Commentary. The latest warnings about hunger should be read as a failure of politics, not an unavoidable consequence of bad luck. The United Nations says an additional 11.7 million women and girls could face food insecurity by the end of 2026 as conflict in the Middle East and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz push up food prices.[1] At the same time, the UN warns that famine risks are growing in parts of Sudan, where war is colliding with severe drought.[2]

Our view is straightforward: governments should spend far more on preventing food crises than on responding once they become emergencies. That means protecting trade routes, financing local agriculture, maintaining humanitarian access and treating food prices as a security issue. It also means accepting that relief alone cannot solve a problem increasingly produced by war, climate volatility and economic fragility.

Prevention is cheaper—and more humane

Emergency aid remains indispensable. Families facing hunger cannot wait for long-term reforms, and humanitarian agencies need immediate funding to deliver food, shelter and medical care. The UN has reported that nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza urgently need shelter assistance ahead of winter, while available supplies cover only a fraction of identified needs.[3]

But the recurring pattern is costly and predictable: donors mobilize after crops fail, ports close or people flee. By then, malnutrition has risen, local markets have collapsed and rebuilding is more expensive. Early-warning systems, cash assistance before harvest losses become catastrophic, and support for farmers in drought- and conflict-affected areas can prevent some of those costs.

This is not an argument for replacing relief with development. It is an argument for connecting the two. Humanitarian budgets should include more resources for resilience, while development programmes should be designed to keep functioning during conflict and displacement.

The case against simplistic solutions

There are legitimate objections. Governments facing war, inflation and political pressure may reasonably ask why they should finance distant crises when their own citizens are struggling. Food security programmes can also be wasteful or captured by local elites if oversight is weak. And protecting shipping lanes or expanding aid deliveries can carry military and diplomatic risks.

Those concerns deserve more than moral slogans. Assistance should be transparent, independently audited and directed through local organizations where they can reach people safely. Wealthier countries should also recognize that open-ended promises without reliable funding undermine trust. Prevention must be measurable: fewer children acutely malnourished, more functioning local markets and faster access for civilians—not simply larger announcements.

Nor should food security become a pretext for coercive trade policy. Export restrictions may protect consumers temporarily but can amplify price shocks elsewhere. International coordination is difficult, particularly when governments use food, fuel and access to ports as instruments of war. Yet difficulty is not an argument for surrendering the effort.

Food is part of the peace agenda

The strongest reason to change course is political. Hunger can deepen displacement, fuel grievances and make ceasefires harder to sustain. The UN’s wider warning that hundreds of millions of young people entering developing-country labour markets may not find jobs reinforces the point: food insecurity is connected to employment, public services and stability, not isolated from them.[1]

Our newsroom believes the next generation of policy must measure success before famine headlines appear. Governments should fund regional grain reserves, climate-resilient seeds, school meals, social protection and humanitarian access. They should press armed parties to respect civilian supply lines and investigate attacks on clearly marked aid convoys, such as the strike condemned by the World Food Programme in Sudan.[4]

None of this guarantees success. Wars can overwhelm the best plans, droughts can outrun forecasts and corruption can divert resources. But the alternative—waiting for catastrophe and then debating whether the victims are strategically important—is both morally indefensible and economically irrational.

Food security is often discussed as charity. It should be treated as infrastructure: essential, preventative and shared. The world does not lack warnings. It lacks the political willingness to act before hunger becomes impossible to ignore.

Sources