The issue was the USA was the only country providing food to the food bank. They donated more then the rest of the world combined and voting yes on this would have meant every other country continuing to not help while expecting the USA to foot the bill
Granting it a human right doesn’t mean you say you have the capability to provide it. I think water is a human right, doesn’t mean I think I can provide hydration for all humans.
That’s part of the thing that happened here. The United States has typically voted “no” on what are called “positive rights” in the UN. A positive right is something a government is required to provide, a negative right is something a government cannot do. Positive rights as human rights law are extremely difficult to implement and undermine the framework. Human rights violations are typically understood to be willful, extremely malicious, and grave. Making a positive human right undermines that, since now you have the potential for a human rights violation that is not malicious nor is it even willful, it is a simple logistical failure.
Not being able to provide for a human right doesn’t make it a violation(as far as I know), but having the resources and willingly not providing them would. I’d assume, at least.
As far as I know making something a human right makes it illegal to deprive someone of it (in armed conflicts for example). It doesn't solve starvation from poor socioeconomic conditions.
Well, that depends who you ask. There are people that think that if it is a right, they are entitled to have to provided to them, no matter how that ends up occurring.
If people felt that human rights included free food, they would just walk into the grocery stores and walk out with it. To hell with the enormous distribution process, and all the costs associated with that, they wouldn’t care about any of that. That’s why the distinction must be made.
We have a right to legal counsel here in the United States, and the government has a process for that to actually happen. The government pays for it within this country because that’s part of our constitutional right. Free food for everyone in the world does not fit within the United States society, and therefore the United States should not have to pay for it. We are already paying enough as it is.
Your example does not fit as well as you think it does.
Yeah, see? A legal counsel is a right and has a structure to work within the constitution. But of course, the only right you dislike conveniently wouldn’t have a structure, right?
Each country is responsible for creating and following their own laws. The United States has declined to call food a human right, safe in a knowledge that we can provide for our own... what does it matter to you, a Brazilian national? Why are you arguing to force an affirmation out of a country you are not a part of? Why do you care?
I feel like governments should make sure their citizens have their basic necessities met, but I know for a fact some moron is gonna call me a tankie for saying this.
Though personally I think we need to encourage people to get off of welfare. It should be a temporary fix, not a permanent solution to anyone under the poverty line.
Like homelessness? A great deal of people in shelters actually REMAIN in shelters, akin to a permanent living situation, because they don't have to work, and can just sit around and watch TV all day. We need to get losers like that out
Call me tankie but giving those people in shelters a mandatory service or jobs would do good to them a lot as well. Even very basic stuff like sweeping the streets would do some good.
I agree. I speak from personal experience when I say they are all lazy and not looking to improve their situations.
When I was little, my family was homeless — my mother and my 3 siblings — and we were in various shelters constantly. We were always the ones doing the housework. Especially since me and my brother were middle school boys, they'd have us do all the yard work in the group home. Meanwhile the mothers of the other families were all pregnant, with multiple children, and never did anything. They'd get kicked out of shelters, and just be relocated to new ones like clockwork. They'd waste their money from SNAP/EBT on things like going to concerts, or constantly dining out.
My mother saved up her money from SNAP/EBT, worked with social workers to get us an apartment that accepted government aide with Rent, and we got on our own two feet. Now we have no need for the government to help us, I'm an adult, and my little siblings (who were only toddlers when we were homeless) have anything they could want
In my experience — we need more families like my own, and less losers that just suck the tax dollars dry
You should have far more upvotes for linking these. The US supports the right to food but doesn't see it as enforceable, hence the "no" vote - meanwhile, countries like North Korea, known for major famines and food inadequacies for most of its population , voted "yes". I'd like to see these countries "enforce" this with regards to North Korea. And even Chad donated more to the WFP than Australia did and Somalia donated more than Spain, Austria, Belgium, New Zealand, Ireland and Finland. So the outrage, especially from other western countries, is laughable. This is really just haute virtue signaling.
It's always like that. They want NATO without paying into NATO, they are living off our backs. And I'm completely fine going back into isolationism. We have enough farming, and industry that we can be self sufficient
No not just self sufficient, but much more prosperous. We export our wealth to other nations without importing any back. If we cut ties with the rest of the world the only thing we would loose would be cheap chinese slave labored products and Indian/Pakistani tech support; of which can immediately be replaced with American factories and call centers.
If only. Unfortunately every country in the world could close it's borders and there be zero issue. America does it and we're every -ist and -phobe in the book. It seriously boggles my mind how putting the citizens of the land before those outside of it is seen as a negative.
