Food systems need urgent reform by OHCHR, IPES Food, UNICEF, EAT-Lancet report 11:07am 23rd Jan, 2025   Oct. 2025 (OHCHR)    A handful of powerful corporations now control vast portions of global agricultural production, input markets and food supply chains, a concentration of power that undermines the autonomy of small-scale farmers, exacerbates inequality and endangers the ecological foundations of our food systems, UN experts warned today.    In their reports to the UN General Assembly, the Working Group on peasants and rural workers and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food warned that the growing dominance of transnational corporations and industrial agribusiness in global food systems poses an escalating threat to food security, rural livelihoods, and human rights.    “Peasants and small-scale farmers feed the majority of the world’s population with healthy and diverse food, yet they are increasingly marginalised and dispossessed by the expansion of corporate-driven food systems,” the experts said. “The current model of agribusiness, supported by powerful States, prioritises profit over people and the planet — this must change.”    Corporate practices, including large-scale land acquisitions, monopolisation of seeds and agrochemicals, food speculation, exploitative contract farming, and the escalating corporate capture of decision-making spaces traditionally held by peasants and rural workers in food system governance have cumulatively created deep dependencies that erode rural resilience and undermine the autonomy of those who sustain our food systems.    Digital technologies are further reshaping food systems, often extending corporate control through the capture of agricultural data. These trends, combined with the climate crisis, have further jeopardised the right to food for millions.    The experts reaffirmed that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) provides a crucial legal framework for addressing systemic injustices faced by small-scale farmers, fisherfolks, pastoralists and rural agricultural workers.    “States have an obligation to regulate corporate activity, prevent human rights violations and abuses, and ensure access to justice for victims,” they said.    “Voluntary commitments are not enough. The rights enshrined in UNDROP — including rights to land, seeds, biodiversity, and participation — must be implemented through binding laws and robust accountability mechanisms. To ensure digitalisation serves equitable and sustainable food systems, data governance must protect farmers’ rights, knowledge, and autonomy.”    Peasants and rural workers harmfully affected by corporate misconduct, from land grabs and toxic exposure to wage theft and forced evictions, still struggle to access effective remedies.    The Working Group and the Special Rapporteur called on all governments, the private sector and UN agencies to place small-scale farmers, fisherfolks, pastoralists and rural workers at the center of food policies and global governance.    “Food is not a commodity — it is a human right,” they said. “We must act now to ensure that those who feed the world can live and work with dignity, free from exploitation and fear.”    Ahead of the upcoming session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights, the experts urged all Member States to prioritise the finalisation of a legally binding treaty to regulate corporations and financial institutions and hold them accountable for human rights violations and abuses.    “A binding treaty is essential to close the accountability gap and rebalance power in our food systems. Without enforceable obligations, corporate impunity will continue to erode human rights and the planet’s capacity to feed itself sustainably,” they said.    http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-experts-urge-binding-accountability-agribusiness-safeguard-peasants http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80213-corporate-power-and-human-rights-food-systems-report-special http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80180-right-participation-peasants-report-working-group-peasants-and http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/global-financial-architecture-needs-urgent-reform-uphold-equality-and-human    Oct. 2025    Processed food and beverage industry threatens health of 400 million children - UNICEF, EAT-Lancet report, agencies    Unethical practices of ultra-processed food and beverage industry leads to 163 million children suffering obesity, leaving another 230 million overweight.    Millions of children and adolescents are growing up in environments where sugary drinks, salty and sweet snacks and fast foods, including ultra-processed foods and beverages, are highly accessible and aggressively marketed.    These unhealthy food environments are driving nutrient- poor, unhealthy diets and a surge in overweight and obesity among children and adolescents, even in countries still grappling with child undernutrition.    The cost of inaction for children, adolescents, families, societies and economies is immense. Unhealthy diets increase the risk of overweight, obesity and other cardiometabolic conditions in children and adolescents, including high blood pressure, elevated blood glucose and abnormal blood lipid levels.    These health problems can persist into adult life, increasing the risk of non-communicable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.    Overweight and obesity are also associated with low self-esteem, anxiety and depression among children and adolescents. Parents bear the emotional toll of their children’s mental health challenges and the financial strain of higher medical expenses and lost income to care for them. Economies throughout the world are already struggling with escalating health care costs and reduced workforce productivity because of rising overweight and obesity.    