicts between

the interests of providers of private capital and the interests of low-income farmers and consumers.Work toward long-term solutions to hunger and malnutrition must be accompanied by sufficient direct

aid, so that currently malnourished people can regain the vitality needed to fully participate in their ownempowerment. So that this empowerment is genuine rather than illusory, food aid must not be used to forcenations or populations to accept unpopular political or economic reforms favored by the donors.

Response to Mobilizing Resources to Fight Hunger Resources must be mobilized both for immediate hunger relief and for the redevelopment of sustainable

and self-sufficient agriculture in low-income food-deficit nations (LIFDNs). The fastest and fairest routes toincreased financial resources for LIFDNs are debt cancellation and unconditional direct contributions.

While information and technical assistance should be provided upon request, vital resources must not bewithheld from LIFDNs electing to pursue their own courses of agricultural development, whether or not thosecourses are consistent with the wishes of international agribusiness or the economic theories that have driventhe free trade movement.

Assessment of 1996 Declaration and Plan of Action in Current ContextIn the past five years, much has been learned about the diseases and other health hazards associated with

2


4/24

significant consumption of animal-based foods. These new insights must be taken into account whendetermining the nutritional goals toward which hunger and malnutrition relief efforts are directed.

In the past five years, much has been learned about the destructive environmental impact, especiallyupon water resources, of intensive animal agriculture. This must be taken into account when decidingbetween the variety of agricultural projects that might be supported by funds intended for the long-term

alleviation of hunger and malnutrition.In the past five years, trade liberalization has resulted in a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

Hence, available data cannot be said to support continued emphasis on market-based solutions to hungerand malnutrition.

RecommendationsSee the Recommendations section for the complete list of general and specific recommendations.

Participants in WFS:fyl must scrutinize the elements of the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action inorder to select and concentrate upon the initiatives most likely to achieve the most significant reductions inhunger and malnutrition in LIFDNs and worldwide.

Participants in WFS:fyl must identify and reject initiatives least likely to lead to significant reductions inworldwide hunger and malnutrition.

WFS:fyl must include candid discussion of all of the causal factors that contribute to hunger andmalnutrition, including corporate profiteering, overconsumption in affluent nations, and waste of resourcesby industrial animal agriculture operations.

Decisions taken at WFS:fyl must be the result of a decentralized process in which the delegates from theNGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty fully participate.

Participants in WFS:fyl must make specific commitments, as relevant for their nations or agencies, in thefollowing areas:

Increased direct food aid

Debt abolition Increased contributions to self-directed sustainable agriculture in LIFDNs Unconditional and dispassionate technical support for sustainable agriculture in LIFDNs Increased cultivation of traditional food plants for local and regional consumption Decreased consumption of meat and other inefficient foods in affluent nations Increased regulation of wasteful and polluting animal agriculture operations in affluent nations Decreased government support of wasteful and polluting animal agriculture operations

Concluding RemarksWe can end food insecurity, but only if both the causes and symptoms of this social malady are attacked

directly. In order to immediately relieve food insecurity, we must set aside prejudices against direct intervention

and inappropriate applications of theories about self-reliance. In order to ensure stable food security for all, wemust set aside biases for unsustainable food sources and be willing to challenge those who profit from theexisting state of affairs.

We call for the participants in WFS:fyl to feed the world while preserving the planet. This can be done bymore efficiently using and equitably distributing existing food resources and by increasing funding forsustainable cultivation of indigenous and locally-adapted food plants.

3


5/24

Introductory Remarks

Global Hunger Alliance is an international coalition of non-governmental and civil society organizations united in support of effective, equitable, ethical, and environmentally sustainable solutions to hunger and malnutrition. Theconsensus position of all partners in Global Hunger Alliance is contained in the Statement of Principles appended tothis document. This paper represents the consensus position of the endorsing organizations listed on the title page.

This position paper is offered as guide for the participants in World Food Summit: Five Years Later (WFS:fyl)and the NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty.

The World Food Summit: Five Years Later (WFS:fyl) represents a moment of extraordinary promise andextraordinary peril. World leaders will meet to renew and specify their commitments to ending hunger andmalnutrition at a point in time when non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are forging unprecedentedcoalitions and alliances across geographic and ideological boundaries. This places us in the position to be ableto make and then implement pragmatic plans to eliminate malnutrition.

As we dare to dream of such a positive outcome, we must unflinchingly confront the fact that thisSummit has been convened specifically because so little progress has been made toward the relatively modestgoals set forth at the World Food Summit of 1996. We must also confront the environmental challenges thathave intensified since 1996, such as the impending worldwide water crisis, accelerated losses of biodiversity,and increased threat of ecosystemic collapse, all of which impact and are impacted by food-productionpractices.

Participants in WFS:fyl and the NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty must identify and then determineto circumvent the political and economic forces that have led to failures of will and deficits of resources.Participants in WFS:fyl and the attendant NGO Forum also must scrutinize the elements of the 1996 RomeDeclaration and Plan of Action in order to select and concentrate upon the initiatives most likely to achieve themost significant reductions in worldwide hunger and malnutrition. This means that initiatives that are less likelyto produce significant results, and especially those that are likely to be ultimately counterproductive, must alsobe identified.

Partners in the Global Hunger Alliance have identified two classes of initiatives most likely to result insignificant progress and one class of initiatives likely to be counterproductive.

The classes of initiatives most likely to result in significant progress are:(1) initiatives that make meaningful progress toward elimination of unsustainable patterns of

consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries [1996 Rome Declaration on World FoodSecurity, paragraph 5].

(2) initiatives that increase the production and use of culturally appropriate and underutilized food crops,including grains, oilseeds, pulses, root crops, fruits and vegetables [1996 World Food Summit Plan of ActionObjective 2.3 (c)] in low-income regions.

In reference to the first class of initiatives, we note particularly the role of industrial animal agriculture,

which wastes and pollutes natural resources in order to produce commodities known to be associated withthe high rates of heart disease and cancer in industrialized nations. In reference to the second class of initiatives, we note particularly the importance of indigenous and locally-adapted food crops, which requirethe least inputs and when directly consumed by people rather than cycled through livestock offer themost direct route to a nutritionally balanced and calorically sufficient diet for everyone. Taken together, thesetwo classes of initiatives are safe, efficient, sustainable, and entirely consistent with the principles and planselaborated in the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action.

4


6/24

Taking these considerations into account, partners in Global Hunger Alliance have identified one class of initiatives that are likely to be counterproductive:

(1) initiatives that call for or tend to lead to intensification of animal agriculture. These include any initiatives that would install new large-scale industrial or integrated livestock

production and processing operations; initiatives that would devote funds intended for hunger relief to the

infrastructure needed for such operations; initiatives that would lead to intensification or commercialization of existing livestock operations; initiatives that would lead to an increase in monocropped land devoted to theproduction of livestock feed; and initiatives that would compel governments of low-income or transitionalnations to accommodate corporations wishing to locate contract livestock production farms or industrialprocessing facilities on their lands.

