Leavitt, Kim Leavitt 1

Professor: Devin Patten

English 1010
Date: August 5, 2014
Exploration Essay Hunger in the USA
Hunger in the USA is real and exists today. We need only go out our backdoor to see the hunger
problem. Hunger has many faces and things that can be done to help solve the problem that
exists here in America. Hunger is not only a USA problem but it is worldwide. It is so worldwide
that Englands Prime Minister Cameron held a summit on hunger and how to solve this problem
(Richardson n.p.).
The summit in England from Prime Minister Cameron stated The poorest and hungriest people
on the planet share three key traits: They live in rural areas, rely on the land to survive, and have
no legal rights to the land they rely on. They secured over 4 billion dollars in pledges to fight
world hunger. Research shows that land ownership leads farming families to invest in
improvements to their agricultural production (Richardson n.p.).
This increases food security for the family, through increased food production, and indirectly
through increased incomes. Women often focus on growing crops that provide their family with
good nutrition. Low income female-headed households often have better nutrition than male-
headed households with higher incomes. Women with higher status have better nutrition
themselves. This is a different voice and different frame of thought. One of the fundamental root
causes is addressed the role of secure lands rights especially for women. (Richardson n.p.).
The United Nations has also put together facts on hunger and is also trying to solve this problem
for the world. The United Nations Secretary General encourages all partners to scale up their
Leavitt 2
efforts and turn the vision of an end to hunger into a reality. These two sources and author are
trying to find a solution to end hunger in the world. They have some real good suggestions (UN
n.p.).
One solution to the problem is the creation of huge national and international programs to deal
with the issue. This idea assumes that only governments have the resources to deal with such a
huge problem. A second approach assumes that we cannot escape hunger but private individuals
especially in the United States do have the needed resources, so what we can do is help out
through donations either in money or food for those truly in need and give to the pantries, food
banks, soup kitchens, shelters, etc. Just to give to those who we know need it. Another approach
relies on backyard farmers and gardeners who are so important to this issue because it is through
them that we can get the help to help others in need. They are the backbone and what is needed
to help solve the hunger issue.
One government level approach is being led by the United Nations. In a recent news release the
UN Secretary-General encouraged all partners to scale up their efforts and turn the vision of an
end to hunger into a reality (UN n.p.).
Hunger can be eliminated in our lifetimes. This requires comprehensive efforts to ensure that
every man, woman and child enjoy their Right to Adequate Food; women are empowered;
priority is given to family farming; and food systems everywhere are sustainable and resilient. It
is called the Zero Hunger Challenge (UN n.p.).The challenge of Zero Hunger means:
1) Zero stunted children less than 2 years. Ensuring universal access to nutritious food in the
1000-day window of opportunity between the start of pregnancy and a childs second birthday,
supported by nutrition-sensitive health care, water, sanitation, education and specific nutrition
Leavitt 3
interventions, coupled with initiatives that enable empowerment of women, as encouraged within
the Movement for Scaling Up Nutrition (UN n.p.).
2) 100% access to adequate food all year round: Enabling all people to access the food they
need at all times through nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems, marketing, decent and
productive employment, a social protection floor, targeted safety nets and food assistance;
boosting food supply from local producers (UN n.p.).
3) All food systems are sustainable Ensuring that all farmers, agribusinesses, cooperatives,
governments, unions and civil society establish standards for sustainability; encouraging and
rewarding universal adoption of sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture practices;
implementing responsible governance of land, fisheries and forests (UN n.p.).
4) 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income. Reducing rural poverty and
improving wellbeing through encouraging decent work, and increasing smallholders income;
empowering women, small farmers, fishers, pastoralists, young people, farmer organizations,
indigenous people and their communities; improving land tenure, access to assets and to natural
resources, making sure that all investments in agriculture and value chains are responsible and
accountable (UN n.p.).
5) Zero loss or waste of food. Minimizing food losses during storage and transport, and waste of
food by retailers and consumers; empowering consumer choice through appropriate labeling;
achieving progress through financial incentives, collective pledges, locally-relevant technologies
and changed behavior (UN n.p.).
These are very strong arguments for trying to stop hunger in the world. These suggestions are
great if all would do these things suggested. The weaknesses here are that people who make up
Leavitt 4
governments and companies do not know how to accomplish these goals as a world and as
companies and farmers. Much as we would like to think otherwise, no government has unlimited
resources. This program is very eloquent in describing the reasons for helping the poor but it has
nowhere near the resources needed to accomplish its goal.
The second approach uses private resources, individual donations of time and money to help
those who are food insecure. In the United States it is felt that we already have the needed
resources to solve the problem if only enough people would help. Food Pantries and Shelters are
two of the obvious recipients of these donations. Religious organizations and other organized
community organizations can also direct the money where it is needed. One such organization is
called Americas Second Harvest (Feeding America n.p.).
Many of the client households served by Feeding America food banks report that their household
income is inadequate to cover their basic household expenses.
46 percent of client households served report having to choose between paying for
utilities or heating fuel and food.
40 percent of client households said they had to choose between paying for rent or a
mortgage and food.
68 percent of pantries, 42 percent of soup kitchens, and 15 percent of emergency shelters
rely solely on volunteers and have no paid staff.

