A group of 21 food-industry organizations is lobbying the
United States government to continue buying domestic grain and meat to ship
overseas as aid.
It seems U.S. business is the real recipient of food aid, not hungry people overseas.
The way the United States handles its food aid programs has been widely condemned by many who work
in international relief and development.
Some features of the U.S. food aid program violate the terms
of a global voluntary set of disciplines on food aid.
The U.S. would be forced to comply with the global standards
if the new World Trade agreement, which has been under negotiation for 11
years, ever does get signed.
There is agreement to bring the voluntary code into the
trade agreement, which means disciplines could be enforced for failure to comply,
but the negotiations have been stalled for more than a year.
Agriculture reforms are the key stumbling block in those
negotiations. Third World countries, led by India, are also objecting to U.S.
pressure to open financial markets and adopt global standards for intellectual
property rights.
They say that growing, manufacturing, packaging and
transporting the food donations creates jobs and stimulates economic activity.
The U.S. lobbing groups sent a letter to the White House in support of
sustained funding for the program.
"Bags of U.S.-grown food bearing the U.S.
flag and stamped as 'From the American People' serve as ambassadors of our
nation’s goodwill, which can help to address the root causes of
instability," the groups wrote.
"In a time of growing global food insecurity
and extremism, these programs need to be expanded, not eliminated. We therefore
oppose shifting resources to overseas commodity procurement and strongly
encourage you to sustain funding for the Food for Peace and Food for Progress
programs, preserving the unique aspects of these programs that have made them
the world’s most successful, most dependable humanitarian assistance
programs."
Critics note that requiring aid shipments to be
transported on U.S.-registered ships and to be handled by union workers sharply
increases costs without providing any benefits for the people who need the
food.
They also argue that aid shipments from the
U.S. sometimes undercut the local economy, especially farmers and food
companies that depend on local food production. The food is also often not the
type the local people eat.
Most other food aid donors, including Canada,
have stopped massive overseas shipments and instead buy what’s needed as close
as practical to the region in need and the types of food that are popular with
the local people.
That helps farmers and food companies in the
region as well as more appropriately meeting the needs of the hungry people.
Sometimes donor countries do use domestic food
in their aid programs, but usually selling it into global commercial markets
and then using the money to buy food closer to the places where the food aid is
needed.
