8

Some sources (such as Amnesty International) claim that denial of "right to food" in North Korea violates internationally agreed right to life.

I wonder whether Western countries guarantee right to food?

If somebody has no food to eat, can they receive necessary food for free from the state (as opposed to non-governmental/religious organizations)?

Improve this question
15
  • 6
    Your question, as currently written suffers from a fallacy reffered to as Begging the Question You have a premise that you incorrectly equate from a governement actively preventing its people from having ANY food to the right to free(as in beer) food for everyone.
    – SoylentGray
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 16:19
  • 1
    @JNK Amnesty International, for example: refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/…
    – Anixx
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 17:51
  • 2
    @Anixx _ I am not trying to argue the logic of your arguement. Just saying that as written your question suffers from logical fallacy. Rewrite the question to focus on the rights of the poor to have food given to them if you wish but you need to remove the reference to the rights being violated by NK when you do so.
    – SoylentGray
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 18:23
  • 3
    @Anixx - We are interested in answering well written quesitons. You resist our efforts to help you improve your question makes us loath to bother answering your poorly asked question.
    – SoylentGray
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 18:35
  • 2
    Have you ever heard the expression "the right to swing your fist ends at my face?" you have a right to food, but that does not nullify others' property rights.
    – Andy
    Commented Jun 25, 2017 at 21:44

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food to low- and no-income people living in the U.S. It is a federal aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, though benefits are distributed by individual U.S. states.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm lists eligibility requirements.

Anyone with less than $threshold of assets and income qualifies, with one caveat: if you're an unemployed able-bodied adult (not disabled, child or senior), you must qualify also for "able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office". Basically, if you look to the SS office like you are looking for work with any convincing degree of effort, you pass.

As far as I know, most western countries have an equivalent, frequently with LESS of eligibility requirements (e.g. you don't even need to show effort to find work for "Income Support" in UK - they didn't have Food Stamps per se till ~2012 or so, just cash help).

Improve this answer
13
  • 6
    You have to show effort in finding a job in order to qualify for income support in the UK, no matter what some tabloids do say. The requirements are minimal, I admit, it used to be you had to apply to a job a week. Not doing this or not attending interviews etc could lose you that benefit.
    – Ben
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 21:50
  • 1
    @Ben actually, people that I know who have broken the terms of their JSA (for the benefit of non-UK readers: Jobseeker's Allowance is the income support Ben mentioned, as its name suggests you need to be actively looking for work in order to qualify for it) agreement still have access to some funds. It's an even smaller amount than the JSA, but the government won't just leave people to starve.
    – evilsoup
    Commented Apr 25, 2013 at 15:36
  • 6
    I raise a skeptical eyebrow that foodstamps is a right, per se. I think it is appropriate, and in most cases a legitimate use of government resources, but a right? Rights are passive in nature where the government is obligated to not do something, like punish people for expressing themselves, force them to worship a certain god, etc. I have a difficult time reconciling a "right" to food with a governmental obligation to do anything but govern.
    – Jeremy Holovacs
    Commented Apr 25, 2013 at 18:42
  • 7
    @Jeremy Holovacs seems it is a pecularity of your perception. Nearly all countries guarantee first medical aid (not providing it considered a homicide), some countries guarantee shelter adn employment as fundamental rights (as all Socialist countries did). Recently some countries declared Internet access as fundamental right and provide free internet link to anybody.
    – Anixx
    Commented Apr 26, 2013 at 15:41
  • 6
    @Jeremy Holovacs France, Spain and Greece never been socialist countries.
    – Anixx
    Commented Apr 26, 2013 at 16:23
2

The United States does not recognize an enforceable treaty or legal right to food. It has a welfare system that largely provides food, but it is not based upon any legally enforceable human rights obligation.

Improve this answer
4
  • If it comes out the same and people in the US do not starve to death, it's pretty much the same in practice I'd say. Btw. what does "a welfare system that largely provides food" mean. Does it provide food or under which circumstances wouldn't it?
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Apr 1 at 18:29
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution The U.S. welfare system has holes that sometimes leaves people malnourished.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented Apr 1 at 19:49
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution: The availability of food is more complicated than a simple checkbox exercise. Some people don't have a "real" grocery store nearby. Some people don't have enough money to afford "real" food. Some people have not been educated about their nutritional requirements. Some people have been lied to about their nutritional requirements. And as ohwilleke says, some people are denied access to welfare.
    – Kevin
    Commented Apr 2 at 0:01
  • @Kevin Things can always go wrong everywhere. But it seems that welfare in the US doesn't have nutrition as an explicit goal, and maybe would profit from that.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Apr 2 at 5:17
1

In a developed European country there is always food in the shop, question is only if it would be money to buy.

A common solution is one or another kind of "social insurance" that is mandatory and should provide the basic existence if no savings, no sellable property and no other money remain available, also really no any kind of job is possible for a person. If the person is a foreigner, some effort may be tried to expell one but till not done, social security works anyway.

A detailed document on how social security works in Switzerland can be found here. It may be different in other countries but the basic idea should be clear.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .