According to the Global Hunger Index 2024, which was adopted by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Somalia was the most affected by hunger and malnutrition, with an index of 44.1. Yemen and Chad followed behind. The World Hunger Index combines three indicators: undernourishment, child underweight, and child mortality. Sub-Saharan Africa most affected The index is dominated by countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the region, more than one fifth of the population is undernourished . In terms of individuals, however, South Asia has the highest number of undernourished people. Globally, there are 735 million people that are considered undernourished or starving. A lack of food is increasing in over 20 countries worldwide. Undernourishment worldwide The term malnutrition includes both undernutrition and overnutrition. Undernutrition occurs when an individual cannot maintain normal bodily functions such as growth, recovering from disease, and both learning and physical work. Some conditions such as diarrhea, malaria, and HIV/AIDS can all have a negative impact on undernutrition. Rural and agricultural communities can be especially susceptible to hunger during certain seasons. The annual hunger gap occurs when a family’s food supply may run out before the next season’s harvest is available and can result in malnutrition. Nevertheless, the prevalence of people worldwide that are undernourished has decreased over the last decades, from 18.7 percent in 1990-92 to 9.2 percent in 2022, but it has slightly increased since the outbreak of COVID-19. According to the Global Hunger Index, the reduction of global hunger has stagnated over the past decade.

This dataset measures food availability and access for 76 low- and middle-income countries. The dataset includes annual country-level data on area, yield, production, nonfood use, trade, and consumption for grains and root and tuber crops (combined as R&T in the documentation tables), food aid, total value of imports and exports, gross domestic product, and population compiled from a variety of sources. This dataset is the basis for the International Food Security Assessment 2015-2025 released in June 2015. This annual ERS report projects food availability and access for 76 low- and middle-income countries over a 10-year period. Countries (Spatial Description, continued): Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: CSV File for all years and all countries. File Name: gfa25.csvResource Title: International Food Security country data. File Name: GrainDemandProduction.xlsxResource Description: Excel files of individual country data. Please note that these files provide the data in a different layout from the CSV file. This version of the data files was updated 9-2-2021

More up-to-date files may be found at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-food-security.aspx

Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan. Civilian deaths and atrocities It is believed that 60 to 67 percent of all deaths were civilian fatalities, largely resulting from war-related famine or disease, and war crimes or atrocities. Systematic genocide, extermination campaigns, and forced labor, particularly by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets, led to the deaths of millions. In this regard, Nazi activities alone resulted in 17 million deaths, including six million Jews in what is now known as The Holocaust. Not only was the scale of the conflict larger than any that had come before, but the nature of and reasoning behind this loss make the Second World War stand out as one of the most devastating and cruelest conflicts in history. Problems with these statistics Although the war is considered by many to be the defining event of the 20th century, exact figures for death tolls have proven impossible to determine, for a variety of reasons. Countries such as the U.S. have fairly consistent estimates due to preserved military records and comparatively few civilian casualties, although figures still vary by source. For most of Europe, records are less accurate. Border fluctuations and the upheaval of the interwar period mean that pre-war records were already poor or non-existent for many regions. The rapid and chaotic nature of the war then meant that deaths could not be accurately recorded at the time, and mass displacement or forced relocation resulted in the deaths of many civilians outside of their homeland, which makes country-specific figures more difficult to find. Early estimates of the war’s fatalities were also taken at face value and formed the basis of many historical works; these were often very inaccurate, but the validity of the source means that the figures continue to be cited today, despite contrary evidence.

In comparison to Europe, estimate ranges are often greater across Asia, where populations were larger but pre-war data was in short supply. Many of the Asian countries with high death tolls were European colonies, and the actions of authorities in the metropoles, such as the diversion of resources from Asia to Europe, led to millions of deaths through famine and disease. Additionally, over one million African soldiers were drafted into Europe’s armies during the war, yet individual statistics are unavailable for most of these colonies or successor states (notably Algeria and Libya). Thousands of Asian and African military deaths went unrecorded or are included with European or Japanese figures, and there are no reliable figures for deaths of millions from countries across North Africa or East Asia. Additionally, many concentration camp records were destroyed, and such records in Africa and Asia were even sparser than in Europe. While the Second World War is one of the most studied academic topics of the past century, it is unlikely that we will ever have a clear number for the lives lost in the conflict.