We note that nothing in the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action mandates such initiatives.However, vague wording such as the inclusion of all types of livestock operations under the general term of agriculture leaves open the possibility that dangerous animal agriculture operations could be introducedor expanded in low-income nations under the guise of hunger relief. For all of the reasons outlined in theGlobal Hunger Alliance Statement of Principles, we believe that any expansion of intensive animal agriculture

will, in fact, lead to more hunger and less empowerment for people in low-income nations as well as moreworldwide degradation of vital water and soil resources.

We recommend to the participants in WFS:fyl that the scarce funds available for solutions to hunger andmalnutrition be devoted to the classes of initiatives most likely to result in both immediate and sustainedincreases in food security. We believe those to be initiatives that decrease or eliminate unsustainable patternsof consumption and production and initiatives that increase sustainable cultivation of traditional and locallyimproved food plants. We strongly caution against any intensification or commercialization of animalagriculture under the auspices of hunger relief.

These recommendations are expanded and justified in the course of presenting our comments on thediscussion papers around which WFS:fyl will be organized. Because we believe that a review of the documentsassociated with the 1996 World Food Summit, in light of the events of the past five years as well as recentresearch, must be part of WFS:fyl, we also offer our comments upon the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of

Action. A complete list of recommendations follows those discussions.

5


7/24

Response toNew Challenges to the Achievements

of the World Food Summit Goals

Intended to provide background information for the two subsequent discussion papers, New Challengesto the Achievements of the World Food Summit Goals provides an excellent overview of many of the key issuesthat will confront participants in the World Food Summit but does not offer an analysis of the most importantcontroversies surrounding food security. Controversies concerning trade globalization, genetic modificationof plants and animals, and intensification of agriculture must be recognized as conflicts of interest rather thandispassionate disagreements among disinterested parties.

Trade globalization, genetic modification of plants and animals, and intensification of agriculture tend tobe supported by corporate agribusiness and opposed by farmers, consumers, and non-governmentalorganizations. To date, trade globalization, genetic modification of plants and animals, and commercializationof agriculture have tended to result in increased profits for corporate agribusiness but have not beendemonstrated to result in net benefits for the farmers or consumers of low-income nations.

Any discussion of hunger that does not explicitly acknowledge the fact that some entities profit from theexisting state of affairs is, by definition, incomplete and cannot possibly result in realistic solutions. The interestof corporate agribusiness in maintaining existing inequalities and inefficiencies in the usage and distribution of existing food resources must be overtly acknowledged as a key contextual fact.

Acknowledgement of this fact is particularly critical in relation to capital-intensive operations such asindustrial animal agriculture. As intensive animal agriculture operations are subjected to increasing scrutinyand regulation in affluent nations, intensive animal agriculture is on the rise in developing nations. In the 1990s,for example, industrial pork and poultry production in Asia rose at a rate of nine percent per annum.

Continued expansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations will create profits forcorporate agribusiness, including not only the transnational producers and vendors of animal-based

commodities but also the suppliers of inputs such as genetically modified seed for feed; the pesticides andfertilizers needed to grow livestock feed; the growth hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals utilized inintensive animal agriculture operations; and the specialized equipment needed for these capital-intensiveoperations. In contrast, the interests of neither farmers nor consumers will be well served. Continuedexpansion of intensive animal agriculture in low-income nations can only lead to more pollution, lessbiodiversity, more disempowerment, and less food security for the people of those nations.

Intensive animal agriculture is one of the chief causes of hunger and malnutrition, in part due to theinefficiencies that occur when plants are cycled through animals prior to human consumption and in partdue to the soil degradation, water pollution and depletion, and fossil fuel demands associated with this formof food production. Significant increases in worldwide production of animal-based foods can only be

achieved through intensive animal agriculture. Hence, significant increases in worldwide production of animal-based foods cannot coincide with resolution of the problems of hunger and malnutrition.

With these facts in mind, we highlight the most important fact there is about hunger and malnutrition: thefact that the farmers of the world already produce enough food to feed everyone an adequate diet and thatonly inefficiencies in usage and inequalities in distribution prevent us from ending all but that portion of hunger that is directly related to catastrophic events. Furthermore, while the earths resources cannot continueto support the unsustainable and unhealthy patterns of consumption now common in affluent nations,

6


8/24

those resources are more that sufficient to support projected population increases, provided that everyoneconsumes the sustainable, predominantly plant-based diet endorsed by the World Heath Organization.

Let us not set aside such a goal as unrealistic before even discussing the concrete steps that might bring itto fruition. The idea that hunger will always be with us has become an unquestioned implicit assumption tothe degree that the most powerful political leaders on earth, gathered in Rome at the original World Food

Summit, could only dare to dream of halving the number of hungry people within 20 years. With suchdiminished aspirations, is it any wonder that we have not come further in the quest to end chronic hungerand malnutrition?

People rarely achieve that which they cannot even conceive. The first necessity, then, is to recover thehope of ending hunger. Only then will it be possible for the leaders gathered at the World Food Summit who do, indeed, have the power to effect a lasting solution to ask and answer the hard questionsconcerning the political will and resource allocations that will be necessary to bring an end to the era of unnecessary misery and death and usher in a new era of peace and plenty for all.

In addition to these general comments, we offer the following notes concerning specific elements of this

discussion paper:

para 2 The Rome Declaration rightly specified that food must be not only sufficient in quantity but also

nutritionally adequate and safe. In light of that commitment, we stress the fact that sustainable cultivation of indigenous and locally-adapted grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes for local and regional consumptionrepresents the only true route to food security in low-income food-deficit nations (LIFDNs) and inimpoverished regions of more affluent nations. Such crops require far fewer inputs per calorie or unit of protein than animal-based foods, and thus may be produced in sufficient quantity without risking theenvironmental and socioeconomic hazards associated with intensive animal agriculture and geneticallymodified food plants.

Furthermore, foods derived from traditional crops are nutritionally adequate and far safer than animal-based foods or foods made from genetically modified plants. Plant-based foods contain all the nutrientsrequired for healthy growth and vigorous activity whereas animal-based foods lack many essential nutrients,including most vitamins and minerals, as well as fiber. Plant-based diets are less costly than diets based onanimal products, even when the costs of vitamin or mineral supplements are factored into the equation.