Leavitt 5
55 percent of all agencies in the network are faith-based agencies affiliated with
churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organizations; 24 percent are other
types of nonprofit organizations.
Despite our country's economic prosperity, hunger is a pressing social issue in America.
According to a recent report by Tufts University, 36 million Americans, including 14 million
children, live in food insecure households. A United States Conference of Mayors report shows
demand for emergency food increasing, and that over 20% of this demand goes unmet (Feeding
America n.p.).
At the same time that many Americans go hungry, good wholesome food is going to waste. One
of the major reasons this food is not getting to the hungry is because businesses cannot offset the
costs of donating it. Hunger agencies need to be selected and approved, and ongoing pick-up
schedules established. A system for donation reporting and tracking must be in place. Tax
regulations require strict receipting procedures and limit the type of non-profit organizations that
can receive the donation (Feeding America n.p.).
The Good Samaritan Tax Act will encourage more food service companies to make the effort
needed to set up food recovery and donation programs. The Good Samaritan Tax Act has the
support of the National Restaurant Association, the National Council of Chain Restaurants, and
America's leading food recovery and distribution organizations Food chain and America's
Second Harvest (Feeding America n.p.).
Such organizations can go a long way toward mitigating the problem of hunger. These
organizations are on the front lines and understand the problems better than the rest of us. They
Leavitt 6
often become very efficient at spreading small donations over a large area of need. Despite this
expertise many Americans are suspicious of these organizations. It is not always clear how much
of their donations are used up in administrative costs and how much goes through to those in
need. Those contributing to these charities may be able to research them enough to find one or
two that they believe will use their money honestly and efficiently. By giving to only a select few
of these organizations their money will be better used than bay spreading it over a large number
of them that are known only by reputation. For this reason in is often difficult for a new group to
establish itself (Feeding America n.p.).
A third approach is suggested by the organization known as AmpleHarvest.org. This approach
uses no other infrastructure than the existing network of food banks and food pantries. Although
Ample Harvest maintains a database of food pantries their program is simply an idea. They
suggest that donations be made not to them but to the food pantries on their list
(AmpleHarvest.org Inc. n.p.).
AmpleHarvest.org is run by Gary Oppenheimer. He has done research showing the need for
fresh produce in the food pantries. He had started this in his home state and saw the need for this
fresh produce. He suggests that if every backyard gardener or farmer would harvest what they
would eat for the week, then any left overs could go to the food pantries. First the backyard
gardener or farmer need to contact their food pantry and let them know they have excess food
and herbs. Then they set up a day and time in which they will bring their excess to the pantry.
The pantry then lets the people know there will be fresh produce on a certain day and time. Food
producers drop off fresh produce in the morning and the needy pick it up in the afternoon. This
process then enables those in need to have a more nutritious diet and fresh foods. Normally food-
Leavitt 7
banks are given food but by the time they get it to the pantries then the food is often spoiled.
They still must give out the food because they do not have any place to store the fresh produce.
This way the produce reaches the consumer the same day it is harvested. This reduces waste due
to spoilage and eliminates the need for storage facilities at the food pantry (AmpleHarvest.org
Inc. n.p.).
This is an especially intriguing approach because many back yard gardeners produce more than
they can consume even after including family and friends. Many of us have heard anecdotes of
people locking their cars, not to prevent them from being stolen, but to keep well-meaning
neighbors from placing unwanted produce in the unattended car. Whether these stories are true
or not they are believable because surplus vegetables are a well-known phenomenon
(AmpleHarvest.org Inc. n.p.).
On the negative side, many of the hungry in America receive their food from food banks that are
far from any garden, backyard or otherwise. The ample harvest approach would efficiently
distribute whatever fresh produce was received but it would not be enough to fill all the need.
But for suburban and small urban areas there is enough surplus in theory to fill the need.
Of course the solution is a combination of all three. There is certainly a role for government.
Many merchants will require legal protection from liability in order to feel safe when donating
foodstuffs to the needy. Good Samaritan laws need to be strong and well known to these
merchants. But as individuals we can also do a lot. The Ample harvest approach is ingenious and
where it can work it should be utilized. In the inner cities where redlining and high crime rates
make a trip to the grocery store an impossibility and home gardeners cannot fill the void we must
use local community organizations. As individuals we should do the necessary research to find
Leavitt 8
an organization we trust and donate as generously as we can. Poverty will always be with us but
hunger need not be. We have made huge strides in dealing with the issue. So much so that in the
United States it has been redefined as food insecurity in order to include a larger number of
people. If we continue to progress through awareness and new ideas and insights we can reduce
or eliminate hunger in the future.












Leavitt 9
Works Cited
AmpleHarvest.org Inc. The I dea and the Mission. Public. 31 March 2012. Web 5 Aug 2014
Cook, Christopher D., and John Rodgers. "Community Food Security: Growing Back to
the Earth." Earth I sland J ournal 12.4 (1997): 30. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 July
2014.
Richardson, Amanda. "To combat hunger, give land rights to world's poor women."
Christian Science Monitor 17 July 2013: N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 July
2014.
Samuel Echevarria, and Rob Santos, Food Banks: Hungers New Staple Food Assistance
Shifts from Emergency To Chronic. Web. 5 Aug 2014.
Hunger in America: Key Findings. Feeding America. Public. 1 Feb 2010. Web 5 Aug 2014
Family Farming Plays Key Role in Sustainable Development, Meeting Zero
Hunger Challenge, Secretary-General Says in Message to Global Forum. UN. Department
of Public Information. 4 March 2014. Web. 5 August 2014.

United States House. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House
Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Tax I ncentives to Assist Distressed
Communities. Hearing. 21 Mar 2000. Web 5 Aug 2014
Website http://waysandmeans.house.gove/legacy/oversite/106cong/3-21-00/3-21reig.htm