Information about the Aspen Ideas Festival is here. I am scheduled for a session, The American Wellness Paradox, currently scheduled from 11:00-11:50 a.m., at the East Lawn Tent. This will be a discussion with senior HHS policy advisor, Calley Means. Here’s the blurb on it: “Americans are spending more than ever on healthcare, supplements, wellness trends, and “clean eating,” yet rates of chronic disease and metabolic illness continue to climb. As skepticism fuels the rise of movements like MAHA, debates over what Americans should eat have become deeply cultural, political, and economic. Two influential voices with sharply different perspectives on nutrition and food science explore how food systems, farming practices, consumer culture, and the wellness industry collided to create one of the defining public health debates of our time.”
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.
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.