Plant-based foods are free of cholesterol and saturated fats and are not tainted by the hormones, drugs,and microbial pathogens commonly found in animal-based foods. Manure from livestock operations spreadsdiseases such as E. coli, listeria, and cryptosporidium while the operations themselves often expose localpopulations to zoonotic diseases such as avian flu and swine fever. Areas with large populations of immuno-compromised people, such as Africa, are especially susceptible to zoonotic disease. Pathogens such assalmonella and campylobacter are commonly found in meat; food poisoning from such pathogens cancause serious illness and even death in children, the elderly, and people with suppressed immune systems.Overuse of antibiotics in livestock operations has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant super bugsthat may afflict human consumers of animal-based food products. Consumption of animal-based foodproducts also is related to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and various cancers . The costs of such healthproblems, in terms of both health care and lost productivity, far outweigh any of the alleged benefits of

7


9/24

increased access to animal-based protein. While health risks associated with consumption of geneticallymodified plants have not been so conclusively demonstrated, the fact that these biological novelties have notbeen proven safe for human consumption argues against their use in feeding vulnerable human populations.

para 4

The intense controversy concerning intensification of farming must be resolved through consensusrather then sidestepped during the World Food Summit. Urgent concerns regarding the dangers inherent inintensification of animal agriculture in particular prompted the formation of the Global Hunger Alliance. TheWorld Food Summit represents an opportunity for nations contemplating new or expanded industrial animalagriculture projects to learn of the very real hazard such projects pose to environmental security, watersecurity and, ultimately, food security. The World Food Summit must be a venue at which alternatives tointensive animal agriculture are explored and embraced. Organic agriculture, localized crop improvement,preservation and cultivation of edible wild plants, and innovative uses of traditional plants are among themany alternatives that should be fully explored.

para 5Questions concerning the distribution of the aggregate benefits of the free trade movement are rightly

posed. At present, available evidence does not support the contention that people in LIFDNs will naturally reapa net benefit in food security as a result of increased international trade in agricultural commodities. Indeed,the historic conversion of lands previously devoted to the production of diverse food crops for local andregional consumption into monocultures devoted to the production of cash crops for export is one of thechief causes of food insecurity, due to the ensuing vulnerability to market shocks. That process must bereversed rather than accelerated.

This point is particularly urgent in relation to animal agriculture. Markets for livestock products are highlyvolatile and livestock enterprises are extremely vulnerable to emergencies associated with infectious disease. Atthe same time, high demands on land and water resources made by commercial animal agriculture intensifiesthe draw-down of local natural resources available for food production. The high cost of animal agricultureinputs ensures that control of the production of animal-based commodities for export remains in the hands of the providers of capital, rather than in the hands of local farmers. Hence, any increases in LIFDN production of livestock feed or livestock products for export will reduce food local food security and local self-determination.

para 8 The agricultural sector will always be vulnerable to natural disasters. However, we must recognize that the

degree of vulnerability depends, in large part, on the variety of agriculture practiced. Sustainable cultivation of a diverse array of indigenous and locally-adapted plants is the least vulnerable agricultural position; intensiveproduction of livestock and livestock feed is the most vulnerable position. Intensive production of livestock products makes certain disasters both more likely and more damaging. Both intensive livestock operationsand monocultures of plants intended for livestock feed are vulnerable to sudden and disastrous diseaseoutbreaks or pest infestations. Soil compaction associated with intensive grazing increases desertificationduring times of drought and leaves land more vulnerable to flooding. The high water demands of intensiveanimal agriculture make recovery from drought more difficult.

8


10/24

para 18Intensive livestock or feed production, in contrast to sustainable cultivation of a diverse array of locally-

adapted plants, sets the stage for disasters associated with pests and diseases. Monocropping in order toprovide animal fodder leaves farmers vulnerable to single pest invasions while concentrations of livestock arevulnerable to outbreaks such as the ongoing avian influenza crisis in Hong Kong.

para 26Depletion of fresh water resources is rightly highlighted as an urgent concern. The production of animal-

based food requires considerably more water per calorie than the generation of plant-based food. Includingthe water used to grow livestock feed along with the water consumed by the animals, it take 100,000 litres of water to produce one pound of beef and 3,500 litres of water to produce one pound of chicken flesh. At thesame time, feedlot runoff and meat processing plant effluents pollute water supplies. Even if hunger were nota problem, water considerations alone would mandate that intensive livestock operations be curtailed ratherthan increased. While it is appropriate and vital to also discuss specific techniques of water management,participants in the World Food Summit must not shy away from clearly identifying intensive animal agriculture

as the primary cause of the worldwide water crisis and accordingly pledging to reduce intensive animalagriculture operations, replacing them with agricultural projects that will feed more people at less cost to theenvironment.

para 34 The aim of maintenance of diverse genetic resources for food and agriculture is indeed important and is

best pursued by means of support for cultivation of a diverse array of crops. Intensive livestock operations,which entail the aggregation of genetically similar animals fed genetically identical plants, reduce biodiversity.

Concerns about the impact of pesticide and fertilizer usage, both in terms of pollution and in terms of soildegradation, are valid and urgent. We note the high proportion of fertilizer and pesticide usage associatedwith growing grains, maize, and soya intended for livestock and the correspondingly low usage of suchinputs required for the sustainable cultivation of indigenous and locally-adapted plants intended for directhuman consumption.

para 35 The Committee on World Food Security is correct in noting environmental and consumer concerns about

the sustainability of, and the safety of food produced by the intensive farming systems but incorrect inassuming that these concerns are bound to eventually induce innovations. Necessary changes have beenand will continue to be opposed by the most powerful interests in agribusiness. Thus change must be activelyadvocated by FAO and implemented both by nations in which intensive animal agriculture operations arelocated and by the nations in which the corporations that control those operations are located.

9


11/24

Response to

Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger

Across the globe, in both affluent and low-income nations, increasing numbers of citizens have raisedurgent concerns about the free trade agenda forwarded by the transnational corporations and theirsupporters in academia and government. Citizens have voiced the fear that corporations may become morepowerful than democratically elected governments. We note that this premonition has already come true inthe realm of food and agriculture policy. Governments do have the power to implement policies and practicesthat would end hunger and malnutrition but have not done so, largely due to the influence of corporateagribusiness upon every phases of decision making, from research to policy implementation.

The issue of industrial animal agriculture represents a case in point. These operations excessively depleteresources, pollute local environments, and disempower farmers and workers in the course of producingcommodities known to cause disease in their consumers. Yet, in the affluent nations in whichoverconsumption of these commodities represents a public health crisis, these industries are subsidized ratherthan curtailed by regulation. Now, as these industries strive to develop new markets for their dangerous

commodities, their enormous influence upon policy analysts and policy makers can again be perceived.Rather than warning of the very real risks to both public health and food security associated with elevatedproduction and consumption of animal-based foods, technical advisors at the Food and AgricultureOrganization, International Food Policy Research Institute and other agencies have come to view increaseddemand for meat and other animal products as a natural force that they must help to come to fruition. Expertswho would never conceive of helping to satisfy demand for tobacco (known to be associated with lungcancer) work hard to help satisfy demand for cows milk ( known to be associated with breast cancer). This isdue not to duplicity on the part of the experts but to the enormous power of agribusiness to shape opinion indefiance of facts.

