Since 1954, the US has given large quantities of food aid (1.4 million metric tonnes in 2012) to "food deficit" countries, either in the form of emergency assistance during a disaster or for projects such as school lunch programs. This week, Congress rejected major reforms to food aid that, in my opinion, would have been great steps in the right direction.
Food aid policy history:
1954 Public Law 480 - the US committed to give surplus grain to countries in need; however, the primary purpose was to get rid of excess grain, thus supporting grain prices for US farmers and promoting international trade (i.e. giving a bit selfishly)
1966 Food for Peace Act - amendments were made which shifted the focus of food aid to address humanitarian needs, but did not make really substantial changes.
Until now, about 95% of food is sent from the US (rather than purchased regionally). The implications may be:
- Depressed food prices, which may hurt local farmers
- It takes 150 days for food sent from the US to reach the location of an emergency crisis versus 37 days if it is bought regionally
The new law would have allowed up to 45% of food to be procured locally or regionally, allowing food to reach it's destination in much better time. We can no longer argue that this would hurt US farmers - the amount of food aid pales in comparison to demand for grain used for cattle feed and ethanol.
The unfortunate part, of course, is that starving people we plan to help will just have to wait to eat an extra 113 days.
