In 2021, one hundred and eighty countries looked at a resolution that said “food is a human right” and voted yes. Two countries looked at the same resolution and voted no. The United States and Israel. The world’s wealthiest, most militarized nations, standing alone against the proposition that people deserve to eat.
Let that number sink in. 180-2. That’s not a disagreement. That’s not a debate. That’s the entire planet looking at two countries and saying “what the fuck is wrong with you?”
The US excuse was “unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise.” Translation: this might require us to actually do something. This might create obligations. This might mean that hunger isn’t just an unfortunate consequence of market forces but a violation of something fundamental.
And we can’t have that…
The US position is that food would be a “positive right.” One that requires action and resources, rather than a “negative right” like free speech that only requires restraint. But this is a philosophical distinction that only matters if you’re trying to avoid obligation. The right to life means nothing without the right to the thing that sustains life. You can’t have a right to exist without a right to eat.
That’s not philosophy.
That’s biology.
And then the definition dodge: “The right to food has no definition in international law.” Circular logic. It has no definition because the US refuses to define it. You can’t define something you refuse to recognize. And you refuse to recognize it because defining it would create obligations. The cycle is the point. The obfuscation is the policy.
Here’s what makes the vote truly sickening: the resolution was non-binding. The US and Israel could have voted yes and done nothing, like plenty of other shitty regimes did. They went out of their way to vote no on something that wouldn’t have required them to do a goddamn thing. That’s not pragmatism. That’s principle. The principle that food is not a right. The principle that hunger is not a violation. The principle that people do not deserve to eat by virtue of being alive.
The resolution specifically criticized “unilateral coercive measures,” sanctions, as violations of human rights that create hunger. The US representative defended sanctions by claiming they “minimize impact on vulnerable communities” and cited Syria and Venezuela as examples where the US provides aid.
But this is the abuser saying “I only hit you in places that don’t show.” The US sanctions regime has devastated food systems in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and elsewhere. The vote wasn’t just about food. It was about protecting the right to starve people into submission.
The US specifically rejected any reading that would suggest states have obligations to people outside their borders. But US foreign policy affects food systems worldwide. Sanctions. Trade agreements. Structural adjustment programs. Military interventions that destroy agriculture. All of these create hunger. And the US wants no accountability for any of it. They’ll bomb your farms and then tell you they have no obligation to feed you. They’ll sanction your government into collapse and then say your hunger isn’t their problem. They’ll destroy your food system and then vote against your right to the thing they destroyed.
Who benefits from food not being a right? Agribusiness. Food corporations. The companies that profit from hunger. The ones who treat food as a commodity instead of a necessity. The ones who destroy local agriculture, monopolize seed supplies, and create dependency. The US vote protects their interests. Never the interests of the hungry.
And during the pandemic, corporate-dominated food supply chains collapsed while people turned to farmers’ markets, smaller businesses, and social enterprises. The system the US protects doesn’t work. It failed when it was needed most. And the US response was to vote against the right to the thing the system failed to provide. That’s not policy. That’s malice.
The US has 38 million people experiencing food insecurity. One in six children in the US doesn’t have enough to eat. The richest country in the history of the world can’t feed its own people and refuses to recognize that it should. In the same year as the UN vote, Maine voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to food. Even within the US, there’s recognition that this is a right. But the federal government disagrees. Because federal policy serves corporate interests, not human needs. Not your needs. Not your children’s needs. The needs of the people who profit from your hunger.
And that hunger isn’t distributed equally. The UN special rapporteur specifically called out the USDA’s history of racism, from the Homestead Act’s displacement of Indigenous people to continued discrimination against Black farmers. Food insecurity in the US isn’t an accident. It’s concentrated in Black and brown communities. The vote against the right to food was a vote to maintain that disparity. A vote to keep the existing architecture of starvation intact. A vote to make sure the right people stay hungry.
