The call has come from Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States Secretary of State, who addressed a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome.

She said that according to World Bank figures, 44 million people have been pushed into poverty since just last June, because of rising food prices.

Secretary Clinton warned of the grave consequences, if the situation remains similar to the last rise in food prices in 2007 and 2008.

The United States is the world’s largest supplier of food aid, reaching 55 million people in 46 countries last year, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

That assistance has saved millions of lives over the years. But something has been missing, says Tufts University’s Patrick Webb.

“There was a bit of an impression that as long as you delivered food, that was enough. And really, what we have been arguing and demonstrating is that, no, just any old food isn’t enough.”

Webb says that’s especially true for young children. In the new report commissioned by USAID which was released Tuesday in Washington, Webb and his colleagues note that malnutrition during the first 1,000 days of life — from the womb to age two — can cause irreparable damage to a child’s growth and brain development. That in turn impacts a child’s ability to learn and ultimately lowers national productivity.

The report recommends more nutritious foods for children under two and pregnant women.

Read more at Voice of America

When food prices rise, they mostly affect poorer countries and families that spend a larger percentage of their yearly income on food. The cost of food, compared to what an average American individual or family spends during a year, is a sizable chunk, but it’s certainly less so than media outlets might have you believe – and definitely far less than the 60-80% that families in developing nations spend yearly on food. In developing countries, rising food prices are certainly pushing people further into poverty and despair, but in the developed world, rising food prices are much less of an issue than you’d think from reading the news.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American is spending about 10% of their annual income on total food spending, and about 60% of that on groceries and 40% on eating away from home. So, even if food prices are expected to rise by 2%, when the average American is spending $6,372 per year on food, in total, you’re looking at a cost rise of $127.44, or just over $10 per month, or 34 cents per day. It’s a negligible amount for the national average, yet it still seems to cause a lot of panic and attention-grabbing news headlines. This is most likely because of the way Americans spend money; Americans spend nearly double the amount on transportation than they do on eating at home, and entertainment spending is just 30% less than the cost of buying groceries.

When it comes down to it, Americans will not be affected much by rising food prices, despite what fear-mongering media outlets will have you believe. To illustrate, the average movie ticket price was around $7.5 in 2009; if movie prices went up $1 to $8.50, an increase of 13%, it would have probably have a more substantial effect on the American budget than cheese increasing in cost by 2%.

The agriculture company has been trimming expenses but also is on a buying spree, purchasing Unilever‘s condiments business in Brazil this year, along with other acquisitions. CEO Greg Page said in a statement that improved earnings came at a time of “volatile commodity markets and geopolitical change.” He credited the company’s “ability to focus on the factors of supply and demand” and “gauging external events.”

Earnings fell in Cargill’s agricultural services segment, though it was boosted by farmers’ demand for “grain marketing and price risk management services.” Cargill produces and markets food, agricultural and industrial products and services, as well as accompanying financial services such as trading and risk management.

Read more at Forbes