In this context, it is useful to remember that demand for meat and other animal products, like any

demand for specific products, is shaped by many different forces. The factors which lead people to demandmore meat as they become more affluent and urban include the marketing messages of the purveyors of these products as well as the notion that the Western diet is a sign of high status. A primary contributingfactor is the idea that animal protein is necessary for strength and vitality. This is a common belief which is notsupported by scientific evidence. Medical research has shown that, contrary to popular belief, diets which arehigh in animal products are associated with degenerative disease rather than good health and that even quitesmall increases in animal product consumption can lead to increased incidence of certain degenerativediseases. These research findings suggest that demand for a higher proportion of animal products in the dietmight best be met with education concerning nutrition and efforts to preserve the more culturally appropriatetraditional diet rather than accommodated by increased worldwide production of those potentially

dangerous products. However, while WHO has begun to warn of the dangers of the Western diet, mostagencies have continued to accommodate, rather than seek to mitigate, demand for the elements of that diet.

At the same time, political leaders overtly defer to the expansive demands of the livestock industries. Forexample, George W. Bush has actively contested Russias right to refuse imports of chicken flesh laden withantibiotics and tainted by salmonella. At a recent Cattle Industry Convention and Trade Show in the UnitedStates, Bush said we want people in China eating U.S. beef and pledged his support to that aim, regardless of the fact that increased meat consumption in China has already been shown to be associated with negative

10


12/24

health outcomes.We do not want people in China eating U.S. beef. We want the people of China and around the world to

consume the healthy, balanced, predominantly plant-based traditional diets that have nourished their culturesfor centuries. This outcome would truly allow us to feed the world while preserving the planet. However, thissimple and obvious solution is rarely even listed as a goal of hunger and malnutrition relief efforts, in part

because of the political risks associated with confrontation of the powerful corporations with vested interestsin maintaining overconsumption of animal-based foods in affluent nation and stimulating new demand forthese foods in developing and transitional economies.

Agribusiness corporations favor trade-based approaches to the alleviation of hunger and malnutrition. They have encouraged experts to scoff at nations that assert that self-sufficiency in food is a valid aim andhave encouraged governments to link aid and technical assistance to demands for commercialization andprivatization of food production. Time and again they have insisted that their technologies are the only realisticanswer. Yet experience has shown them to be motivated by self-interest rather than altruism. The questionthat we and the citizens of the world will be asking as WFS:fyl unfolds is this: Will the national delegations havethe courage and the political will to place the interests of the people and the planet above the interests of for-

profit agribusiness?

In addition to these general comments, we offer the following notes concerning specific elements of thisdiscussion paper:

para 9We agree that the world has the capacity to feed its population adequately today and that the primary

question is how to generate and sustain the political will to do so. However, we note with chagrin the failureof this discussion paper to address the primary barrier to sustained action against world hunger: the influenceof agribusiness interests upon the political process.

We note, too, that the world has the capacity to feed its population adequately today if and only if theinefficiency and waste associated with excessive consumption of animal-based foods in affluent nations iscurtailed. An individual consuming a Western meat-based diet indirectly consumes enough resources to feedtwenty people a nutritionally balanced vegetarian diet. Vital food resources are wasted when grains, maize,and soya are cycled through animals rather than consumed directly. Livestock consume 32 percent of theworlds cereal production. Each year, 144 million tons of oilseeds (including soya), roots, and tubers that couldbe consumed by people are fed to animals instead. Ninety percent of the protein, 99 percent of thecarbohydrates, and 100 percent of the dietary fiber in plants fed to livestock are lost in the process of conversion of plant-based foods to animal-based foods.

para 14Given the historic and ongoing failure of market capitalism to provide access to food for all, the high

expectations that the aims and tactics of the World Trade Organization will result in net benefits for the peopleof low-income food-deficit nations (LIFDNs) are unfounded. Popular demonstrations across the globe inrecent years have shown that people know very well that their interests do not coincide with the expansiveaims of the transnational agribusiness corporations served by WTO-enforced treaties such as TRIPS and TRIMS.Participants in WFS:fyl must have the political will to acknowledge this fact and act accordingly.

11


13/24

para 15We highlight the rapid increase in the supply of private capital, combined with a narrowing of the role of

the public sector associated with trade liberalization as particularly dangerous in the realm of agriculture.Agricultural ventures supported by private capital are likely to be oriented toward international markets rather

than toward feeding local communities. Since private capital is concentrated in affluent nations, profits fromsuch ventures are most likely to flow to affluent nations. Rural labor and natural resources of LIFDNsincreasingly will be seen as inputs to be used until depleted, at which point the investments will be retracted,leaving local people even more impoverished than before.

We note this danger particularly in relation to industrial or integrated livestock operations. These highlycapital-intensive operations deplete and pollute local natural resources while offering only low-wage,dangerous jobs in return.

para 16 The focus on market solutions to the problem of hunger is rooted in specific theories that are not

uniformly endorsed by economists. The problem of hunger is too urgent to rely upon solutions supportedonly by the speculations of a subset of economists. Hungry people cannot eat theories.

Hungry people can eat grains and soya, and there are plenty of these to go around. No abstract theory isneeded to see that providing these and other vegetable foods directly to hungry people, rather than tolivestock destined to be made into luxury foods for affluent people, would result in an immediate decline inhunger. Increasing the efficiency of usage of existing resources in this way, combined with public investmentin cultivation of a diverse array of plants for local and regional consumption, represents the most sensible andleast speculative of solutions to the problem of hunger. This simple solution is unfeasible only due to lack of political will.

para 18HIV/AIDS has intensified and will continue to exacerbate hunger. Solutions to the AIDS crisis and the

hunger crisis both demand a political commitment to citizens rather than corporations. Just as nations haveincreased their willingness to confront and challenge biomedical profiteers, so must the participants in WFS:fylbe willing to confront those who profit from existing inequalities in access to food.