The ultra-processed food and beverage industry holds disproportionate influence over children’s food environments. It shapes what foods and beverages are produced and how they are marketed, especially in settings where government regulation is weak or absent.    In pursuit of profit, the industry leverages vast financial resources and deep political influence to resist policies aimed at creating healthier, more equitable food environments.    This imbalance of power makes it difficult for governments, communities and families to protect children’s right to food and nutrition.    According to the latest available data, 1 in 5 children and adolescents aged 5-19 globally – or 391 million – are overweight, with a large proportion of them now classified as living with obesity. Children are considered overweight when they are significantly heavier than what is healthy for their age, sex and height.    The report Feeding Profits warns that ultra-processed and fast foods – high in sugar, refined starch, salt, unhealthy fats and additives – are shaping children’s diets through unhealthy food environments, rather than personal choice. These products dominate shops and schools, while digital marketing gives the food and beverage industry powerful access to young audiences.    For example, in a global poll of 64,000 young people aged 13-24 from over 170 countries conducted through UNICEF’s U-Report platform last year, 75 per cent of respondents recalled seeing advertisements for sugary drinks, snacks, or fast foods in the previous week, and 60 per cent said the advertisements increased their desire to eat the foods. Even in conflict-affected countries, 68 per cent of young people said they were exposed to these advertisements.    Without interventions to prevent childhood overweight and obesity, countries could face lifetime health and economic impacts exceeding, for example, US$210 billion in Peru, due to obesity-related health issues. By 2035, the global economic impact of overweight and obesity is expected to surpass US$4 trillion annually.    To transform food environments and ensure children have access to nutritious diets, UNICEF is calling on governments, civil society, and partners to urgently:    Implement comprehensive mandatory policies to improve children’s food environments, including food labelling, food marketing restrictions, and food taxes and subsidies. Implement social and behaviour change initiatives that empower families and communities to demand healthier food environments.    Ban the provision or sale of ultra-processed and junk foods in schools and prohibit food marketing and sponsorship in schools. Establish strong safeguards to protect public policy processes from interference by the ultra-processed food industry.    Strengthen social protection programmes to address income poverty and improve financial access to nutritious diets for vulnerable families.    “In many countries we are seeing the double burden of malnutrition – the existence of stunting and obesity. This requires targeted interventions,” said Russell. “Nutritious and affordable food must be available to every child to support their growth and development. We urgently need policies that support parents and caretakers to access nutritious and healthy foods for their children.”    http://www.unicef.org/reports/feeding-profit http://ureport.in/story/2254/ http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01906-3/fulltext http://www.fian.org/en/food-industry-must-be-held-accountable-for-driving-rising-obesity-and-ill-health/    Oct. 2025    EAT-Lancet report: food systems breach planetary boundaries, transformation can deliver health and equity.    Food production is the primary driver for breaching five of the planetary boundaries and accounts for around 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while billions still lack access to healthy diets. This is the result of a new EAT-Lancet Commission report, the most comprehensive scientific analysis of global food systems to date, with contributions by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The report shows that shifting to the Planetary Health Diet could prevent up to 15 million premature deaths per year and cut food-related emissions by more than half.    “The report sets out the clearest guidance yet for feeding a growing population without breaching the safe operating space on Earth set by the planetary boundaries,” states lead author Johan Rockstrom, Co-Chair of the EAT-Lancet Commission and PIK Director.    “It shows that what we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system. We now have robust global guardrails for food systems, and a reference point that policymakers, businesses, and citizens can act on together. The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.”    Key findings:    Food systems are the primary driver to the transgression of five planetary boundaries and cause about 30 percent of global emissions. Shifting to the Planetary Health Diet could save up to 15 million lives each year and is linked to a 28% lower risk of premature death and reduced chronic disease.    Less than 1 percent of people currently live in countries where food needs are met without breaching planetary boundaries. The wealthiest 30 percent of people drive over 70 percent of food-related impacts, while billions lack healthy diets and many workers earn below a living wage.    Food systems impose 15 trillion USD in hidden costs annually. Transforming food systems could yield returns of 5 trillion USD annually, against required investments of 200–500 billion USD.    Building on its 2019 report, the new Commission – comprising leading international experts in nutrition, climate, economics, health, social sciences and agriculture from more than 35 countries across six continents – shows that just and sustainable food systems are essential for improving health, tackling inequality, and keeping humanity within planetary boundaries. The analysis also makes clear: even if fossil fuels are phased out, food systems alone could still push global warming beyond 1.5°C.    The report is based on analyses by thirteen independent modelling groups who assessed how transforming food systems could reduce pressure on key planetary boundaries while improving human health. The study also finds that today’s diets generally lack fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and whole grains, while containing excessive amounts of meat, dairy, fats, sugar, and highly processed foods.    The EAT Lancet Commission stresses that transformation requires bundled policy measures – such as subsidies for fruits and vegetables combined with taxes on unhealthy foods – alongside stronger social protections to ensure a just transition.    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/eat-lancet-report http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01201-2/abstract    July 2025    10th Global Land Forum: Bogota Declaration: Equitable Land Rights for Peace.    We, members of the International Land Coalition (ILC) — a global alliance of 323 organisations from 97 countries — gathered in Bogota, Colombia for the 10th Global Land Forum (GLF).    As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of ILC, we also celebrate our collective solidarity and concrete achievements towards people-centred land governance. In the last decade, we are proud to have helped secure the land rights of over 4.7 million women and men, over 45 million hectares, and contributed to many policy and legal reforms.    We thank the government and people of Colombia for their warm welcome. Colombia’s decision to prioritise land reform as a core peacebuilding commitment, in partnership with people’s organisations, gives us hope. We commend its strong commitment to redistributive land reform, especially in today’s fragmented and uncertain global context.    The people who live on and from the land – women, youth, smallholder and family farmers, peasants, fisherfolk, forest-dwellers, pastoralists, Afro-descendants and Indigenous Peoples – are at the forefront of defending land, feeding communities, and stewarding nature — yet they face discrimination, land grabbing, dispossession, violence, criminalization, and pressure from governments and the private sector.    We commit to protecting land and environmental defenders, placing peoples’ leadership at the centre of our work and ensuring equal land rights, especially those of women and girls, and access to resources and participation. We endorse the Indigenous Peoples, Youth, and Afro-descendant Peoples Declarations of this Forum.    We face a world shaped by interlinked crises: inequality, land concentration, biodiversity loss, climate change, land degradation, conflict, polarisation, food insecurity, lack of food sovereignty, and threats to human rights and democracy. These are driven by systems hat prioritise profit and power over people and planet — harming those who live on and from the land, more than 100 million of whom are represented by our members.    Our experience shows that equitable land distribution, agrarian reform, and secure tenure are essential to just and sustainable transitions. We stand in solidarity to advance people-centred land governance as a solution to the challenges we — and future generations — collectively share.    We appreciate the progress made within the Rio Conventions in recognising secure land tenure and embracing community-based data as essential to achieving global goals on land degradation neutrality, biodiversity protection, and climate action. We welcome this momentum and urge stronger, coordinated action at the UNFCCC COP 30 to advance people-centred land governance as a foundation of environmental justice.    We call on governments and intergovernmental organisations to prioritise land tenure, particularly for those who live on and from the land, as a core strategy for fulfilling climate and biodiversity commitments. Responsible and people-centred land governance must be recognised as a core aspect of climate action.    The urgent transitions in both energy and food systems must respect and strengthen human rights, land tenure, sustainable farming practices, such as agroecology, food sovereignty, food security and nutrition, recognizing the role of peasants, smallholder and family farmers as food producers. We are deeply concerned by land grabs and violations affecting those living on and from the land, often driven by poorly governed energy, mining and agricultural investments. These transitions must be just, equitable, and people-centred — grounded in their leadership, consent, and participation.    Communities must have the power and autonomy to decide if, and under what terms, energy and agriculture projects take place on their lands and territories. We call on governments, investors, and companies to respect self-determination, where applicable, uphold Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the customary rights of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring respect for international and national commitments and laws, transparency, environmental protection, benefit-sharing and the full participation of affected communities in all phases.    Globally, investments in democracy and human rights, peacebuilding, and sustainable development are shrinking. This decline deepens inequality, poverty, hunger, fuels conflict, and undermines the foundations of long-term peace.    We call on donors, international financial institutions, and governments to rebalance priorities — directing resources toward women, youth, and community-led, rights-based, just and equitable development efforts, including towards more people-centred governance, and in particular to agrarian reform, climate action, and the transformation of our food systems, especially through agroecology.    We call on governments to renew the 2021 Forest Tenure Pledge at COP 30 with stronger financial, political and territorial commitments, through direct financing, to recognise and secure the tenure of those who live on and from the land across all ecosystems, including rangelands.    The concentration of land and economic wealth lies at the heart of deep-rooted structural injustice and conflict, driving inequalities and ecological damage. Redistributive land reform is not only a tool for economic equity, but a fundamental requirement for reconciliation and peace, particularly in post-conflict societies.    We call upon governments to adopt and implement peace accords, treaties, agreements, court rulings, and other constructive arrangements to be signed with Indigenous Peoples, and other communities for resolving land problems to establise lasting peace.    We call on governments and intergovernmental organisations to support inclusive and just agrarian reform processes, recognising land as both a human right and a collective good. There can be no sustainable peace or collective flourishing without secure land and social and environmental justice. This includes action for gender justice, tackling discrimination and violence wherever it occurs.    We express our solidarity with members of ILC and communities facing occupation, displacement, and land-related violence across the globe, especially in Palestine, where land and life are under siege. We stand against the expropriation of land and reaffirm our commitment to peace built on justice, dignity, and human rights.    We stand with all people on the move — internally displaced persons, refugees, and returnees — uprooted by conflict and denied of their land rights. We highlight ongoing crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Sudan, the Philippines, and beyond, where land rights violations are both a cause and consequence of violence. Justice, recognition, and rights restoration must be central to lasting solutions.    http://www.landcoalition.org/en/latest/global-land-forum-concludes-with-bogota-declaration http://www.landcoalition.org/en/latest/global-agenda-youth-for-land/ http://www.landcoalition.org/en/latest/3-reasons-why-womens-land-rights-are-critical/ http://stand4herland.org/ http://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/securing-land-rights-womens-participation http://www.iied.org/women-land-rights-defenders-connect-across-continents http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/09/want-feminist-development-land-rights/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a80351-land-and-right-adequate-housing-report-special-rapporteur-right http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec12gc26-general-comment-no-26-2022-land-and http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/land-and-environmental-defenders/roots-of-resistance    June 2025    What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems? (IPES-Food)    A major new report from international experts at IPES-Food reveals the alarming extent to which fossil fuels are flooding into food systems – turning food into the new growth frontier for Big Oil. Yet food remains sidelined from national climate pledges and international negotiations, say the authors.    The report, ‘Fuel To Fork: What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems?’ finds that 40% of all global petrochemicals are now consumed by food systems – mainly through synthetic fertilizers and plastic packaging.    With petrochemicals the single largest driver of oil demand growth, food systems are now fuelling fossil fuel expansion, even as other sectors begin to decarbonize.    The findings come amid intense geopolitical instability in the Middle East and volatile oil prices. The experts warn that – with food and energy prices deeply intertwined – food and fertilizer prices could soon be affected, putting millions at risk of hunger.    Fossil fuel dependence is driving food insecurity, the authors say, making the need to delink food from fossil fuels ever more urgent.    The report details how fossil fuels are embedded across every stage of the food chain – from fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics to ultra processed foods, plastic packaging, and cold storage – supported by generous subsidies for fossil fuels and chemical-intensive agriculture.    Among the Key findings:    99% of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels. One-third of petrochemicals go toward producing synthetic fertilizers – the biggest fossil fuel consumer in agriculture. Food and drink packaging accounts for at least 10% of global plastic use – with a further 3.5% used in agriculture.    Industry-led ‘solutions’ like ‘blue’ ammonia fertilizers and digital agriculture are costly, energy-intensive, and environmentally risky – while entrenching fossil fuel dependence and corporate control.    The authors warn that tackling climate change is impossible without cutting fossil fuels out of food systems – and that real solutions already exist. They urge governments to seize the opportunity at COP30 in Brazil to phase out fossil fuel and agrochemical subsidies, and shift food and farming toward agroecology, shorter supply chains, and resilient local food systems.    