Hunger is a security warning, not a distant tragedy - Professor Stuart Gordon tells LBC News

Hunger is increasingly a warning signal of political instability rather than a distant humanitarian tragedy. Speaking to LBC News on World Hunger Day, Professor Stuart Gordon examined how food insecurity can precede conflict, undermine public health and amplify global security risks , and why treating hunger as an early alarm, not an after‑effect, is now essential.

On Thursday May 28, speaking to LBC News on World Hunger Day, I tried to make one point plainly: hunger is not a background condition. It is an alarm bell. Hear the full discussion in the audio clip below.

For too long, hunger has been treated as a humanitarian emergency that erupts after political failure: after war, displacement, or institutional breakdown. That is true, but it is only half the story. The more unsettling conclusion emerging from work I am doing with United Against Malnutrition & Hunger (UAMH) is that hunger can also precede instability. It is not just a symptom of crisis; it can be one of its earliest predictors.

The mechanisms are not mysterious. When food prices rise faster than wages, when fertiliser and fuel become unaffordable, when trade corridors are disrupted and harvests disappoint, households do not experience these pressures as macroeconomic trends. They experience them as empty plates, debts, school withdrawals and impossible choices. Trust in government becomes fragile. Rumour and grievance travel faster than policy. Protest, displacement and conflict become more likely.

That is why pressure around the Strait of Hormuz matters far beyond the Middle East… A crisis at one maritime chokepoint can become a crisis of livelihoods thousands of miles away.

That is why pressure around the Strait of Hormuz matters far beyond the Middle East. Disruption to oil, fertiliser and food shipments is not an abstract market event. It arrives in fragile economies as higher transport costs, more expensive agricultural inputs and sharper food inflation, just as planting seasons begin across parts of Africa. A crisis at one maritime chokepoint can become a crisis of livelihoods thousands of miles away.

There is also a public health dimension. Hunger weakens bodies and health systems at the same time. Malnourished children are more vulnerable to infection; overstretched clinics struggle to contain disease. Where Ebola and other epidemic-prone diseases already pose risks, food insecurity can intensify movement, undermine trust in authorities and make public health measures harder to sustain. Outbreaks do not emerge in a vacuum; they exploit social stress.

The scale is already alarming. More than 266 million people faced life-threatening acute hunger in 2025, while billions cannot afford a healthy diet. If conflict involving Iran continues and oil remains above $100 a barrel, the World Food Programme estimates that 45 million more people could face acute hunger. These are not only humanitarian figures. They are indicators of political risk.

This does not mean hunger automatically produces violence. Societies are not machines, and people facing hunger are not inherently unstable. But hunger prevention should be treated as anticipatory action, not charitable afterthought. Nutrition programmes, support to local markets, protection of supply chains and partnerships with trusted local actors are practical tools for reducing risk.

For the UK, this is not only a moral question. It is strategic realism. Hunger can reshape migration routes, destabilise regions of diplomatic and economic importance, and increase the costs of later intervention. The cheapest, most humane and most effective time to act is before hunger becomes collapse.

World Hunger Day should prompt more than compassion. It should prompt attention. Hunger is one of the clearest signals that a society is under intolerable strain. Taking it seriously is not alarmism. It is prevention.