HIV/AIDS also makes the issues of food safety and zoonotic disease more urgent. People withcompromised immune systems are easily harmed by common pathogens such as salmonella. In regionswhere incidence of HIV/AIDS is high, zoonotic diseases such as Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever areparticularly devastating. Industrialization and intensification of animal production, along with internationaltrade in animals and animal products, have been identified as major contributing factors to the emergenceand reemergence of various zoonotic diseases.

para 19We agree that over-riding concern for economic growth, efficiency and undistorted trade, combined

with the pressures on the citizens of developed countries to increase consumption is increasingly at odds withconcerns for social equity and the welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world. We stress that any realisticstrategy to reduce worldwide hunger and malnutrition must include efforts to reduce overconsumption by

12


14/24

the citizens of developed nations, however politically unpopular such efforts may be. The best target for any such effort is overconsumption of animal-based foods because this is harmful to

the health of the overconsumers. Consumers in affluent nations could be encouraged to improve their ownhealth by reducing their consumption of products known to be related to heart disease and certain cancers.Efforts to reduce tobacco consumption, and to support tobacco farmers in converting to the production of

more healthful yet still lucrative agricultural products, might serve as useful models in crafting such a strategy.In the long run, affluent nations would reap a net gain, through the reduction of health care costs and lostproductivity associated with overconsumption of animal-based foods, while at the same time helping toreduce worldwide hunger and malnutrition.

para 29FAOs emphasis on strengthening the political will of LIFDN governments must be matched by suasion

directed at the governments of affluent nations. The governments of affluent nations must increase directfood aid, resist corporate pressures to tie such aid to trade liberalization, support debt relief, and work to alterunhealthy and unsustainable patterns of food consumption among their own citizens. Each of these steps will

require significant political commitment.

para 37 We concur that a failure to address the problems of undernourishment frontally is likely to frustrate the

achievement of the goal for poverty alleviation, to the extent that hunger is as much as cause as an effect of poverty. Hence, direct food aid to malnourished people must be immediately and significantly increased,whether or not such aid is consistent with abstract theories concerning market development. Concerns aboutthe impact of such aid upon empowerment must be balanced against the reality that malnourished peopleare both physically and cognitively disempowered and cannot fully participate in their own politicalempowerment until those disabilities are relieved.

Mechanisms for delivery of direct food aid have been and continue to be less than ideal in many locales.Different mechanisms will be appropriate in different circumstances. In every circumstance, the mechanismfor delivery should be determined through consultation with the local NGOs and CSOs that represent theinterests of the intended recipients of the aid.

para 53We concur that the widespread bias against redistributional measures must be set aside in the search for

practical and rapid solutions to hunger. Emphasis on the need for sustainable solutions to the complex andintersecting long term causes of hunger must not impede recognition of the ongoing need for immediateredistributional efforts. Similarly, emphasis on the deep determinants of hunger must not obscure recognitionof more proximate antecedents, such as the inefficient cycling of vegetable protein through animals prior tohuman consumption. Simple and certain solutions must not be shunned in favor of complex speculative

solutions that may or may result in the desired outcomes.

13


15/24

Response toMobilizing Resources to Fight Hunger

Resources must be mobilized both for immediate hunger relief and for the redevelopment of sustainableand self-sufficient agriculture in low-income food-deficit nations (LIFDNs). LIFDNs require financial resourcesto purchase food and invest in sustainable agriculture. Greater access to resources will also empower LIFDNs inrelation to foreign investors who wish to establish disempowering and environmentally hazardous agriculturalprojects, such as intensive livestock operations, on their lands.

The fastest and fairest routes to increased financial resources for LIFDNs are debt relief and directcontributions. The arguments for debt relief put forward by such entities as Jubilee South are entirely soundand we join their call for immediate erasure of illegitimate debts. Future direct contributions from affluentnations should be tendered without obligation. Ideally, these should be framed not as donations but as longoverdue reparations for resource extractions during the eras of imperialism and colonialism.

LIFDNs must be empowered to make their own decisions concerning investments in food andagriculture. From the advice of the experts promoting the Green Revolution to the structural adjustments

imposed as conditions of debt relief or aid, external technical assistance has often been more hindrance thanhelp. Thus, while information and assistance should be provided upon request, vital resources must not bewithheld from LIFDNs electing to pursue their own courses of agricultural development, whether or not thosecourses are consistent with the wishes of international agribusiness.

FAO must ensure that any technical assistance rendered is based upon objective assessments of facts andnot biased toward the outcomes preferred by global agribusiness. Any assistance provided concerningintensive livestock operations, for example, must include accurate information concerning the environmentalhazards of such operations, the inefficient usage of natural and cultivated resources inherent in suchoperations, the workplace hazards faced by employees in such operations, and the health hazards associatedwith food produced by means of such operations.

Resources must also be mobilized to provide immediate relief of hunger and malnutrition. In addition tothe fiscal resources discussed above, increased direct food aid from affluent nations must be forthcoming.Citizens of affluent nations may facilitate such aid by reducing their own consumption of luxury commoditiessuch as animal-based food products. This will make available grain, maize, and soya that would otherwisehave been fed to livestock, at a rate of between four and ten kilograms of food for each kilogram of meatforgone, and will free lands used to supply livestock operations for the production of food intended for directhuman consumption. In the long run, this will aid the farmers who suffer due to the artificially depressed pricesof agricultural commodities intended for livestock feed.

In addition to these general comments, we offer the following notes concerning specific elements of this

discussion paper:

para 6We stress the importance of public sector funding for both hunger relief and agriculture development.

Because private sector corporate investment always involves the extraction of profits by the providers of capital, it will always represent an inefficient means of generating the most food per unit of capital invested.Only public sector investment and traditional forms of public-private partnership ensure that the products of

14


16/24

the investment will flow to the people.Furthermore, because for-profit corporations exist specifically in order to generate profits rather than to

serve citizens, they cannot be presumed to act in the interests of the people. Indeed, both law and logic dictatethat they will place the interests of investors above all others. Due to their fiduciary responsibility to serve theirinvestors, corporate policy makers will always choose to maximize profits at the expense of workers,

consumers and the environment.In addition, private funding may not be forthcoming for critical agricultural projects. As noted in the New

Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) document, governments must support the provision of

irrigation equipments and develop arable lands when private agents are unwilling to do so.

We express grave caution at the suggestion that the public sectors of LIFDNs should offer economicincentives or otherwise act to create a conducive environment for private investment in agriculture. LIFDNsmust not be pressured to make it easy for corporations to exploit their resources or citizens.

We are especially concerned about this issue in relation to industrial animal agriculture, which now facesincreasing environmental and animal welfare regulations in affluent nations. We fear that the governments of LIFDNs will face increasing pressure to accommodate these inhumane and environmentally destructive

operations as they become unwelcome in affluent nations.

para 15We concur that mobilization of resources for agriculture must be supplemented by investment in

infrastructure, health and education. Further, we stress that investments in agriculture be consistent withinvestments in other realms. Investments in water delivery infrastructure are futile if accompanied byinvestments in agriculture projects certain to pollute the water source. Similarly, it would be counterproductiveto match investments in public health with investments in the production of agricultural products known tocause ill health. Such a holistic outlook demands that intensive animal agriculture projects be forgone in favorof sustainable cultivation of diverse traditional food plants.

para 19We highlight the role of debt in preventing LIFDNs from sufficiently developing their agriculture sectors

and stress the importance of immediate and unconditional debt cancellation.

para 22We reiterate the fact that market-based approaches to hunger and malnutrition are based on theory

rather than reality and urge the participants in WFS:fyl to steer clear of reliance upon such speculativesolutions to life-and-death problems. We stress that, given sufficient resources and political will, pragmatic

solutions that do not rely upon speculative projections of the impact of trade liberalization are within reach.