"Food deserts" are defined as areas where residents do not live near supermarkets or other food retailers that carry affordable and nutritious food.

This dataset describes the total and percentage of people in relation to their relative distance to a major grocery store and their poverty level within block groups of the San Diego County. The dataset is curated from multiple sources, such as the Census ACS and the California Economic Development Department, using methodology from the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The main dataset ("ESB Mobility Database") contains occupational data on 1,200 Irish immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the Famine years and could be tracked for at least a decade. We also present the most up-to-date version of our Emigrant Savings Bank Depositor Database, which contains data on all 15,000 people who opened accounts at the bank from 1850 to 1858. Also provided are data from the 1855 New York State census documenting the occupations of New York's entire Irish-born population as well as datasets documenting the occupations held by New York's Irish immigrants one year and ten years after their arrival in America,

This year’s Global Hunger Index (GHI) brings us face to face with a grim reality. The toxic cocktail of conflict, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic had already left millions exposed to food price shocks and vulnerable to further crises. Now the war in Ukraine, with its knock-on effects on global supplies of and prices for food, fertilizer, and fuel is turning a crisis into a catastrophe. The 2022 global GHI score shows that progress in tackling hunger has largely halted. Other indicators reveal the tragic scale of the unfolding crisis. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 reported that in 2021 the number of undernourished people, an indicator of chronic hunger, rose to as many as 828 million. Further, according to the Global Report on Food Crises 2022, the number of people facing acute hunger also rose from 2020, reaching nearly 193 million in 2021. These impacts are now playing out across Africa South of the Sahara, South Asia, Central and South America, and beyond. As we face the third global food price crisis in 15 years, it is clearer than ever that our food systems in their current form are inadequate to the task of sustainably ending poverty and hunger. The global food crisis underway now is widely presented as an aftershock caused by the war in Ukraine. The severity and speed of the impacts on hunger have occurred largely, however, because millions of people were already living on the precarious edge of hunger, a legacy of past failures to build more just, sustainable, and resilient food systems. While it is urgent that the international community respond to these escalating humanitarian crises, it must not lose sight of the need for a long-term transformation of food systems. The shocks we have experienced reveal chronic vulnerabilities that will continue to put millions at risk of hunger. Past and current GHI reports highlight these persistent vulnerabilities and shows what actions can address immediate humanitarian needs and kick-start food system transformation. Rather than operating reactively, the international community must take proactive steps to actually make good on its international commitments and pledges, scaling them up and directing them toward emergency measures. Political attention and funding must be targeted toward evidence-based policies and investments that address structural obstacles to food and nutrition security. More high-quality and timely data are also needed so that we can monitor progress in these areas. This year’s GHI report considers one important avenue for food systems transformation: community action that engages local leaders and citizens in improving governance and accountability. The essay by Danielle Resnick provides promising examples from a variety of settings where citizens are finding innovative ways to amplify their voices in food system debates, including by tracking government performance and by engaging in multistakeholder platforms, and keeping decision-makers accountable for addressing food and nutrition insecurity and hunger. Encouragingly, examples of empowerment are just as visible in fragile contexts with high levels of societal fractionalization as they are in more stable settings with longer traditions of local democracy. It is critical to act now to rebuild food security on a new and lasting basis. Failure to do so means sleepwalking into the catastrophic and systematic food crises of the future. Much more can be done to ward off the worst impacts of the current crisis and set deep changes in motion rather than reinforcing the dangerous and unsustainable arrangements we now live with. We must ensure rights-based food systems governance at all levels, building on the initial steps taken at the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit. Governments and development partners must harness local voices, match local governance efforts to conditions and capacities on the ground, and support local leadership through capacity building and funding. Governments must enable citizens to participate fully in developing and monitoring public policies affecting food security while upholding a legal right to food. Prevention pays off. Investments made today can avert future crises that may be even more costly and tragic than what we now face. It has been said that the saddest words are “If only.” We may find ourselves saying, “If only past generations had used their time and resources to do what was needed to end hunger and ensure the right to food for all.” May the next generation not say the same of us.

