UN vote to make food a right

Only in America are guns considered a right but food isn't. Insane.

Israel really disappointed me this time.

If you vote against, you are automatically categorized as cruel and ignorant - because who is so evil as to be against giving poor people food?
But the question is, what is really the practicality of this decision? Am I violating human rights if I eat a banana that a poor person on the other side of the world cannot afford?
I think we spend too much time on defining human rights, instead of asking ourselves what are our obligations as individuals, collectives or nations. If we invest more in being kind and generous etc instead of creating an endless money machine for organizations that are feeding their existence off of rich people's definitions for poverty and human rights - we would have probably been in a better place and with less hunger and poverty.

Has anything changed as a result of this vote and have concrete actions been proposed to defeat hunger ?
Or is it another vote «for all the good» and «against all the bad» ?

On the territory of the former USSR, such a joke is common:«I have the right to eat - yes, I can - no»
(in Russian, the word «eat» and «have» is written and sounds the same, wordplay:
«У меня есть право есть - есть, я могу - нет»)

If they don't make this a right there won't be any food left. Just my two cents

what is this? a survey? who asked the questions, who were the representatives that spoke for each country?

i only did a little research, but as far as i can tell this is from 2017...

Free speech and freedom are rights because those don't infringe on anybody else. My right to say what I want doesn't prohibit anyone else's. But making a resource a right would mean someone without food would have the right to take food from someone who has it, regardless of the circumstances. They have a right to food after all. This does nothing to put food into the hands of those who need it, it's just a UN circle jerk, with the worst offenders against human rights acting like they're such humanitarians because they're voting on the right side of history.

The idea itself is nice and I am all for the effort to end hunger, but I am not sure on the practical side of this result. What good comes of this?

No, because there is no practical possibility to execute this right. It's just a nice thing to say. I think a lot more should be spent to combat global hunger, but "food is a right" won't put food on the tables of poor Southern children

This is as practical and possible as trying to end stupidity.
After this becomes a right, how will it be enforced? What will be the penalty? Who will foot the bill?
I only see more purposefully jobless people refusing work because they now have a right to food...of all things. Those that need it...really need it won't ever get to exercise this right.
I would rather they make education a right and teach common sense.

Japan did not follow its ally, the U.S., because of its "starvation" culture...
If you have experienced hunger in the past, you would think so.
Or if you have been taught the history of hunger, you would agree.
But what if you have not been taught the history of hunger?
Or what if hunger is an ongoing problem?

I think that's where the answer lies.
Hunger in the United States - Wikipedia
2016 pdf
It said that Israel has the highest rate of hunger in the developed world.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Human rights are not defined to make things automatic and enforce some kind of care bear global communist system.
The point of UN defined human rights is to make it possible to sanction governments which make laws that go against these rights.

Liberty is a human right as defined by the UN. It doesn't mean people can't go to jail.

Ahh the UN, when was the last time they can actually solve any major problem?

Israeli Occupation?
Cambodia Violence?
Srebrenica Massacre?
Iraq invasion?
Syrian civil war?
Rohingya Crisis?
The Uyghurs?

They can't do shit, because they don't have any forcing power.

Now world hunger?

Remember when the UN suggest Elon Musk donate 2% of his wealth to "solve world hunger"?
Elon challenged them back to give him a detailed plan on how $6.6 billion can "solve world hunger",
and the UN replied with this plan.

Will it help people in need? Yes
But will it solve world hunger? Definitely not.

It will only postpone the problem. Once the food supply sent is depleted, they will need more because they can't sustain themselves.
The solution is more complex than just giving them food.

Why they are on the brink of famine in the first place?
How can we help them make a self-sustainable system that can solve their food need?

I guess that's is more the answer that Elon is looking for.
And because the UN doesn't have any forcing power, it will be extremely difficult for them to do that.

After making food a basic right, then what?
How will they enforce that?

But I hope that I'm wrong and they can actually make the world a better place.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/gashc4336.doc.htm

While this draft resolution acknowledges such hardships, it also contains unbalanced and inaccurate positions that the United States cannot support. She expressed concern that the concept of food sovereignty could justify food protectionism, which will have negative consequences for food security. The United States does not recognize the right to food, which does not have a definition in international law.

Well, while it does sound funny, maybe we should firstly look at what the propositions for this "right for food" was. While I dont doubt US could refuse a valid suggestion maybe we should first look at the proposition itself. UN is pretty much a joke and it wouldnt be a surprise if US vote against it could be based. How about not making uneducated guesses to stir up arguments ?

If liberty and human rights have to be (re-)defined by a global organisation, they can also be dictated by that global organisation.
When common sense is over-ruled by a legal hierarchy, then the basic premise of any inherent freedom is undermined.

As far as I can tell, too many countries are just sheep... agreeing with a document with just enough loopholes and jargon to cloud over the real agenda they're likely wanting to roll out over time.

If the UN itself can grow and provide food for every single person on Earth for free, then I am all for it. Gimme the free gibs. If it costs too much, then I am also for each employee doing so without getting salaries until every person is fed.

It wouldn't be the first time a title of a bill or resolution was tailored for propaganda purposes rather than as an accurate summary of the same.

Food, water and a roof should be a right.

People not having access to food has nothing to do with whether or not it's labeled a right by the UN. It's a matter of not having the money and resources to buy food. Even if it's a right who's going to pay for it?

Now instead of paying all these people at the UN big salaries to do meaningless things like this, that money was put towards the provision of food... nah then these righteous UN people wouldn't have their BMWs and Mercedes and fancy houses and those are their "rights".

Meanwhile dumb people on the internet will parrot along "yeah bro it's a right yo look at me SJW!"

This is, as most UN resolutions are, a non-binding, symbolical, completely bureaucratic, virtue-signaling vote.
US and Israel were the only countries not to fall into nonsense by approving a resolution that changes nothing, and puts no food on anybodys table.
"The regular United Nations budget for the 2018/2019 biennium, approved by the 73rd session of the General Assembly on 22 December 2018, amounts to 5.811 billion US dollars, inclusive of all supplements."
That money could be spent developing agriculture, more resistant crops, irrigation systems, education, etc. That would feed people. Instead, most of it is big salaries for bureaucrats, plane tickets, symbolic votings and discussion that solve nothing and lead nowhere.

This is from almost 5 years ago, why are you posting it now as if it were "news?"

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/