15


17/24

Assessment of the1996 Rome Declaration & Plan of Action

in Current ContextWhile the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action will not be revised in the course of the World Food

Summit: Five Years Later (WFS:fyl), it is imperative that this document be revisited and reviewed in the contextof current conditions and advances in knowledge gained since 1996. We offer the following comments as acontribution toward a pragmatic assessment of the the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action in thecurrent context.

Rome Declaration on World Food Security This document stands as a testament to the good intentions and insightful analyses that marked the 1996

World Food Summit. At the same time, this document serves as a reminder of how little progress has beenmade in the more than five years since. In reviewing this document for purposes of WFS:fyl, the followingissues appear to us to be particularly salient:

para 1While the representatives gathered at the 1966 World Food Summit affirmed the human right to food,

many powerful nations including the United States of America have neglected to codify this right fortheir own people. One must question the genuine commitment to eradication of world hunger of any statethat has refused to recognize the right to food even for its own citizens. The contributions of such states toWFS:fyl must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

para 1 The importance of safe and nutritious food cannot be overstated. In the years since 1996, much has

been learned concerning health hazards associated with certain foods, such as meat and dairy products.Much has also been learned concerning the elements of balanced nutrition and experts have accordinglyreformulated dietary recommendations. The overall trend of such reformulations has been toward theinclusion of a greater quantity and variety of vegetables and fruits along with a correlated decrease in animal-based foods in the ideal diet. These facts must be taken into account in the formulation of both short-termhunger relief efforts and long-term agricultural plans.

para 5Sustainable progress in poverty eradication is critical to improve access to food yet recent years have

seen a widening gap between rich and poor that can be directly traced to the economic policies that may beloosely grouped under the rubric of trade liberalization. Hence, the evidence of the past five years does notsupport the contention that further trade liberalization will solve the problems of hunger and malnutrition.

Indeed, the evidence points in the other direction, strongly suggesting that further trade liberalization will leadto greater poverty and, therefore, greater food insecurity.

para 5Environmental degradation does indeed directly lead to food insecurity. In the past five years, we have

learned a great deal about the environmental impact of intensive agriculture in general and of intensive animal

16


18/24

agriculture in particular. The evidence that intensive animal agriculture takes more than it gives must now beconsidered to be conclusive. Hence, in keeping with the commitment to sustainable management of naturalresources, intensive animal agriculture operations must be decisively rejected as possible solutions to hungerand malnutrition.

para 5We have seen no meaningful progress toward elimination of unsustainable patterns of consumption

and production, particularly in industrialized countries. Today, each person consuming the typical Westernmeat-based diet indirectly consumes enough resources to feed twenty people a healthful vegetarian diet.Ironically, this same diet leads has been linked to a variety of debilitating and deadly illnesses, including heartdisease, cancer, and diabetes. However, due to the influence of agribusiness, the governments of industrialized countries have failed to adequately warn consumers of the health risks associated with theWestern diet and have entirely failed to urge their citizens to limit overconsumption in the interests of moreequitable distribution of global resources. Similarly, these nations have failed to adequately address theresource wastage and environmental degradation associated with the production of the components of the

Western diet. At WFS:fyl, industrialized nations must be urged to act in accordance with the Rome Declarationconcerning unsustainable patterns of consumption and production within their own borders.

para 7 Despite the Rome Declarations unequivocal statement that food must not be used as an instrument for

political or economic pressure, the past five years have seen repeated instances of aid necessary for foodsecurity made conditional upon economic reforms intended to further the agenda of trade liberalization. AtWFS:fyl, participants should affirm the principle that food must not be used to force political or economicchanges upon LIFDNs. This affirmation must include an explicit recognition that, for any nation in the grip of famine or facing acute food insecurity, linking aid to reform is the equivalent of using food as an instrumentof political or economic pressure.

World Food Summit Plan of Action

The Plan of Action includes 7 commitments and 26 objectives, with several action items for eachobjective. Since we are not on track to achieve the aims of this plan of action, the plan itself must be reviewedin order to identify those actions and objectives that are most likely to achieve the desired aims. Data that havebecome available since the formulation of the plan must also be taken into account. In reviewing the Plan of Action for purposes of WFS:fyl, the following issues appear to us to be particularly salient:

Objective 1.1 (c)

The number and nature of ongoing armed conflicts make it clear that no progress has been made towardthe prevention and solution of conflicts which cause or exacerbate food insecurity or toward the aims of settling disputes peaceably and increasing observance of international law. Accordingly, participants inWFS:fyl must determine specific steps that will be taken to move this objective out of the realm of idealism andinto the realm of realism. Failure to agree upon decisive steps toward peaceful resolution of conflicts anduniversal respect for international law would represent a failure of political will and of the Summit itself.

17


19/24

Objective 1.3Gender equality is another realm in which the broad goals stated in the 1996 Plan of Action have proved

inadequate. Here, again, participants in WFS:fyl must determine specific steps that will be taken to move thisobjective out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of realism. National delegations must be pressured tomake very specific commitments and to agree in advance to consequences of failure to adhere to those

commitments.

Objective 2.1 (d)It should be noted that the aims of this objective, in terms of both the empowerment of food producers

and the conservation of natural resources, are entirely inconsistent with privately capitalized intensiveagriculture and with any form of intensive animal agriculture.

Objective 2.3Recent findings concerning the nutritional deficits and health hazards associated with specific foods must

be taken into account when seeking to ensure that food supplies are safe... and adequate to meet the energy

and nutrient needs of the population. Current research demonstrates that consumption of animal-basedfoods is linked to a variety of disabling and deadly illnesses and that consumption of a diverse array of plant-based foods is both sufficient to meet dietary needs and protective against certain illnesses.

Objective 2.3 (c)We strongly support the production and use of culturally appropriate and underutilized food crops,

including grains, oilseeds, pulses, root crops, fruits and vegetables. Along with more equitable and efficientuse of existing food resources, this action item represents the best hope of ending hunger and malnutrition.We note with interest recent ethnobotanical research concerning edible wild plants and urge that these beincluded in plans to increase sustainable cultivation of traditional food plants.

Objective 3.1 (a)We stress the importance of traditional staple foods and urge that these be planted on lands currently

dedicated to the cultivation of livestock feed.

