Global Hunger Falls From 35% in 1970 to 7.8% 60%

By Ronald Bailey74%

7/22/2026, 8:15:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 50.2% saturation with 119 hits. Analysis detected 634 faulty-reasoning hits from 237 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,549 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.60% of the article peer group.

Global hunger declined for the third consecutive year, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 report. 
The new report estimates that 7.8 percent of the world's people were undernourished in 2025. 
The FAO report notes that less than 2.5 percent of people living in the U.S., Canada, Eastern Asia, and Europe are undernourished. 
Therefore, its calculations chiefly encompass the extent of hunger in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and the rest of Asia. 
Armed conflict and violence remain the primary drivers of acute food insecurity in 12 out of 13 hunger hotspots identified by the World Food Programme and the FAO. 
The drop to 7.8 percent is a huge improvement since 1970, when undernourishment afflicted nearly 35 percent of people living in developing countries. 
The new estimate is down from 8.1 percent in 2024 and 8.5 percent in 2023. 
Overall, 645 million people were still facing hunger in 2025. 
While that is good news, the new estimate remains above the pre-pandemic nadir of 7.2 percent in 2017. 
The FAO report projects that the level of hunger will decline by 20 percent during the rest of this decade, but that 510 million people will still be undernourished in 2030. 
This trend falls well short of the United Nations' sustainable development goal of zero hunger by 2030. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 8.3%Reason.com: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Ronald Bailey: 2.4%Reason.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 5.0%Reason.com: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.3%Ronald Bailey: 3.0%Reason.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Ronald Bailey: 2.9%Reason.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias18.1%This article: 20.3%Ronald Bailey: 5.6%Reason.com: 6.2%Framing Effect20.3%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.2%Ronald Bailey: 0.9%Reason.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.8%Ronald Bailey: 5.1%Reason.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias22.8%This article: 7.2%Ronald Bailey: 1.8%Reason.com: 1.6%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 16.0%Ronald Bailey: 12.7%Reason.com: 8.0%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Ronald Bailey: 1.2%Reason.com: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error11.8%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.4%Reason.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Ronald Bailey: 1.0%Reason.com: 0.7%Halo Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 1.2%Reason.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Ronald Bailey: 3.2%Reason.com: 1.0%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.4%Reason.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 50.2%Ronald Bailey: 14.7%Reason.com: 3.9%Appeal to Authority50.2%This article: 13.1%Ronald Bailey: 2.9%Reason.com: 1.9%False Dilemma13.1%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 7.6%Reason.com: 6.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.9%Reason.com: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.7%Ronald Bailey: 6.4%Reason.com: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.3%Reason.com: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 2.2%Reason.com: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.2%Ronald Bailey: 2.2%Reason.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof7.2%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.3%Ronald Bailey: 3.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Composition/Division9.3%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 2.2%Reason.com: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.3%Reason.com: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Ronald Bailey: 0.8%Reason.com: 0.1%Middle Ground7.6%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.6%Reason.com: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.7%Reason.com: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.3%Ronald Bailey: 11.5%Reason.com: 10.1%Biased Writer Voice28.3%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 1.2%Reason.com: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.7%Reason.com: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ronald Bailey: 1.9%Reason.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

237 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers59%attributed speech98writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) • 28 words • 0.0% coverageFood and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) • 15 words • 0.0% coverageFood and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWorld Food Programme and the FAO • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words20% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-68.4 ptsWriter: 68.4%World Food Programme and the FAO: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.