http://ipes-food.org/volatile-oil-prices-expose-food-systems-dangerous-fossil-fuel-dependence-experts/ http://ipes-food.org/report/fuel-to-fork/ http://ipes-food.org/the-biofuel-sham-could-worsen-global-hunger-and-inequality http://www.fian.org/en/global-land-grab-highlights-growing-inequality-and-need-for-reform/ http://grain.org/en/article/7284-top-10-agribusiness-giants-corporate-concentration-in-food-farming-in-2025 http://grain.org/en/category/545-supermarket-watch http://afsafrica.org/afsa-urges-african-leaders-agroecology-is-the-path-to-climate-resilience-and-food-sovereignty/ http://afsafrica.org/seed-is-life/ http://www.cidse.org/2025/07/01/stop-the-poison-support-the-seed/    July 2025    Little recognition on how unequal power relations, the dominance of corporate actors impact food outcomes and respect for human rights at the UN Food Systems Summit stocktake, by Jody Harris for the Institute of Development Studies    Fifteen years ago, a titan of the nutrition world Urban Jonsson, wrote a seminal paper in which he reflected on the two grand narratives that have shaped food and nutrition discourse and action over recent decades: the rights-based paradigm and the investment paradigm.    Back then, he reflected that while rights and investment are not mutually exclusive – business can be rights-based, and certain investments are needed to achieve the policies and actions needed to secure a right to food – the investment paradigm was starting to dominate to the exclusion of rights.    Both human rights and investment financing were invoked at the UNFSS+4, though you would have had to look harder for the rights rhetoric, which appeared in high-level speeches (and had its own section in the Report of the Secretary-General for the Summit), than for the investment focus, which had its own programme track and featured in many session titles. Fifteen years on from Urban Jonsson’s original reflections, what does the UNFSS process tell us about how these two world-shaping discourses are playing out?    Show me the money    ‘Unlocking investment’ was one of the three core objectives of the Summit, and was evident in investment tracks, SME pitching events, and the economic arguments for action delivered from the plenary floor. Of the nearly 3,000 Summit delegates convened at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, 300 were classed as ‘business leaders’ by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Financing came up repeatedly, from green bonds to blended finance to debt swaps, with a new compendium of 15 co-investment models suggesting ways that business can be even more involved in changing food systems.    We know already, however, that corporate concentration in multiple aspects of food systems is part of the problem driving inequitable outcomes, and representatives of many of these corporations were active at the Summit.    While there was a clear focus on small and medium enterprises in aspects of the event, there was no clear attempt to differentiate the implications of a small dried-fruit cooperative from the actions of a powerful food multinational: as in previous years, no recognition was made of how power relations affect participation in practice, and no red lines were drawn around which investors could participate and how.    UNFSS has amazing convening power (I brushed past presidents, ambassadors, farmers, women’ groups leaders, and CEOs in the hallways). Perhaps this is because of its focus on investment in a topic – food – that is either struggling for funds in multilateral and civil society spaces, or is seen as a smart business move by the private sector. Because of this convening power, it is also a promising space to engage businesses to step up to their human rights and social welfare responsibilities – but on this, the UNFSS could do so much better.    Rights and responsibilities    Advancing “inclusive, rights-based collaboration and mutual accountability” featured in another core objective of the UNFSS+4: ‘strengthening partnerships and tracking commitments’. Accountability is a key principle of a rights-based approach, one that was called out in a paper by the IPES-Food group that coincided with the Summit as sorely lacking in the process.    The Summit and related private sector initiatives have edged forward on food system accountability in response to sustained critique. Action 55c, part of the 2024 Pact for the Future, focuses on delivering existing commitments related to the private sector, and “encourages” private sector accountability. The International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, earlier in 2025, pledged to be transparent and have clear monitoring and accountability mechanisms in the future. And the introduction of the Corporate Accountability Roadmap was the centrepiece of UNFSS-specific action on accountability.    Despite these actions, civil society groups contend that the UNFSS continues to rely on voluntary commitments and incentives, thereby discouraging stronger mechanisms with a chance of enforcement. Essential elements of accountability – standards, data, answerability, sanction, and remedy – have already been laid out for global health initiatives, and not all of these elements are considered in the UNFSS framing of accountability.    Guiding principles on business and human rights already exist, based in the state duty to protect and corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and these could have guided the UNFSS accountability processes, getting food companies ready for the proposed binding treaty on business and human rights.    