Response to: “Feeling Hunger: an Exercise in Mindfulness (Contemplative Practice 5)” by dakotajh

The hunger knowing you have food in your pantry is starkly different than hunger knowing you may not eat for days. Hunger and the contrast of populations deciding what to eat and whether it is possible to eat was highlighted in a post by dakotajh, scratching the surface of how our act of unmindful consumption impacts individuals across the globe.

It seems like a simple idea: reduce waste, redistribute food, end hunger. But reality is more complicated than that. Even if developed countries reduced waste and brought food to the markets that need it most, more damage could be done if local producers do not survive. On one hand, the redirected waste may be too costly, and the fight against hunger will go on. On the other hand, the food we trade could be cheap and accessible, but cost the jobs of local producers who need money to buy it. This latter example displays how integral local producers are to the sustainability of hunger solutions. India learned this firsthand, as Vandana Shiva explained, when they opened their borders to trade. Peasant farming collapsed, and millions lost their source of income. What can food in a market do without money?

Agricultural workers process mangoes. Source: https://www.tripsavvy.com/mango-farms-and-festivals-india-1539678

Dakotajh mentioned that here in the US, with food readily available, hunger is a quick fix. This is almost translatable to a global scale with one addition. Evidently, when food is readily available, hunger is a quick but temporary fix. Because to feed the hungry, available food and the jobs people must have need to be sustained. The best way to do this in a largely agrarian country is to increase the number of local farms, killing two birds with one stone. More people will be employed, incomes will rise, and there will also be local food available for everyone.