Could 2% of Elon Musk's wealth solve world hunger?

See  2025’s Counter-Tweet of the Year? by Dan Mitchell.

"I’ve already shared four contestants for the counter-tweet of the year.

• Slapping down a leftist who wanted people to think freebies are the route to political success.
• Slapping down a leftist who wanted people to think capitalism is correlated with poverty.
• Slapping down a leftist who wanted people to think China delivers more for citizens than the United States.
• Slapping down a leftist who wanted people to think socialism delivers more than capitalism.

Today, I’m going to add another contestant. Excepts I’m breaking the rules.

That’s because this counter-tweet is from 2021. But a reader sent it to me a few weeks ago and I can’t resist sharing it more widely.

You can read the CNN report by clicking here.

What makes this tweet so appealing is that it exposes the utter hypocrisy and vapidity of David Beasley, the official from the United Nations who seems to think stealing Elon Musk’s wealth would solve world hunger.

Yet the U.N.’s budget for supposedly solving world hunger was already greater than 2 percent of Musk’s wealth at the time.

 

So why hadn’t Mr. Beasley’s bureaucracy already ended hunger?

By the way, I can’t resist pointing out that governments almost always are the cause of starvation, either because of wars or catastrophic socialist policies.

Needless to say, the two CNN reporters (Eoin McSweeney and Adam Pourahmadi) did not even mention any of these points in their article.

Yet another example of statist bias in the media, with journalists basically acting at stenographers for the left.

And I suppose this is a good reminder that the United Nations is infamous for wasting money."

Government Bans on GMOs Are Making Global Hunger Worse—and Do Serious Harm to the Planet

Those who want to improve standards of living and care for the environment should be appalled by GMO restrictions around the world.

By Jeffrey Miron & Sarah Eckhardt.

"The global controversy over genetically modified organisms is a classic bootleggers and Baptists story. Activists who mistakenly believe that GMOs are dangerous to consume have teamed up with pesticide and insecticide sellers to restrict the world’s poor from life-saving technologies.

This is a tragedy.

GMOs increase crop yields, improve the nutritional value of crops, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Those who want to improve standards of living and care for the environment should be appalled by GMO restrictions around the world.

Although the ‘Baptists’ are skeptical about GMO safety, an overwhelming consensus of scientists agree that GMOs are safe to eat. They do not damage organ health, cause genetic mutations in humans or animals, affect pregnancies, or transfer genes to those who consume them.

The ‘bootlegger’ allies—the pesticide and insecticide industries – are threatened by high-yielding and disease resistant crops that don’t require their products.

Unlike conventional plant or animal breeding, which combines all the genes from two sources, GMOs are created by tweaking an organism’s genetic code. This allows for more precise alterations, such as insertion of a disease-resistant gene or one that produces more vitamin C. Targeted alterations allow researchers to improve on conventional breeding practices and create organisms that are optimized for specific agriculture conditions.

This makes them well-suited to increase food security and lift farmers out of poverty. Farmers in poor countries lack access to the seed selection, farm equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation technologies that are widespread in wealthy countries. Without these products, their crops are more susceptible to weeds and pests and yield substantially less than crops in the developed world. When pesticides are available, farmers often apply them by hand, which contributes to pesticide poisoning.

The benefits of GMOs are well-known to farmers in these conditions. In Kenya, dairy farmers are petitioning their government to lift the ban on GMOs because the rising prices of non-GMO livestock feeds have put many out of business. Since plant improvements are more targeted, GMOs are higher yielding, require fewer synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and are more disease resistant than conventional crops.

For example, genetically modified bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton increased Indian cotton yields between 50 and 70 percent between 1975 and 2009 and decreased insecticide poisoning by 2.4 million cases a year. Because farmers lost fewer crops to disease and pests, their profits rose by as much as 50 percent. For farmers who cannot afford tractors and fertilizer, these cost-reducing GMO seeds are an effective way to raise food production.

Yet only four African countries allow GMO crops, and much of southeast Asia restricts GMO access. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation estimates that GMO restrictions could cost low and middle income nations up to $1.5 trillion in foregone income through 2050. In the Philippines, Bt eggplants were banned by the Supreme Court, even though several studies conducted in the country found numerous health and income benefits.

Beyond all these benefits, GMOs lower carbon emissions per unit produced. Adoption of genetically modified technology decreased greenhouse gas emissions by an equivalent of removing 15.27 million cars from the road in 2018 and saved the world approximately 16.1 million hectares in farmland. This is approximately 14 percent of the United States’ arable land.

Yet the European Union is moving away from GMOs and aims to have 25 percent of European farms producing organics by 2030.

The GMO debate continues to be controlled by non-scientific groups to the detriment of global hunger and efforts to lower emissions. Governments, particularly those of impoverished nations, should lift their bans and allow full access to GMOs."

How the Feds Distort Their 'Food Insecurity' Numbers

This isn't about hunger. It's about feeling that the 'quality and variety' of available food isn't what you'd prefer.

WSJ article by James Bovard. Excerpts:

"Is being "food insecure" the same as going hungry? Not necessarily. The USDA defines a "food insecure" household in the U.S. as one that is "uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food" at times during the year. The USDA notes: "For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity."

In 2013 the USDA reported that federal food programs—most notably food stamps provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—"increase food security by providing low-income households access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education." But food insecurity was more widespread in 2013 (14.3%) than in 2007 (11.1%), while food-stamp recipients rose to 47 million from 26 million.

The National Academy of Sciences urged the USDA in 2006 to explicitly state that its food-security survey results are not an estimate of nationwide hunger. The USDA responded by dropping any mention of "hunger" in the survey's response categories."

"families receiving food stamps are over 50% more likely to be "food insecure" than similar households not on food stamps."

"food-stamp participants "tend to be more food insecure" compared with eligible nonparticipants."

"enrolling in the food-stamp program failed to significantly boost participants' food security or dietary quality."

"children ages 2 to 11 in households with less than $25,000 in annual income consume significantly more calories than children in households with incomes above $75,000."

"Congress has virtually no information to ensure that the program is operating effectively" (food stamps or SNAP)