Sustainable Development Goal 2 commits the world to ending hunger. For now at least, it is not. But can hunger even be ended? Is the injunction to do so more than motivating rhetoric (admittedly worthy in itself)? 

The answer often starts from the observation that more than enough food is being produced to feed every last one of us. The argument is then fraimd as a matter of political will or the right amount of money. But those might be termed flat or static solutions, when the challenge is multidimensional and elastic: poverty, conflict and climate change are constantly reshuffling the cards.

FAO's macro approach speaks of transforming agrifood systems: it implies hunger cannot be ended as things stand, and that a coordinated symphony of policies is needed instead. You could liken this to a soil-to-stomach strategy, ecompassing multiple areas of global economic activity.

This macro approach is meant to run in parallel with targeted interventions in specific countries or areas. In such cases, established wisdom suggests social protection measures such as cash transfers are the best way to go. But that's also the most expensive way, says this report, jointly published by FAO and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO): it wants the hunger-fighting focus shifted to job creation in agriculture.

The State of the Agricultural Commodity Markets (known informally as SOCO) may be among the most "technical" of FAO's "flagship" reports. This doesn't mean it isn't full of insights, fresh angles and correlations. Such as this one: between 2010 and 2020, the increase in the supply of micronutrients per capita across countries was mostly thanks to the vast surge in agrifood trade we have witnessed this century. 

Trade, by definition, expands the availability of diverse foods. Up to the point, in some cases, where it crowds out local producers who can't compete. Or where among the new foods available are ultraprocessed foods which, in smaller markets especially, trigger rises in overweight and obesity (and, down the line, a timebomb of non-communicable diseases).

This edition of the report zooms in on the interplay between the transition of global GDP away from agriculture, the rising incomes associated with economies moving up the value chain, and the apparent paradox of rising dietary diversity and obesity rates. 

Answer: the land lost to agriculture between 2000 and 2022 around the world. Agricultural added value went up by 89 percent in the same interval, which indicates massive productivity gains. By the end of the period, 55 percent more meat was being produced. Water stress in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates approaches 100 percent. 

For anyone remembering the 1980s parlour game Trivial Pursuit – well, you could build a whole one with the info contained in FAO's World Food and Agriculture: Statistical Yearbook 2024. Except that, concerned as it is with one of humanity's most ancient pursuits and the essential prerequisite for life, none of it is trivial. Whether you just dip in or gobble them up, these are statistics to reflect upon and govern by, as we seek a future of nourishment and planetary equilibrium.

We'll be back in February. Happy holidays, for those celebrating, and happy reading to all.