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

By Ronald Bailey73%

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% (8,297 of 20,311 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.20% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
13.5%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
9.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
18.1%
Framing Effect
20.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
7.2%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
22.8%
Pessimism Bias
7.2%
Negativity Bias
16%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
11.8%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
9.7%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
50.2%
False Dilemma
13.1%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
9.7%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
7.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
9.3%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
7.6%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
28.3%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

237 words analyzed.

Analysis

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