Objective 3.1 (f)We note that livestock production systems can never be truly efficient means of hunger relief, due to the

net loss in calories, protein, carbohydrates and dietary fiber that is always incurred when plant-based foods arecycled through animals prior to consumption by humans. This is a fact that is resisted by many, due tolongstanding cultural traditions associated with consumption of animal-based foods. However, as bothhunger and water shortages associated with livestock operations become more urgent with each passingyear, hunger policy makers must have the courage to challenge even very popular misconceptions aboutfavored foods.

Objective 3.2 (b)Recent research concerning the environmental hazards and economic inefficiencies of industrial animal

agriculture mandate that in order to improve the productive use of national land and water resources for

18


20/24

sustainable increases in food production it will be necessary to convert lands now serving industrial animalagriculture over to the production of the kinds of food crops listed in action item 2.3 (c) above.

Objective 3.2 (k)In order to control degradation and overexploitation of natural resources in poorly endowed,

ecologically stressed areas it will be necessary to dispassionately assess the environmental impact of proposed agricultural projects in the light of the best available data. This may mean, in certain particularlystressed areas, altering the traditional balance of land use in a culturally sensitive manner. For example, inregions facing increasing desertification, efforts aimed at finding ways to support traditional livestock operations in the changed environment might be rejected in favor of efforts to increase cultivation of othertraditional food sources, such as naturally drought-resistant indigenous edible plants. In this way, changingenvironmental circumstances may be accommodated in a manner consistent with traditional diets.

Objective 3.4In the past five years, we have repeatedly learned that the findings of research supported by self-

interested private entities may not be trustworthy. Hence, participants in WFS:fyl may wish to question thefocus on public-private cooperation in research and instead concentrate upon creating an internationalnetwork of truly dispassionate researchers who can review and assess previous research while at the sametime furthering inquiry into the subjects of greatest concern to people living with hunger and malnutrition.

Objective 3.5Experiences over the past five years, in a number of nations, have demonstrated that the objective of rural

empowerment is not well served by corporate agriculture. Even in very affluent nations, rural regionsdominated by agribusiness corporations tend to be impoverished and polluted areas which experiencepopulation loss due to the outflow of dissatisfied citizens. This is true, for example, of all of the U.S. regions thatare dominated by the corporate giants of poultry production. Hence, external private investment in corporateinstallations or contract farms in rural regions must be rejected in favor of public projects that are self-directed.External technical assistance must be provided to low-income rural farmers, workers and consumers upondemand. This assistance must be dispassionate and scrupulously honest about the costs and benefits of proposed projects.

Objective 4.1 (a)Governments and contributors must ensure that public investment in well functioning internal

marketing and transportation systems truly serve the people and not be diverted to projects that meet theinfrastructure requirements of corporate agribusiness but do not bring concrete benefits to the people.

Objective 6.1 (a) The importance of effectiveness of investments for food security cannot be overemphasized. The return

on investment, in terms of usable food produced per unit of input, will always be highest for non-profitprojects involving cultivation of plants for human consumption and will always be lowest for for-profitprojects involving livestock. The urgent need for efficiency in food production demands that newinvestments be concentrated in the production of plants for human consumption.

19


21/24

Recommendations

Unless otherwise specified, these recommendations are directed to the participants in the World Food Summit

General Recommendations Participants in WFS:fyl must scrutinize the elements of the 1996 Rome Declaration and Plan of Action in

order to select and concentrate upon the initiatives most likely to achieve the most significant reductions inhunger and malnutrition in LIFDNs and worldwide.

Participants in WFS:fyl must identify and reject initiatives least likely to lead to significant reductions inworldwide hunger and malnutrition.

WFS:fyl must include candid discussion of all of the causal factors that contribute to hunger andmalnutrition, including corporate profiteering, overconsumption in affluent nations, and waste of resourcesby industrial animal agriculture operations.

Participants in WFS:fyl must not rely upon speculative and controversial solutions such as tradeliberalization, genetic engineering, or increased intensive animal agriculture but must, instead, focus on a set of solutions that will be sure to reduce hunger and malnutrition.

Decisions taken at WFS:fyl must be the result of a decentralized process in which the delegates from theNGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty fully participate.

Participants in WFS:fyl must make specific commitments, as relevant for their nations or agencies, in thefollowing areas:

Increased direct food aid Debt abolition Increased contributions to self-directed sustainable agriculture projects in LIFDNs Unconditional and dispassionate technical support for sustainable agriculture in LIFDNs Increased cultivation of traditional food plants for local and regional consumption Decreased consumption of meat and other inefficient foods in affluent nations

Increased regulation of wasteful and polluting animal agriculture operations in affluent nations Decreased government support of wasteful and polluting animal agriculture operations

Specific Recommendations At WFS:fyl, research findings concerning the health hazards of meat consumption and the

environmental hazards of intensive animal agriculture must be taken into account whenever livestock operations are discussed as possible solutions to hunger and malnutrition.

At WFS:fyl, research findings concerning nutrient requirements and the safety (or lack thereof) of specificfood items must be taken into account whenever food production goals are discussed.

WFS:fyl participants must set aside speculative market-based initiatives that might or might not reduce

hunger in favor of material support for pragmatic projects that will certainly reduce hunger. Because genetically modified plant and animal organisms have not been shown to be safe for human

consumption but have been shown to be hazardous to biodiversity, WFS:fyl participants must withholdsupport from any solutions to hunger involving genetically modified organisms.

Because of the impending global water crisis, and because water is as important to survival as food,every proposed solution to hunger and malnutrition must be analyzed with reference to both efficiency of water usage and extent of water pollution.

20


22/24

Because of the importance of biodiversity to long-term human survival, agricultural initiatives dependenton extensive monocropping, intensive animal agriculture, or other tactics known to be hazardous tobiodiversity must be rejected.

Overconsumption of animal-based foods in affluent nations excessively depletes world food resourceswhile at the same time leading to high health care costs in those nations. Delegates to WFS:fyl from affluent

nations must make specific commitments concerning consumption reduction. We strongly recommend thatthe public health agencies of affluent nations candidly advise their citizens of the full spectrum of hazardsassociated with the Western meat-based diet and assist their citizens in making the transition to morehealthful and sustainable diets.

Conflicts of interest between private providers of capital and the public good must be explicitlyrecognized at WFS:fyl. We strongly urge the participants in WFS:fyl to make specific commitments to publicfunding of agriculture.

Public funding of infrastructure must at all times be linked to the common good. Public or donor fundsintended for relief of hunger and malnutrition must not be devoted to infrastructure intended toaccommodate destructive for-profit agricultural enterprises such as intensive livestock production and

processing. Donor agencies and countries must ensure that mechanisms for delivery of direct food aid are

determined through consultation with the local NGOs and CSOs that represent the interests of the intendedrecipients of the aid.

