Causal link in starvation?

[CMacDady]

(I had to decide where the best place would be to post this topic)

Just an odd thought that I had to see what people thought of.
When I was young my parents often told me to eat whatever I had on my plate. That I should do so because there are people all over the world that do not have food and are starving. Now older, I conserve my food consumption anyways, but as a child I didn't think to much into the statement that "I shouldn't waste my food because there are starving people all over the world". So I had an random thought wondering if by some complex tangent there might be a minute effect that it did.

This bring me to my question:
Is there any link between wasted food in North America and the starvation in other countries?

Frankly I do not know if I am misinformed, but the idea seems astronomical so creative ideas are encouraged if you like.

[bjornart]

This bring me to my question:
Is there any link between wasted food in North America and the starvation in other countries?

Frankly I do not know if I am misinformed, but the idea seems astronomical so creative ideas are encouraged if you like.

North America is part of a global economy where demand to some extent influences prices. If food waste is reduced, prices will drop, which will, where starvation is linked to the inability to buy food due to prices rather than availability of food, lead to less starvation.

But of course it's not as simple as that, lower prices will also lead to less money for farmers in producing countries, which can hurt the whole economy and mean more starvation.

And that's ignoring all the other issues of international trade that are probably more influential than American overconsumption, and the fact that little boys probably don't help themselves to less food in their next meal just because they're forced to finish all of it always.

[rjh01]

If you did not eat the food on your plate, that was your mother's fault for giving it to you in the first place. If she had known how not hungry you were then she could have not cooked the food. It also gave you bad habits. Like thinking if there is food there you should eat it.

The real issue was that your parents probably grew up in the 1930s or 1940s when there was not much food, so if it was there you eat it.

[Soapy Sam]

There must be connections, but they will be complex.
Far simpler is the probability that the kid down the street might really like that pickle.

I suppose the truth is , parents know the price of food (to them) and hate to see it wasted. They want to make kids understand that. My father was born in 1916. He remembered the Great Depression, fought in WWII and was never wealthy by any western standard. He wanted me to have more than he did and when I refused to eat perfectly good food , but would eat chocolate, he probably wanted to slap my stupid head, but he settled for telling me about poor kids in other countries.
He was a good man and I still miss him.

[drkitten]

(I had to decide where the best place would be to post this topic)

Just an odd thought that I had to see what people thought of.
When I was young my parents often told me to eat whatever I had on my plate. That I should do so because there are people all over the world that do not have food and are starving. Now older, I conserve my food consumption anyways, but as a child I didn't think to much into the statement that "I shouldn't waste my food because there are starving people all over the world". So I had an random thought wondering if by some complex tangent there might be a minute effect that it did.

This bring me to my question:
Is there any link between wasted food in North America and the starvation in other countries?

Quite a bit, actually. A lot of the third world economy is driven by the production of cash crops (such as coffee, cinnamon, or chocolate) that is sold to the developed world, instead of the production of local food. The net effect is that coffee plantation workers can starve to death while standing on some of the richest farm land in the world.

If we drank fewer cinnamon-flavored mochas, there would be less demand for the cash crops, prices would drop, and it would be more economically viable to grow food for the locals.

Similarly, even (wheat that went into) the loaf of bread that you throw out could have been made available on the export market, which would have increased the supply and therefore lowered prices in Nowheristan.

Of course, this is a much smaller issue than the issue of economic development and opportunity in these kleptocratic countries; even if the plantation was producing yams, there's still a good chance that the field workers would starve amid plenty because the local warlord would seize all the yams and sell them to buy gold-plated AK-47s for the Presidential Guard.

And since the food on your plate has already been sold, bought, and cooked, the economic damage is already done, so you might as well eat or not as you see fit. You really should have suggested to your father that he simply buy and prepare less food -- and fewer Brussel sprouts in particular, since he should know they're not going to be eaten.

[CMacDady]

Of course. Food that is already bought has already done any minute damage. Thus one should reduce consumption instead of berating those who don't consume.

There must be a large saturation point to pass though until someone is saved by consuming less... say how much would someone have to not consume until you can justifiably say that you may have saved a little boy in Africa from starving for one day.

Such as, I may not buy more brussel sprouts from the local market, but unless enough are not bought then the produce will still be bought by the market, do to others consumption...hmm so maybe it would be better to ask how much would a group of people have to stop consuming to save somebody from a day of starvation.

However, the accusation from ones parents is that you (not a group of people) should eat everything on your plate, because there are starving people in the world. So lets say it is just one person. It seems to me like someone would have to (for example) reduce their consumption by 15% per week for years before there is any effect in saving someone in another country from starvation.

[drkitten]

Of course. Food that is already bought has already done any minute damage. Thus one should reduce consumption instead of berating those who don't consume.

There must be a large saturation point to pass though until someone is saved by consuming less... say how much would someone have to not consume until you can justifiably say that you may have saved a little boy in Africa from starving for one day.

Such as, I may not buy more brussel sprouts from the local market, but unless enough are not bought then the produce will still be bought by the market, do to others consumption...hmm so maybe it would be better to ask how much would a group of people have to stop consuming to save somebody from a day of starvation.

However, the accusation from ones parents is that you (not a group of people) should eat everything on your plate, because there are starving people in the world. So lets say it is just one person. It seems to me like someone would have to (for example) reduce their consumption by 15% per week for years before there is any effect in saving someone in another country from starvation.

Well, let's do the math.

Average American food consumption is 3800 calories per day. (http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf) Cutting that back by 15% would be about 600 calories per day. Average calorie consumption per day is about 1700 calories through much of Africa; an extra 600 calories would raise a single person from the level of Zaire up to the level of Russia or Chile.