Seeing little meaningful progress on accountability since the original Summit in 2021, however, UNFSS+4 was boycotted by much of civil society for legitimizing corporate control of food systems without proper attention to human rights.    That boycott meant that many civil society actors could not attend the two sessions at the Summit that directly addressed accountability issues. The accountability through science session looked at the data, science and knowledge platforms that are available for monitoring. A key platform is the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI); although this initiative has been critiqued for focusing too much on the positive actions of corporations and not considering negative actions such as tax avoidance and lobbying against regulation.    In the corporate accountability session, it was acknowledged that the nutrition, health and social implications of business actions are not top of the agenda in crowded board meetings, so accountability regulations need to be mandatory (not voluntary) to be taken seriously – and for the UNFSS, compliance should then be demonstrated as a precondition for participation.    Overall, the feeling in the room was that enough evidence, data and guidelines exist for meaningful action; there is no need to wait for the perfect gold accountability standard, and the issue is urgent.    But looking around the room, I was not sure that the same 300 business leaders who filled the plenary hall, or the SME representatives who were pitching their business plans at the Summit, were also present in the accountability sessions. Delegates at UNFSS+4 were confronted with a multiplicity of sessions to attend, and chose according to their interests, which meant often talking in echo chambers – another reason why accountability processes must be mandatory rather than voluntary.    Moving forward on accountability and rights    The third and final UNFSS+4 objective was ‘taking stock’. In a world where inequalities in food system outcomes are growing, according to the SOFI 2025 report launched at UNFSS+4, and man-made famines are allowed and enabled despite daily media coverage, there is an argument to be made that all hands are needed on deck. But I’ve written before about the dangers of ‘strategic ambiguity’ in action on food and nutrition – where “conceptual ambiguity generates a false sense that we are all pulling together in one common, unproblematic endeavour”.    So if private sector investment, corporate funding, and economic pathways are to be part of the food system solution, this can only happen ethically with the strongest forms of regulation, transparency and accountability in place.    This must be a red line for corporate involvement in food system actions in a multilateral space such as a United Nations summit, as previous work on conflict of interest in conference organisation has elaborated. The UN is predicated on respect for human rights, after all.    Seen through the principle of accountability, the UNFSS is racing ahead with the investment paradigm without equally meaningful work on rights. Guidelines already exist on human rights and business, and on accountability processes and principles for engagement with the private sector, largely produced by existing UN bodies such as the CFS and Human Rights Council.    Only universal recognition that these are a vital underpinning of ethical food system transformation will give them teeth – and the UNFSS has the reach and the voice to make this happen if it chooses to do so.    * Jody Harris is co-Director of the Food Equity Centre at the Institute of Development Studies. She is currently Adjunct Professor of Food Equity at Mahidol University, Thailand, and was a member of the High-Level Panel of Experts for Food Security for the UN Committee on World Food Security.    http://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/accountability-remains-a-missing-link-for-unfss-legitimacy/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/un-food-systems-summit-4-legitimizes-corporate-control-and-turns-blind-eye-geopolitical-food-and-hunger-crises http://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01217-9    Feb. 2025    Massive political efforts are needed to tackle the causes of hunger – conflict, poverty, and inequality. Without confronting power, the harvest will never reach the hungry. IPES-Food statement on food access.    History has shown us again and again that, so long as inequality goes unchecked, no amount of technology can ensure people are well fed.    Today, we produce more food per person than ever before. Yet hunger and malnutrition persist in every corner of the globe – even, and increasingly, in some of its wealthiest countries.    The major drivers of food insecurity are well known: conflict, poverty, inequality, economic shocks, and escalating climate change. In other words, the causes of hunger are fundamentally political and economic.    The urgency of the hunger crisis has prompted 150 Nobel and World Food Price laureates to call for “moonshot” technological innovations to boost food production. However, they largely ignored hunger’s root causes – and the need to confront powerful actors and make courageous political choices.    Food is misallocated    To focus almost exclusively on promoting agricultural technologies to ramp up food production would be to repeat the mistakes of the past.    The Green Revolution of the 1960s brought impressive advances in crop yields (at considerable environmental cost). But it failed to eliminate hunger, because it didn’t address inequality.    Take Iowa, home to some of the most industrialized food production on the planet. Amid its high-tech corn and soy farms, 11% of the state’s population, and one in six of its children, struggle to access food.    