Global Food Security: U.S. Commitment to Action

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
September 25, 2009

Secretary Clinton's Remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative Closing Plenary | Briefing by Chief of Staff and Counselor Cheryl Mills on Food SecurityTomorrow, Secretary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will co-host a food security event. Watch our video and share it with your friends and family.

More than one billion people — one sixth of the world's population — suffer from chronic hunger. Without enough food, adults struggle to work and children struggle to learn. Global food supplies must increase by an estimated 50 percent to meet expected demand in the next 20 years. Advancing sustainable agricultural-led growth increases the availability of food, keeps food affordable, and raises the incomes of the poor.

Momentum is building for global action. Developing country leaders have recognized the need to invest in their own food security. At the 2009 L’Aquila G8 Summit, donors collectively committed $20 billion to agricultural development and a new approach to global food security.

The U.S. is committed to working as part of a collaborative global effort centered around country-led processes to improve food security. We are working with stakeholders to advance action that addresses the needs of small scale farmers and agri-businesses, and harnesses the power of women to drive economic growth. We will increase our investment in agriculture development while maintaining our support for humanitarian food assistance.

Learn more about the U.S. plan to fight hunger and join us on Facebook to be part of the discussion today.

Join the fight against hunger – sign up to get updates on how you can be a part of the solution.

Related Entry: Five Principles Guide Approach to Food Security



Virginia, USA
September 26, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

When you think about how much money has been spent on the Space Program over the years since it began, rockets, space shuttles costing 80 billion dollars a piece, the international space station costing more billions, the cost of sending astronaunts into space, the delays costing in the millions, all because United States wanted to compete with Russia. This money could of been used to help feed the world and you still could of maintained a viable NASA program that sent rockets into space, taking pictures without the big expense over the years. After all whats really in Space? It would be interesting if someone took the time to actually figure out the cost, what our country has spent, what Russia has spent, all for what? Looking at cool planets? What about the people on earth? If we can't get along on earth, we certainly are not going to get along in Space in future. How many farms, Homes, Businesses, Jobs, Going Green could of been spent with the money NASA has spent on it's program? If GOD wanted us in Space, we would of been born in space. Now were suddenly concerned about the environment, after billions of dollars has been drained for programs like NASA and people should take notice? They should of taken notice before billions were spent not after.

Godbless and have a nice day!

United States
September 27, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

No matter which crisis becomes a government concern, first ask yourself:

"What effect has this upon the sum-total of State power?"

If we look beneath the surface of various repeated crises, we can discern one fundamental fact -- a great redistribution of power from citizens to the State.

Regardless of the emergency, they all come to the same thing, which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power of the citizens.

Every assumption of State power, whether by forcible seizure or public indifference, leaves citizens and their society with so much less power.

"This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention - the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies" - Jose Ortega Y Gasset, 1922.

When the State declares itself the food provider of last resort, its citizens will say, "we already paid for your food so if you are hungry, go see the State about that".

It is the State itself which destroys the charitable instinct of the citizens and renders food a scarce commodity in poor communities.

Deliberate, government-ordered mass starvations in Ireland, in China, in the Ukraine, and elsewhere, have been fully documented in human history. Whether spreading salt on farm lands by Roman soldiers to destroy food production in Carthage, spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam, or poisoning the land with Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq, food production is reduced and the State itself is the perpetrator.

New generations appear and become "conditioned" to new increments of State power, and they tend to accept the process of continual power accumulation as normal.

All of the State's institutional voices unite in confirming the appropriateness of progressive conversion of citizen's social power into State power, for the public good.

State power has not only been thus concentrated in Washington, but it has so far concentrated into the hands of the President that the existing regime is a regime of personal government. It is nominally Democratic, but actually Monocratic. Personal government is always concerned with immediate political expediency and is determined entirely by circumstances.

We have a government by purchase, bought with money, and the concern for the starving masses is another opportunity for further accumulation of power over them. As globalists focus on the world's food, we all should become extremely worried.

Virginia, USA
October 1, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

Billions, and trillions of dollars spent on a NASA so we can explore new planets? Watch how our Tax Money was spent, for what? Brand new tires on earth? The study of space? It's costing trillions of dollars to learn.

How many people on earth could of used this money to help feed the hungar? Provide better farming equipment, and livestock. Read below some interesting numbers we have spent on this wonderful space program over the years, which continues to add up.

How do we really know 100 percent that having a dream like going to the moon was practical for people. President John F Kennedy's famous speech, we can put a man on the moon.

The federal government spent roughly $14 billion (B) on NASA in fiscal year 1999. That's a lot of money! But what does that mean? How much is $14B? For most folks $14B is merely an abstract concept.

For example, in fiscal year (FY) 1999, total federal expenditures were $1,699,217 million (M) -- approximately $1.7 trillion! NASA's budget of $14B, thus, represented only about 0.8% of total federal expenditures during FY '99. In fact, since 1975 NASA's budget has varied only between 0.7% and 1.0% of total federal expenditures. NASA's highest ever share of total federal expenditures was 5.5%, which occurred in 1966. (Click here to see a graph illustrating NASA's share of federal expenditures for the past 40 years.)

NASA in 1970

The NASA budget continued to decline, falling lower each year during the period from 1969 to 1974.
Apollo was NASA's largest budget item until 1973.

NASA's 1970 budget
Requested: $3.71 billion
Authorized: $3.768 billion
Spent: $3.749 billion

NASA's Budget in 1969
$3.995 billion

NASA's Budget in 1968
$4.588 billion

NASA's Apollo Spending in 1970
$1.919 billion

Total Apollo Program spending 1961-1973
$25 billion

Total Gemini Program spending
$1.283 billion

Total Mercury Program spending
$392.6 million

Total number of workers employed in Apollo or Apollo-related projects 1961-1974


Latest Stories