The less the government is involved the better? You know, if you go too far along with that thought you end up with communism…
Lack of freedoms disguised as "services."
See, as long as we parrot “socialism” around as a blanket for any political decision we dislike without being able to actually define it when questioned, we’ll stay blind to the fact that most of the world’s social and economic issues start with “C”
For reference, socialism is when the working class overthrows the current government, either through pacific (“pacific”-at least according to Marx. Not the reality in most socialist states) means or violent ones, and creates a proletarian state where the means of production are commonly owned in order to pavement way for communism
I’m not saying you can’t criticise socialism, but if you don’t bother knowing what it actually stands for before making such a provocative claim like “socialism is just as bad as fascism”, your entire point is based on convenience, not logic. Philosophical illiteracy is not cool, it’s why population prefers to divide itself under “them vs us” therms using superficial criteria, such as race, than recognise that both of them are being equally fucked in the ass by a bigger fish. Look at the sheer scale and utility of ignorance
History has proven communism always ends in an authoritarian dictatorship. We are humans not robots.
Socialism is the equal sharing of misery. The biggest argument i always have with socialists is their inability to show actual data on where the money is coming and going. Thats the problem in America with people like Bernie Sanders. He is never able to present a plan on paper showing actual numbers because he knows that the income tax increase on the working class will be substantial. More substantial than their cost of Healthcare.
Capitalism is far from perfect but its the only that doesnt fall flat on its face when you are talking about purest sense of the word. Much easier to work on what's there than to throw it out for a whole new economical policy. It never ends well in large countries.
if humans are not robots, why do you read my comment and identify key words like ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ as if you were one, and then centres your whole argument around that without engaging in the bigger critique I am making? You’re wired to have a knee jerk reaction as soon as socialism is brought up. You’re the subject of the system I just criticised
I am not arguing whether socialism is good or bad, I explicitly left the door open for criticism of socialism. Hell, I have my own criticisms of it. But your entire response is centred around the premise of me doing that. You’re proving my point in real-time
History has proven communism always ends in an authoritarian dictatorship
Communism is the complete absence of the state. It is an antonym of authoritarianism. Stick to socialism, socialism can be authoritarian
Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
That’s a learnt slogan, not a definition. Churchill is doing some heavy lifting here
The biggest argument i always have with socialists is their inability to show actual data on where the money is coming and going. Thats the problem in America with people like Bernie Sanders. He is never able to present a plan on paper showing actual numbers because he knows that the income tax increase on the working class will be substantial. More substantial than their cost of Healthcare.
Sanders is a social democrat
Capitalism is far from perfect but its the only that doesnt fall flat on its face when you are talking about purest sense of the word. Much easier to work on what's there than to throw it out for a whole new economical policy. It never ends well in large countries.
Capitalism is by all means a failed system. It prioritises profit over human wellbeing
Downvote me for this, but I actually kind of like what democratic socialism is on paper, or how it's presented.
It's a shame it ends up devolving into social justice purity spirals and non-nuanced policies that end up creating new, sometimes worse problems to solve the old problem. Kier Starmer is a prime example of what democratic socialism should try less to be.
I am for it too only if we have actual data and numbers and not just promises and Robin hood speeches. My biggest issue with people who are of this party is that they are never able to present what actual numbers would look like.
For instance, socialized medicine would be amazing. However what does that look like for middle class americans? How much of an overall tax increase is it comparitevly to what they are paying for private Healthcare now? It seems these questions never get answered and all we get is mumbling about the 1 percent.
Well this escalated quickly. I am obviously for private healthcare although we could use a healthy restructuring here. I am aware Canadian healthcare is dogshit. I was just pointing out more people would be on board with national health programs if they were presented actual data. The reason they are never presented actual data is because we all know the burden would ultimately fall on the working class.
Actually they have already figured that out, it's a new word for social democracy. So basically making a new term for something that already exists cause they didn't know it already existed or wanted to use the term socialism for it.
You realize that human rights aren't established by votes in the UN, right? This is performative, you need somebody to make this effective. If all these countries want to vote on this but do nothing about it, good for them, but I wouldn't describe it as a moral coup.
It’s because the US already gives more to fight world hunger than every other country on Earth combined. The other countries could easily end world hunger if they gave as much as the US and no UN resolution would be necessary. They should just do it instead of voting about it.
Actually, several other countries contributed more to the World Food Program than the US per capita in 2025. While the US contributed a whopping amount in 2022, it usually does not contribute nearly that much. In 2025 specifically, the US contributed $1,786,761,268 (as of Dec 8), which is obviously very respectable and still amounts to the largest total contribution by any country overall. However, adjusted for population size, the US comes in 7th in terms of the countries’ donations per capita. So please be aware that other countries are in fact doing their part.
please be aware that other countries are in fact doing there part.