The world already produces more than enough food to feed everyone. Yet it is shamefully misallocated. Selling food to poor people at affordable prices simply isn’t as profitable for giant food corporations.    They make far more by exporting it for animal feed (a wildly inefficient way to nourish people), blending it into biofuels for cars, or turning it into industrial products and ultra-processed foods. To make matters worse, a third of all food is simply wasted.    Meanwhile, as the laureates remind us, shamefully, over 700 million people (9% of the world’s population) remain chronically undernourished, and a staggering 2.3 billion people – over one in four – cannot access an adequate diet.    Confronting inequality    Measures to address world hunger must start with its known causes and proven policies. Brazil’s Without Hunger program, for example, has seen dramatic 85% reductions in severe hunger in just 18 months, through financial assistance, school meals, and minimum wage policies.    Our politicians must confront and reverse gross inequities in wealth, power, and access to land. Hunger disproportionately affects the poorest and most marginalized, not because food is scarce, but because people lack the purchasing power to access it, or resources to produce it for themselves. Redistribution policies aren’t optional, they’re essential.    Governments must put a stop to the use of hunger as a weapon of war. The worst hunger hotspots are conflict zones, as seen in Gaza and Sudan, where violence drives famine.    Too many governments have looked the other way on starvation tactics – promoting emergency aid to pick up the pieces, instead of taking action to end the conflicts driving hunger.    Stronger antitrust and competition policies are vital to curb extreme corporate concentration in global food chains – from seeds and agrochemicals to grain trading, meat packing and retail – which allows firms to fix prices and wield outsized political influence.    Governments must break the stranglehold of inequitable trade rules and export patterns that trap the poorest regions in dependency on food imports, leaving them vulnerable to shocks. Instead, supporting local and territorial markets is critical to build resilience to economic and supply chain disruptions. These markets provide livelihoods and help ensure diverse, nutritious foods reach those who need them.    The role of agroecology    Mitigating and adapting to climate change requires massive investments in transformative approaches that promote resilience and sustainability in food systems.    Agroecology is a key solution proven to sequester carbon, build resilience to climate shocks, and reduce dependence on expensive and environmentally damaging synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. More research should explore its full potential.    And we must adopt plant-rich, local and seasonal diets, ramp up measures to tackle food waste, and reconsider using food crops for biofuels. This means pushing back against Big Meat and biofuel lobbies, while investing in climate-resilient food systems.    This is not to say that technology has no role – all hands need to be on deck. The innovations most worth pursuing are those that genuinely support more equitable and sustainable food systems, and not corporate profits. But unless scientific efforts are matched by policies that confront power and prioritize equity over profit, then hunger is likely to stay.    The solutions to hunger are neither new nor beyond reach – what’s missing is the political will to address its root causes. Hunger persists because we allow injustice to endure. If we are serious about ending it, we need bold political action, not just scientific breakthroughs.    * Jennifer Clapp is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability, and Member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, University of Waterloo.    http://ipes-food.org/only-politics-can-end-world-hunger/ http://ipes-food.org/the-global-food-crisis-in-the-age-of-catastrophe/ http://ipes-food.org/land-grabs-squeeze-rural-poor-worldwide/ http://ipes-food.org/land-squeeze-the-battle-underfoot-for-africas-soils/ http://ipes-food.org/report/land-squeeze/ http://www.landcoalition.org/en/uneven-ground/shocking-state-land-inequality-world/    Jan. 2025    The right to food, finance and national action plans - Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri    In the report, submitted to the UN Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 43/11, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, provides a way to develop national right-to-food action plans within existing budgets that can transform food systems and progressively realize the right to food. In the light of the global debt crisis, high inflation and high food prices, many countries are faced with the impossible choice of either feeding people or servicing debt.    Using public funds to ensure that people have access to adequate food can cause a Government to fall into arrears, worsening financial shocks; servicing debt instead leads to more hunger and malnutrition. This means that the current international system of finance resolutely impedes the ability of Governments to meet their obligations with regard to the right to food. In the report, the Special Rapporteur suggests how significant improvements in food systems – and the conditions for transformation – could be achieved by redesigning public budgets.    http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5848-right-food-finance-and-national-action-plans-report-special http://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/58/48
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item