Hunger in the USA: Why Food Is Going to Waste Instead of People's Stomachs - Essay Sample

It is not a surprise that there are people who sleep hungry in the USA. Whereas the rest of the population worries about what to eat and what not to eat, many ask themselves, 'what's there to eat?' Therefore, it is essential to delve through the various points of view on this issue and try to come up with a permanent solution that ensures that everyone has something to eat.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Some people in the USA sleep hungry, whereas billions of dollars' worth of food every year that goes to waste points to the USA's lack of food security. Food security refers to the access by all people at all times o enough food for an active, healthy life" (Roizen & Crupai, 632) Therefore, it is not sufficient for an individual to get little food or have an inconsistent supply of food whereby some days they go without eating. Instead, they should always receive these foods, as and when they need it.

However, the debate on food security and the relatively high number of people who have food go without food is not easy to solve. This is mainly due to the complex nature of society's structure. The American economic system is a capitalistic one. A simple way to describe a capitalist society is that it is survival for the fittest. Therefore, it is an “economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods” (Birnbaum and De Wispelaere, 74). Individuals get what they earn and work for, hence resources flow according to hard work and value creation. If an individual creates value or adds value in terms of goods and services to the society, that is how they get paid. It starts from CEOs, athletes, and other highly paid individuals, to the lowly paid factory workers. So how are all these related to food security?

In a capitalistic economic system, free markets reign, and there is little to no government interference. According to Madina and Mansurova (8111), wages and salaries are paid according to the labor market conditions of demand and supply. The increased international labor mobility has led to an influx of foreign employees in the USA. It has thence had a downward pressure on wages and salaries. The lowest earners cannot finance a sober lifestyle and welfare, leading them and their families to even go hungry in some days. Also, some in the labor market is willing and able to work but cannot find employment. The employment opportunities have also decreased because companies like Apple Inc. have shipped production overseas, whereas Amazon Inc. is highly automating its activities.

The lack of a healthy diet due to food insecurity has led to some severe health issues. Smith et al. (851) argue that with an unhealthy or no nutrition at all, the body does not get the nutrients to develop an antibody and the requisite level of immunity. Thus, the body of such an individual becomes susceptible to ailments that they would otherwise have beaten were their food secure. To further compound the problem, they cannot get access to excellent healthcare services. This is because healthcare in the USA is not free and instead requires one to have insurance. The chances that an individual cannot afford meals do not have medical insurance are almost 100%.

Consequently, they are not able to go to work as their productivity is hampered. Some end up getting fired even from their already low paying jobs as their poor health leads them to be less productive or have a relatively high absenteeism rate. Therefore, it is a vicious cycle, which can only be well illustrated by the case of the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Does a lack of what to eat cause poor health, or is the lack of medical access, which leads to a loss of jobs the cause of food insecurity? Or is it a combination of both? Or is it the prevalence of junk and processed foods?

Another school of thought argues that there should be a ban on or increased taxes on unhealthy foods. However, the proposals on the prohibition of junk and processed foods are a misplaced approach to solving the problem faced by those who have nothing to eat. These processed foods are bad for humans' health and are not in question (Yegiyan and Bailey, 639), it is not a priority in as far as solving the problem of 'what's there to eat?' The processed and junk food producers have a different target audience than these poor people. The middle class and upwards are the target audience of these junk and processed foods since they are relatively expensive and are out of reach for the poor people.

Besides, these processed and junk food producers are significant employers. According to Smith, Katherine et al. (64), these companies that produce processed foods employ millions of people in the USA. If the government facilitates these companies to serve more people, they can use even more people and put upward pressure on salaries and wages. With more employees and an increase in fees, it would decrease the number of people who can afford meals on a regular and consistent basis, hence making necessary and genuine steps towards food security. Taxing these companies leads to higher prices, leading to decreased sales, leading to cutting the wage bill through mass layoffs.

With many people sleeping hungry, it means that the government's social and safety net programs are not as effective and efficient. For example, the federal government has a food stamp program that provides food for those who cannot access it due to unemployment or meager wages. Hudak et al. (1280) point out that “During the last few decades, nutrition assistance programs, particularly the school meals programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), have also been promoted as a nutrition safety net offering access to essential nutrients and minerals." Some schools of thought have, for a long time, argued that food stamps and other such social protection programs could lead to laziness and discourage hard work. So far, however, little evidence has been presented to prove this assertion, especially when people are living on the streets and unable to access these foods stamps regularly or at all. More targeted safety nets programs thence need to be rolled out. This is, however, not a sustainable way to ensure that people have something to eat.

The focus should then first be that people can get something to eat. Later on, after this goal has been achieved, the focus can then be on whether these foods are healthy. Besides, the cost of these healthy foods is higher than in regular meals. For example, all types of organic foods are more expensive than their equivalent inorganic foods. The government should thence partner with the inorganic of food farmers and producers to further down the price. The achievement of this can be through some voluntary and international measures. First, the government can decrease taxes on the inputs of these farms and processed food products. They can be the costs of fertilizer or machinery. Also, subsidies can be offered to these farm producers. The government can also offer them loans or go into Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). So far, PPPs have been used in infrastructure projects, and it has yielded massive success levels (Engel, Fischer, and Galetovic, 45). Therefore, there is no reason why it should not be applied to the production of low-cost farm and processed foods.

Since the production of these foods is plentiful and within the USA, it solves the "what is there to eat" problem in two ways. It will be labor-intensive and employ many of the vulnerable people in society. This will, therefore, improve the purchasing power of many in the community. Lastly, since the food will be lowly priced, even low-waged and low-salaried employees will be able to afford it. The food stamps can then cater for the rest who cannot purchase due to huge family commitments or a lack of employment.

In conclusion, the USA's inequality has led some people to sleep hungry, whereas billions worth of food goes to waste each year. With the capitalistic and free-market system being to blame, the government should be involved. Is involvement should be to create an enabling environment for the production of low-priced foods. The government should also ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare, irrespective of their economic or social class.