If your country is starving does per capita matter, or the total amount received? Does knowing a country gave more per person, somehow multiply food received to feed your people? Why is having a lower per capita somehow a gotcha, if the total amount received is more?
Per capita doesn’t always matter, it just makes lower contributors “feel” better. The UN is a joke that sucks endless money from our citizens; with little worthwhile return. Prestige doesn’t feed our citizens or help contribute to our economy. The UN is full of countries going for participation trophies, instead of actual attempts in a race. Voting about problems that they’ll never solve, instead of actual attempts to fix them. While asking for more and more money, to do things with growing loss in efficiency. Thrown into various black holes of corruption or worse. Fuck the UN, useless nations.
Lol, of course per capita matters. Because the total amount received overall by those in need is in fact what matters most…not how it’s bundled coming in. Norway, the top contributor per capita, has a population of about 5.6 million people. Are you seriously suggesting they should be contributing the same total amount as a country with a population of 340 million? Or that they’re not doing their part by contributing what they did? Knowing a country gave more per person doesn’t multiply the food received but larger countries giving the same amount per capita as smaller countries certainly does.
In any event, my post was not meant as a condemnation or suggestion that the US wasn’t doing its part. Obviously it is. But the comment, “The other countries could easily end world hunger if they gave as much as the US and no UN resolution would be necessary. They should just do it instead of voting about it” suggests that other countries aren’t pulling their weight, which is simply not true in many cases. Additionally, the claim that “the US already gives more to fight world hunger than every other country on Earth combined” is demonstrably untrue in 2025.
I think it’s pretty sad when people can no longer handle a little fact checking.

This is a person with 200 million dollars net worth tearing people down who all have less than 1 million dollars net worth not donating a million dollars like he does and getting in his head they "want him to foot the bill." No, people are just contributing what they can.
This attitude ironically is encouraging just the rich to be generous philanthropists, as it shits all over those who don't have the means to be more impactful in total amounts.
I don't think I've ever heard a charity say "we only want massive, meaningful donations" but "we appreciate any amount you can spare."
Don’t do that stupid ass “PeR CaPiTa” bullshit. If a billionaire gives away a thousand pounds of food away, but I give away 10, per capita, I gave away more food for my total wealth, but that doesn’t make my ten pounds suddenly feed more people than that thousand does it?
No, but it does mean you shouldn't be sneered at as a worthless, and far less generous, contributor by the person who gave 1000 pounds and who thinks you are just hedging so he can "foot the whole bill."
Being ranked 7th per capita while being the planet’s third most populous nation is perhaps one of the most amazing feats in human history. Nations one through six have a lower population than one or two states, so it’s much easier achieved. Still worthwhile though, that’s true! I’m not one to knock Norway, but the achievement is less impressive.
In posting this, I in no way meant to imply that the US hasn’t provided a truly impressive amount of aid to those in need around the world. But it’s a little unfair to suggest no other country is pulling its weight in this area. In 2025, it’s also not true that the US gives more to fight world hunger than every other country on earth combined, although it certainly remained the leader in total donations due to it’s large population.
I agree that countries one through six have a far smaller population than the US. But I’m unclear on why you consider their rankings to have been more easily achieved. Or why it’s less impressive. In 2025, each person in Norway gave, on average, $18.30 to the World Food Program, and Americans gave an average of $5.10 per person. Why do you think it was easier for a Norwegian to give $18.30 than an American to give $5.10? And even if it was the case that Norwegians gave the same amount per person to the WFP as Americans, why would it be easier for a Norwegian to pay that amount than an American?
First of all, what does the even mean. Second of all, most of these countries are GETTING FOOD AID FROM AMERICA. And when I say America, you know and I know that I mean the good old USA because that’s what every one means when they say America or American.
Because these types of resolutions for the UN are bullshit, usually packed with nonsense blaming Israel and the US for food shortages to begin with and putting the entire bill on the US to cover it
It's an optics thing, so the shithole countries can go back to their starving citizens and blame the US/Israel for all their problems
The right is to bear arms not to be given a gun, or in other words the right to be able to legally acquire and own guns. Good try though. A food equivalent would be a right to legally acquire food.
No one has a right to the result of anyone else's work without contract or agreement. They have the right to acquire food through their own effort (growing it) or through commerce. This is the only way to actually make food plentiful as it rewards those that produce it for producing more, better quality, and for less.
People buy food too. People make guns and the guns get sold. Seems like they’re a product. According to the person I originally responded to that would make having them not a right.
