we destroy excess food. hire armed thugs to keep people moving into empty shelter.

that's what your taxes are for.

This is something that's starting to get to me.

For the last 30 years EVERY excuse that has been made about America's inhumane corporate toadying has been utter empty and meaningless bullshit but everyone just pretends it's real words.

I mean the justifications for things like denying children free breakfast aren't even rational on the surface, even without going into it.

But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like 'It'll prevent them from being independent' is even close to being a rational statement when we are talking about seven year olds that get all of their food given to them ANYWAY?!

I don't understand how as a country we have gotten to the point that words literally have no meaning anymore but it is going to take us to a dark place very quickly.

For anyone who actually wants to know, here is the U.S. Explanation of Vote on the Right to Food

For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.

Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.

We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.

Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.

Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.

Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.

Let them eat guns?

What’s the consequence of making this a right?

Just for starters, it implies certain acts intended to deliberately deprive people of access to food constitute a crime. So embargos of regions like Cuba, Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and North Korea would be de facto illegal under international law.

Of course, then you have to start asking questions like "What does it mean to be in violation of international law when the ICJ is so toothless?" But that's the UN for you. Issuing generally progressive proclamations through a general assembly while a handful of economic heavyweights get to decide how it all gets enforced.

The resolution said some stuff about pesticides the US didn't like.

The resolution encroached on other trade agreements the US would rather pursue.

The US doesn't want to transfer technology and wants to keep its own IP rights.

The US doesn't want extraterritorial obligations that the language of the resolution suggests. It thinks all countries should manage their own shit internally.

The US claimed that it domestically supports the right to food and promotes policies to further that goal but doesn't want it to be an enforceable obligation. (Pretty language that basically says the US doesn't think food should actually be an international right.)

The US can survive without exports, they have a shit ton of natural resources and industry... but Israel, oh they're definitely gone. Israel will be Isfaek in no time

You know these ventriloquism-routines where the puppet makes the puppeteer talk with it's voice?

The map is for the 2021 vote, not the 2002 vote.

The map is for 2021

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949

its easy to go a day without a hamburger, those are chicken nuggy days

This is America, land of the free - as in you are free to fuck off and die, here's your bill. Capitalism won't allow for equitable distribution of basic resources because then line don't go up. We live in hell and claim it's a privilege, and I hate it.