by Marion Nestle
Apr 11 2013

Food aid reform is up against intense lobbying

International food aid has long been fraught with politics.

Since 1954, our system for donating food for emergencies and aid has worked like this:

  • The government buys U.S. farm commodities.
  • It requires at least 75% of these commodities to be transported on U.S. ships.
  • The commodities are given to governments for emergency relief, or
  • They are given to American charitable organizations to sell so the groups can use the money to finance development projects (this is called “monetization”).

Other countries that donate food buy it internationally so it doesn’t have to be shipped long distances.

The U.S. is the only major donor country that uses food aid to benefit U.S. farmers, U.S. shipping companies, and U.S. charitable groups, and does not buy food aid internationally.

This system has long been known to undermine local agriculture and food systems, and to fail to get to those who need it most.   It takes months to get food aid where it is needed, and the entire enterprise is inefficient and unnecessarily expensive, according to a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office.

Now, says the New York Times, the Obama administration wants to fix these longstanding problems.

The Agency for International Development (USAID) wants the U.S. to:

  • Buy food in local countries (although 55% would still go to U.S. farmers)
  • End “monetization” to U.S. charitable organizations.

The mere suggestion of reform has elicited intense lobbying by—surprise!—shipping companies, agricultural trade organizations, and some, but by no means all, charitable groups.

Some aid groups, Oxfam, for example, strongly favor such changes.

But food aid is part of the farm bill (Title III).  This means that any changes to current programs would have to be passed by Congress.

Good luck with that in the present political environment.

Food aid, along with SNAP (food stamps), are key issues to watch as Congress tries again to write and pass a farm bill.  Stay tuned

Resources: The excellent discussion of this issue in the Hagstrom Report (April 10) provided links to relevant documents.

 

  •  

 

Comments

MSF (Doctors Without Borders) has also campaigned for improvements to USAid see http://www.starvedforattention.org/

  • Jon
  • April 11, 2013
  • 9:58 pm

I think the Farm Bill should not be renewed. I don’t like it.

Anything that has to do with the government will always have lobbyist bickering about funding. I can see why the shipping companies would be mad….this bill is as close to automatic income as it gets.

[...] to do with our current topic. Did she steal your syllabus? This time the topic is food aid (http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/04/food-aid-reform-is-up-against-intense-lobbying/) specifically reform of it.  Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like [...]

It seems that when there is any type of reform for the better, the lobbyists start swarming like locusts. Money has taken the place of common sense, it is very disheartening.

[...] Democrat on the Committee, issued a joint statement supporting Obama’s proposed reforms. But domestic agricultural interests have already mobilized against the proposals. The Farm Bill negotiations are likely to be particularly contentious this time around. Share [...]

I am hopeful the new administration will be stern about implementing change and reform to the current food aid policies. It’s unfortunate that the people who suffer the most are the ones simply looking to feed their families. Greed is all to often overshadowing the real issues and it’s quite disconcerting that the charitable organizations themselves are behind the lobbying. Hopefully progress can be made soon.

[...] proposed change has irked many members of Congress who represent agricultural states, as well as shipping companies and some [...]

[...] Food aid reform is up against intense lobbying. [...]

Leave a comment