At WFS:fyl, nations that have failed to codify the right to food must be pressured to do so. WFS:fyl participants must affirm the principle that food not be used as an instrument of political or

economic pressure and must censure those nations and agencies that have continued to deploy food andfood aid as political and economic weapons.

Nations that have failed to implement gender equity must be pressured to make specific and bindingcommitments at WFS:fyl.

Nations that have failed to settle disputes peacefully or respect international law must be pressured tomake specific and binding commitments at WFS:fyl.

Due to the questionable findings of research funded by self-interested private parties, we urge thecreation of an international network of dispassionate researchers to review and assess previous research andexpand investigation into the issues of greatest concern to people living with hunger and malnutrition.

WFS:fyl must result in a new declaration that acknowledges that it is possible to end, rather than simplymitigate, hunger and malnutrition and that pledges participants to the ultimate achievement of that goal.

All declarations and other documents arising from the World Food Summit must specify which variantsof agriculture are intended whenever that term is utilized.

A mechanism to track the results of decisions taken and agreements made at WFS:fyl must be

established, with annual reporting to participating nations, relevant NGOs, and other interested parties.

21


23/24

Concluding Remarks

Another world is possible. Those are the words we have heard in demonstrations of popular opinionacross the globe over the past few years. Whatever they may think about those demonstrations, participants inWorld Food Summit: Five Years Later must embrace the spirit of hope they embody.

Another world is possible, and that world is free of the specters of hunger and malnutrition, a world inwhich all children grow strong and true, sustained by nutritious food.

Such a world is possible, but only if those with the power to create change use their power responsibly. Asthe participants in WFS:fyl gather, we hope they will meditate upon the reality of hunger and the very realpower they hold over the lives of those living with hunger.

We can end food insecurity, but only if both the causes and the symptoms of this social malady areattacked directly. In order to immediately relieve food insecurity, we must set aside prejudices against directintervention and inappropriate applications of theories about self-reliance. In order to ensure stable foodsecurity for all, we must set aside preferences for unsustainable food sources and be willing to challenge thosewho profit from the existing state of affairs.

We call for the participants in WFS:fyl to feed the world while preserving the planet. This can be done bymore efficiently using and equitably distributing existing food resources and by increasing funding forsustainable cultivation of indigenous and locally-adapted food plants. Another world is possible and we dareto dream that the participants in WFS:fyl will work with, rather than against, the people to bring that new world

to fruition.

22


24/24

Suggested ReferencesBarnard, N.D., Nicholson, A., & Howard, J.L. (1995). The medical costs attributable to meat consumption.

Preventive Medicine, 24: 646-655.Campbell, T. C. (1997). Unintended associations of diet and disease: A comprehensive study of health

characteristics in China. In Social Consequences of Chinese Economic Reform, Fairbank Center on East AsianStudies, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Campbell, C., Parpia, B. and Chen, J.D. (1998). Diet, lifestyle and the etiology of coronary artery disease: TheCornell China study. American Journal of Cardiology, 26(82) 10B: 18T-21T.

Compassion in World Farming. (n.d.) The Livestock Revolution: Development or Destruction? CIWF. Available viahttp://www.ciwf-livestock-revolution.co.uk/

DSilva, J. (2000).Factory Farming and Developing Countries. CIWF. Available via http://www.ciwf.co.uk Dumont, R. (1993). Pour l'Afrique, j'accuse : Le journal d'un agronome au Sahel en voie de destruction. Plon (Terre

humaine) [ISBN : 2259001726].FAO-OIE-WHO (2000).Veterinary Public Health and the Control of Zoonoses in Developing Countries. Available at

http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agah/vpheconf/home.htmGoodland, R. (1997). Environmental sustainability in agriculture: Diet matters. Ecological Economics, 23(3): 189-

200.Goodland, R. (2001). The Westernization of Diets: The Assessment of Impacts in Developing Countries. Global

Hunger Alliance. Available at http://www.globalhunger.net/GoodlandChina.pdf Goodland, R. & Pimentel, D. (2001). Environmental sustainability in the agriculture sector. In Pimentel D., Westra

L. & Noss R. (Eds.),Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health, pp. 121-138.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hu, F. B. & Willett, W. C. (1998).The Relationship between Consumption of Animal Products and Risk of Chronic Diseases: A Critical Review. A report for the World Bank.Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health,Department of Nutrition.

Kabou, A. (1991). Et si l'Afrique refusait le dveloppement? L'Harmattan [ISBN : 2738408931].Mbilinyi, M. (1990). Structural adjustment, agribusiness and rural women in Tanzania. In H. Bernstein, B. Crow,

M. MacKintosh, & C. Martin (Eds.), The Food Question: Profits Versus People. NY, NY: Monthly Review Press.Kindell, H.W. & Pimentel, D. (1994). Constraints on the expansion of the global food supply. Ambio, 23(3). Also

available online at http://www.dieoff.org/page36.htmPimentel, D. (1990). Environmental and social implications of waste in agriculture, Journal of Agricultural

Environmental Ethics, 3, 5-20.Pimentel, D. (1997). Water resources: Agriculture, the environment, and society. BioScience, 47:2.Postel, S. (1989). Water for Agriculture: Facing the Limits. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.Robbins, J. (2001). The Food Revolution. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.Sockett P.N. (1991). The economic implications of human salmonella infection. Journal of Applied Bacteriology,

71, 289-295.Stevenson, S. (1997). The Myth of Cheap Food: The Economic Implications of Intensive Animal Husbandry Systems .

Compassion in World Farming Trust. Available via http://www.ciwf.co.uk Thu, K. (1998). The health consequences of industrialized agriculture for farmers in the United States. Human

Organization, 57(3), 335-341. Thu, K. (1999). Cultural challenges in agricultural health. Journal of Agromedicine 5(4), 85-89. Thu, K. & Durrenberger, E.P. (Eds.) (1998). Pigs, Profits, and Rural Communities. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Watts, M. (1990). Peasants under contract: Agro-food compexes in the third world. In H. Bernstein, B. Crow, M.MacKintosh, & C. Martin (Eds.), The Food Question: Profits Versus People. NY, NY: Monthly Review Press.

World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. (1997). Food, Nutrition and thePrevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington DC., WCRF/AICR.

World Health Organization. (2001). Nutrition in Transition: Globalization and Its Impact on Nutrition Patterns and Diet-Related Diseases. Available at http://www.who.int/nut/trans.htm

Zhuo, X.G. & Watanabe, S. (1999). Factor analysis of digestive cancer mortality and food consumption in 65Chinese counties. Journal of Epidemiology, 9(4), 275-284.

23

promise and peril? the world food summit: five years later

Documents