The influence of market forces on academic careers and related publication bias is very strong; thus "group think" also extends to downplaying the risk from climate change and, more broadly, civilization’s collapse. I suggest it infects a good fraction of academics, including the Rome Consensus. Paul Ehrlich argues similarly.
1. Its persistent focus on food production rather than genuine support for the redistribution of the determinants of food entitlement. This is tacit support for the Pareto Principle,[ii] (developed by Mussolini’s favourite economist). This might be changing?
4. Collective dismissal (or at least oversight) of the science behind the World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity (WSWH) (1992) which led to its wildly optimistic World Food Summit hunger target set in 1996 at the lavish World Food Summit meeting. Note that Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug (“father” of the Green Revolution), who favoured family planning was a signatory of the WSWH.
5. FAO’s delay, suggestive of complacency, to consider climate change and food security as important until 2003, when the literature raised this as serious since at least 1994.
6. In SOFI 2012 the FAO re-defined the MDG target associated with hunger. This reflects poor scholarship and oversight, rather than ideology, as the error is extremely embarrassing (or should be!) In SOFI 2013, the FAO reverted to the original (correct) MDG definition, without explanation, admission of error, nor apology.
7. Changing the way the FAO measures hunger in ways to make the MDG target look less out of reach. However -- perhaps -- the new method is an improvement.
If a theatre is in fire the observer has a duty to raise the alarm. The world today already has 700-900 million people undernourished in macronutrient terms, with the well-being of billions more at threat. Agreeing with the Rome Consensus will not help those people; loud complaining might yet do some good.
[ii] Essentially, that redistribution should always be avoided by growth, so that a bigger pie is shared, so that the poor are assisted without reducing the wealth of the rich.