"Food deserts" are defined as areas where residents do not live near supermarkets or other food retailers that carry affordable and nutritious food.

This dataset describes the total and percentage of people in relation to their relative distance to a major grocery store and their poverty level in the San Diego County. The dataset is curated from multiple sources, such as the Census ACS and the California Economic Development Department, using methodology from the Economic Research Service (ERS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The 2012 GHI report focuses particularly on the issue of how to ensure sustainable food security under conditions of water, land, and energy stress. Demographic changes, rising incomes and associated consumption patterns, and climate change, alongside persistent poverty and inadequate policies and institutions, are all placing serious pressure on natural resources. In this report, IFPRI describes the evidence on land, water, and energy scarcity in developing countries and offers two visions of a future global food system—an unsustainable scenario in which current trends in resource use continue, and a sustainable scenario in which access to food, modern energy, and clean water improves significantly and ecosystem degradation is halted or reversed. Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe provide on-the-ground perspectives on the issues of land tenure and title as well as the impacts of scarce land, water, and energy on poor people in Sierra Leone and Tanzania and describe the work of their organizations in helping to alleviate these impacts. See other formats of data here: Linked Open Data (LOD) -- [OWL Version] and [RDF Version] See visual data at: Data Visualization

https://map.feedingamerica.org/Every community in the country is home to people who struggle with hunger. Since federal nutrition programs don’t reach everyone in need, food banks help fill the gap. Learn more about local food insecurity by exploring data from Feeding America’s annual Map the Meal Gap study. When we better understand hunger, we can help end hunger.What is food insecurity and what does it look like in America?Food insecurity refers to USDA’s measure of lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. Food-insecure households are not necessarily food insecure all the time. Food insecurity may reflect a household’s need to make trade-offs between important basic needs, such as housing or medical bills, and purchasing nutritionally adequate foods.Gundersen, C., A. Dewey, M. Kato, A. Crumbaugh & M. Strayer. Map the Meal Gap 2019: A Report on County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and County Food Cost in the United States in 2017. Feeding America, 2019.

https://map.feedingamerica.org/Every community in the country is home to people who struggle with hunger. Since federal nutrition programs don’t reach everyone in need, food banks help fill the gap. Learn more about local food insecurity by exploring data from Feeding America’s annual Map the Meal Gap study. When we better understand hunger, we can help end hunger.What is food insecurity and what does it look like in America?Food insecurity refers to USDA’s measure of lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods. Food-insecure households are not necessarily food insecure all the time. Food insecurity may reflect a household’s need to make trade-offs between important basic needs, such as housing or medical bills, and purchasing nutritionally adequate foods.Notes from Feeding America regarding dIfferences from previous studies:1. Beginning in 2020, we enhanced our food insecurity model through the inclusion of a disability rate variable and refining our poverty measure to reflect non-undergraduate student poverty. The details surrounding this changed are discussed in our technical brief. Because of this methodology changes, the estimates from Map the Meal Gap 2020 are not comparable to estimates from previous years.2. In response to COVID-19, we expanded on Map the Meal Gap to include a companion study and interactive map that discuss our projections in food insecurity as a result of the pandemic. They may also be of interest to check out.

Gundersen, C., A. Dewey, E. Engelhard, M. Strayer & L. Lapinski. Map the Meal Gap 2020: A Report on County and Congressional District Food Insecurity and County Food Cost in the United States in 2018. Feeding America, 2020.