The US position treats food as charity. Something given. Something that can be taken away. Something dependent on the generosity of donors and the efficiency of aid programs. Not something owed. Not something deserved. Not something you have a right to by virtue of being alive. This is the core disagreement. The 180 countries that voted yes said food is a right. The two that voted no said food is a gift. And gifts come with conditions. Conditions like compliance. Conditions like obedience. Conditions like accepting the system that made you hungry in the first place.
The resolution reaffirmed that “starvation of civilians as a method of combat” is prohibited. The US voted against this. In 2021. Before the current catastrophe. But the vote was a forecast. The country that voted against the prohibition on starving civilians is now providing weapons and diplomatic cover to a country doing exactly that.
Eighty-two percent of croplands in Gaza damaged. Ninety-six percent of cattle dead. Ninety-nine percent of poultry dead. Israel banned all food and medicine from reaching 2.3 million Palestinians for nearly three months. The volume of aid trickling in is so small that UN officials call it a fraction of what’s needed. Gaza is now the “hungriest place on Earth.” At least 115 Palestinians, including many children, have died from starvation since October 2023. Most of these deaths occurred in recent weeks. And tons of humanitarian aid remain stuck at Gaza’s borders as Israeli authorities continue to restrict entry.
The vote wasn’t abstract. It was preparation. It was permission. It was the US telling the world “we reserve the right to starve people when it serves our interests.” And then doing exactly that.
And when Palestinians try to get the little aid that exists? Israeli forces have killed over 1,000 Palestinian aid seekers and left more than 5,000 injured at US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund centers in the past few months. The US response? More weapons. More vetoes. More cover.
The US doesn’t just vote against food rights. It votes against accountability. The International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute. Every mechanism that might constrain its power or Israel’s. When the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant in 2024 for alleged war crimes in Gaza, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to sanction ICC officials, including judges and their family members. The US provides Israel with at least $3.8 billion in military aid annually and has sent an additional $14 billion since the Gaza war began. And it will sanction international judges before it will allow Israel to face accountability for how those weapons are used.
The US has vetoed multiple UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. In February 2024, the vote was 13 in favor, 1 against, with the UK abstaining. Thirteen countries said stop the killing. One country said no. Guess which one.
The 2021 vote wasn’t an anomaly. It was a data point in a pattern of opposition to any international obligation that might limit what they can do to other people.
And the vote happened during a global food crisis. Supply chains collapsed. Prices skyrocketed. 2.4 billion people lacked adequate food. And the US said no. At the exact moment when the need was most visible, when the bodies were most visible, when the hunger was most visible, the US chose to stand against it. That’s not oversight. That’s not bureaucracy. That’s looking at the starving and saying “you don’t deserve to eat.”
The real question isn’t “is food a right?” It’s “who gets to decide if you eat?” The US position is clear: the market decides. Profit decides. Power decides. Not right. Not need. Not dignity. The 180 countries that voted yes are saying that hunger is a policy choice, not an inevitability. The two that voted no are saying the same thing. They just prefer the choice that leaves people hungry. The choice that makes your hunger a feature, not a bug.
If Israel recognized food as a human right, it would be accepting a more formal responsibility for feeding the people it keeps imprisoned in Gaza. It would be open to accusations of hypocrisy each time it chooses to shut off their food supply. The vote wasn’t about principle. It was about protecting the right to use hunger as a weapon.
180-2. That’s the vote. That’s the record. The US and Israel stood alone against the world on the question of whether people deserve to eat. Not whether they should eat. Whether they deserve to. And they said no. That’s not a policy position. That’s a confession. The country that sanctions civilians into starvation. The country that blockades food from reaching the hungry. The country that lets 38 million of its own people go without enough to eat while it throws billions at weapons and wars. The country that provides the weapons and the vetoes and the diplomatic cover for a state that has made Gaza the hungriest place on Earth. That country stood up in the United Nations and said no. Food is not a right. Hunger is not a violation. People do not deserve to eat by virtue of being alive.
180 countries disagreed. Two did not. And the two that didn’t are the ones with the power to make the hunger stop and the interest in making sure it never does. Because hunger isn’t a failure of their system. It’s the system working exactly as designed.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
