***** Food is not a human right
...[I]n 1982 and 1983, the US was alone in voting against a declaration that education, work, health care, proper nourishment and national development are human rights. It would appear that even 13 years later, official American attitudes had not "softened". In 1996, at a United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit, the US took issue with an affirmation by the summit of the "right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food". The United States insisted that it does not recognize a "right to food". Washington instead championed free trade as the key to ending the poverty at the root of hunger, and expressed fears that recognition of a "right to food" could lead to lawsuits from poor nations seeking aid and special trade provisions.
^^^^^^^
CB: This phenonmenon is an illustration of the oft debated here difference between philosophical idealist and materialist conceptions of rights. For materialists, the right to a living, including of course adequate food is the material premise for all other rights. If you can't eat , you can't speak, and your right to freedom of speech is effectively undermined.
The U.S. falls to world outlaw/backward status in being the only country that does not recognize the materialist advance over the 18th Century and idealist limited conception of rights. And of course the U.S. also realizes that a materialist conception of rights is a basis for a socialist organization of society, and opposes basic rights like that to food and health care in its defense of capitalism. The capitalist system must have a relative surplus population that is in poverty and desparation and hunger.