HUNGER is the natural state of mankind, but the good news is that mankind is moving away from nature. Although the world's population has grown sixfold in the past two centuries, food production has grown faster. Better and more widely-applied technology—hybrid seeds, fertilisers and so on—has allowed farmers to coax more calories out of each hectare. Future innovations, including genetic modification to produce more nutritious cereals and livestock, should keep the planet's larders well-stocked. But, as this week's UN World Food Summit showed (see article), this is no cause for complacency.
The absolute number of malnourished people is declining by about 5m a year. As a proportion of the world's population, the improvement is even more marked. But that still leaves 800m people hungry, which translates into a lot of suffering. Underfed children succumb more easily to disease, and are often stunted both physically and mentally, making it harder for them to earn a living as adults.
Hunger is caused by bad weather, but even more by bad government. Well-governed countries never suffer famine; but of the 25 worst-nourished nations, all are badly governed, some spectacularly so. Little can be done about the weather, at least in the short term, but policies can change.
Farmers in poor countries are no longer herded at gunpoint into collectives, a policy that killed millions in the 20th century. But men with guns still reduce farmers' incentives to grow food in countries where wars rage. In eastern Congo, nobody wants to raise cattle, because marauding soldiers steal them. Even in peaceful poor countries, land tenure is often insecure. In Zimbabwe, the government grabs land and gives it to supporters, which has caused farm output to plummet.
In many countries, individuals are not allowed to own land, or find it hard to gain formal title to it, which makes it impossible for small farmers to use their fields as collateral so as to raise cash to invest in better farming techniques. It is not only farm policies that matter. The poorest will be able reliably to feed themselves only when they are less poor. To achieve this, poor countries need property rights, enforceable contracts, macroeconomic stability, freer trade and non-predatory government. The hungriest lack most of these.
The UN summit is calling, inevitably, for more aid. But the biggest favour the rich could do the poor would be to give less aid—to their own farmers. Rich countries protect their farmers with subsidies, high tariffs, import quotas and a tangle of other barriers masquerading as health and safety standards. This makes it hard for farmers in poor countries to sell their produce in rich countries. The World Bank says that ending northern protection would boost poor countries' annual GDP by $30 billion, which would buy quite a few lunches.
Unlike aid, freer trade does not foster dependence. And whereas aid costs money, cutting farm subsidies would save rich-country taxpayers a billion dollars a day, as well as letting those who eat do so more cheaply. Some northern farmers might suffer, but supporting them while they look for other work would be far cheaper than the current system. Besides, most of the rich world's subsidies go to the richest farmers, many of them millionaires. They certainly won't starve.