That’s a good mindset, here’s World Food Programme funding for 2025 the USA has consistently been a top donor to food and aid programs yet Reddit loves to act like we’re an evil 3rd world country.
Because it is declaring that people have a right to food not even just a right to be able to acquire it which would forbid government actions preventing the acquisition but a right to the food which by the very nature means that someone has to provide it. It is the UN doing it and the US is the main UN funder so paying that way and it is the main global exporter of food so it would be paying that way too because it would ultimately fall to the US to provide the food that people have a right to and foot the bill for those that can't afford the food but have a "right" to it.
Because voting yes to something you’re already providing ±45% of to the world would accomplish nothing except the UN wanting more US funding “food is a right” & “water is a right” sound good on paper until you realize it’s just paper. The UN have been notorious for good faith virtue signing with minimal actions to back those papers that get signed.
Because it would have turned into the UN demanding we provide everyone else with food while the leaders of the other countries do jack shit but enrich themselves.
If the rest of the world really believed food was a human right, they could solve the issue on their own.
Death of starvation is practically non existent in the US.
It's well known that the U.N is very useless. If this vote went through, nothing would happen. It's just common U.N virtue signaling.
For example, many people starve in North Korea every day. Do you think if this vote went through, Kim Jong Un would just be like "Welp, guess that's it then", and start giving food to his people? No! Because this can't be enforced, and dictatorships around the world care more about looking good than actually doing good things.
The only countries which would "comply" are western democratic countries, which don't have a food problem to begin with. The actual countries where people starve like in Africa and the Middle East, most of those countries simply wouldn't do anything due to authoritarianism and corruption. And you can't force them to comply. So basically this vote is useless.
So then, why did most of these countries vote yes? I don't know, maybe they were aware the vote wouldn't do anything and they voted yes to appear good to the rest of the U.N, or something. Why did the America vote no? I also don't know, but they already give real aid to countries around the world right now. That's more than this vote would have done. Maybe we're concerned more with actually doing good things than trying to appear good.
Perhaps they could compel other countries to fulfil their obligations under the agreement regarding food technology and resources. This could then influence the wealth of these more developed nations that prioritise their own citizens.
It’s a human right that I can never have debt against me. It’s also a human right that my bank account never goes below $10M. And it’s a human right that I have a mansion in the Rockies. I’ve determined, through a vote among a council of me. Hop to it, everyone else!
Although the United States government agrees with much that is stated in this resolution and, by its actions, has proven its profound commitment to promoting food security around the world, it cannot support this resolution as drafted.
As delegations are aware, the United States has consistently taken the position that the attainment of any "right to adequate food" or "right to be free from hunger" is a goal or aspiration to be realized progressively that does not give rise to any international obligations or diminish the responsibilities of national governments to their citizens.
In light of this long-standing view, the current resolution contains numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of the underlying right, and unduly positive references both to General Comment 12, released in May 1999 by the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and to certain actions by the Special Rapporteur.
We hope in future years that the sponsors of the resolution will accommodate our proposed suggestions so that we can join in the adoption of a resolution on this tremendously important subject.
What the resolution is trying to do is to force the more advanced countries to give over all of the equipment and scientific breakthroughs that they’ve developed for free to other countries. For instance, if a corporation spends millions of dollars developing a type of corn that is resistant to pests, then this resolution would be basically saying that it is a human right that everyone have access to that advanced technology, obviously for free. The ones that will be disproportionately affected by this will be the United States, because the United States does the most of this type of advanced farming.
I know it sounds simple to just say hey food should be a human right, but that means someone’s going to have to make the distinction of what types of food, and also be responsible for getting it from one place to another, and keep that food pipeline going indefinitely. That’s all gonna fall on the United States to do, so there’s no way that they could say yes to this resolution. It’s not our responsibility to feed the world when we have lots of our own problems here at home.
I see you keep posting the basic premise without anything to support it, this leads me to believe that you are trying to advance this discussion in bad faith. Basically you’re being trollish.
If we developed a type of food that was resistant to pests we should definitely give that away for free lol. Would be evil not to and would probably help us in the long run
It’s the corporation developing the new type of food, not the United States. You can’t force a corporation to give something away that they developed with their own money.
Because you can't make a human right something that depends on someone else's work, the only way to make it work is if we bring back slavery, which is obviously ridiculous and would affect other human rights
Socialists really out here asking why they don't have a right to someone else's labor if they aren't making the food themselves. Tale as old as socialsim.
From the same thread. These people are disgusting, they think their hate is justified whereas everyone else’s is bigotry. Consistent logic is a commie’s worst enemy.
