Despite the fact that in the last decade we have been able to reduce acute hunger substantially, famine and malnutrition continue to plague our world. The panel-discussion explained the application and effects of a cash vs. food-based approach to solve global hunger. The four pillars of food security have to be met in order for a society to be successfully devoid of hunger: availability, access, utilization, and stability.

Availability: food must be available in sufficient quantities based on production, carryover stocks, trade, and aid

Access: people must be able to acquire adequate healthy food based on purchase, gifts, and safety nets (which is the biggest problem)

Utilization: translate food accessed into positive health impacts via cooking, storage, and hygiene practices, WASH, and intra-hh allocation

Stability: must be able to maintain access and utilization over time, through lean seasons, disasters, price spikes, etc. resistance is key

While a free meal addresses one or more of these issues, it does not fix all aspects of the problem. Therefore the solution depends of the situation, based on what the impoverished people need and how fast they can receive it.

Cash-based programs are favored when (cash transfers, food vouchers, jobs, or locally purchased foods):

• Reduce delivery delays by 14 weeks
• Reduce basic grains cost by >50%, less for processed foods
• No effect on price levels/volatility in course markets
• Recipient consumers prefer local over imported food

Food is favored when:

• When people/governments can’t contribute cash
• When food availability is limited by infrastructure damage that disrupts commercial supply chain (natural disasters)
• When specialty foods are need and cheaper to send
• When there isn’t enough local food
• There are some context in which a “free lunch” shipped from the US is best

This served as a reminder to me of my privileges of being a student in a university where my priority is not determining where my next meal would come from.