A Question of Sustenance

Globalization ushered in a world in which more than a billion are overfed. Yet hundreds of millions still suffer from hunger's persistent scourge

By Gary Stix

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In 1963 some 200,000 Indians in West Bengal and Assam faced imminent starvation. A few years later drought caused severe food shortages in the nearby state of Bihar. Against a backdrop of such reports, biologist Paul Ehrlich speculated in his 1968 book The Population Bomb that, within just a few years, hundreds of millions would starve to death, as inexorable population growth outstripped limited resources.

This neo-Malthusian scenario never came to pass. For India, the green revolution in agriculture averted a “ship to mouth” existence in which foreign food aid would be needed indefinitely to stave off Ehrlich’s worst-case prognostications. In the ensuing 40 years, India has undergone a radical makeover and now graces magazine covers as an emerging economic giant. The turn-of-the-century developing world now often confronts more of a problem with fat than it does with famine—a sociological spin-off of globalization known as the nutrition transition. The millennium marked the first time that the overweight equaled the number of the undernourished worldwide, and, as a demographic, the overnourished 1.3 billion now surpass the hungry by several hundred million.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American