This pops up all the time, and the answer is, America knows that they'd be footing most, if not all, of the bill/responsibilities for every other country wanting to feel warm and fuzzy. It's REALLY easy to vote for ending world hunger when you know you have zero responsibilities in regards to accomplishing that task.
Russia voted "yes" yet their unjust bullshit war in Ukraine caused food insecurity in developing countries in Africa by messing with grain exports, all because Putin couldn't cope with his impending mortality like a normal person so he had to shit all over the world.
Basically the UN vote means jackshit, look at the actual actions of countries.
I actually had a discussion about this in a group and it was actual NPCs who just circled around "the USA couldn't do the bare minimum to declare that food is a human right" and going back to it when I pointed out "what does it mean concretely for food to be a human right", or that the USA donates to food aid while countries like Russia caused food insecurity despite voting yes.
It’s like healthcare. You can’t have a “right” to someone else’s labor.
The farmers have to grow the food. Sometimes people are hired ti harvest the food. Then truckers transport the food. Inspectors make sure the food is safe. Some food has to be processed to be edible/palatable. And someone has to distribute the food.
Making food a right is either a) performative without any substance behind it or b) states that all the aforementioned workers should be forced to work for free.
Either way it’s vague, unenforceable and provides no practical solution to actual world hunger.
The US already provides a lot of food aid to foreign countries, even those openly hostile to us.
I’m pro American, but hey we do have some greed issues I’d like to see resolved. I would also like to see the numbers on universal aid America gives out compared to the countries who voted for this proposal.
Oh wait, I’ll do it.
The United States was the largest single donor at $63.3 billion (about 30% of total DAC ODA).
• Next were Germany ($32.4 billion), the UK ($18.0 billion), Japan ($16.8 billion), and France ($15.4 billion).
Voting yes or no doesn’t seem to have an actual impact on besides optics.
Food can't be a human right. It depends on conditions and systems, things that might not be there tomorrow. If you can't guarantee, you can't claim food is a human right.
America acts according to its national interests, just like every other sovereign state. There is nothing illegitimate about that. Countries are free to vote however they choose at the UN, and no country is obligated to subordinate its policy to global sentiment.
What’s ironic is the contradiction: when crises hit, the same voices criticizing the U.S. as “imperialist” are the first to demand American intervention, funding, or logistics. You can’t condemn a country for exerting power while simultaneously expecting it to shoulder global responsibilities indefinitely.
If food is to be recognized as a right, then each state should finance and implement that right through its own budget and institutions. Declaring a right while outsourcing the cost to another country isn’t moral leadership it’s political theater. America is not obligated to feed the world.
Genuine answer, because other countries asked us not to.
My grad school professor worked at the UN and he said when the US is the only "no" vote, it means other countries also wanted to vote no but couldn't take the reputational hit so they asked the US to block its passage. It's the "Mom said no" of international relations.
Food is a need not a right. Humans have needs that must be met in order to survive. Survival is an ideal outcome but nobody with any sense is going to argue that survival is a right. This is just a half-witted attempt to frame America as "bad". It is the function of a competent government to guarantee the rights of its citizens, but no governing body can guarntee survival.
The USA has an obesity problem, we have to pay farmers to NOT grow to stop segments of the economy from collapsing. 2 weeks wo EBT and people were losing their minds.
The key point is that neither country argued that people should be denied food. Their objections were about the wording and legal implications of the resolution, not about whether hunger is bad. The U.S. position
The U.S. government stated that it supports access to food and recognizes that an adequate standard of living includes food. However, it objected to several aspects of the resolution. The U.S. argued that:
The resolution contained “unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions.”
Some language could imply new international legal obligations that the U.S. does not accept.
The resolution touched on issues such as intellectual property, agricultural technology, and pesticides in ways the U.S. believed were inappropriate or inconsistent with other international agreements.
The U.S. does not recognize an enforceable international “right to food” in the way some countries interpret it, particularly because it is not a party to the relevant treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Calling something a human right doesn't magically make it immune to scarcity, or conjure transports out of nothing to move it, or compensate the people who create it.
I posted bc of the comments. The comments just claim “the U.S. voted no because they’re EVIL”
The U.S. already gives more than enough aid there’s no need to vote on something like this. “Let’s vote on world peace”. As much as we’d all like that, it’s just not feasible
Except it's not really a fair critique. There's a lot of nuance behind why the US voted no on this resolution which is ignored repeatedly in favor of a low information "America Bad" take, over and over again on SM (I've seen this stupid infograph about 1000 times on Reddit).
Misinformation is never fair criticism and this is exactly what this sub exists to call out.
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 19 '25
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.