Food Aid Reform Brings Objections From Lobbyists, Special Interests
Proposals to reform the United States food aid program that could feed nearly 20 million more people without increasing costs has been met with resistance facilitated by special interest groups representing some the United States largest industries.
Currently, Public Law 480, which is also known as Food for Peace, states that the programs purpose is "to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development, including agricultural development; expand international trade."
The United States is the global leader in supplying food aid to desperately hungry people around the world not only in emergency relief instances, but also providing the continued supply of food aid to developing countries around the globe.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The U.S. spends around $1.4 billion of the $2.3 billion in total food aid a year to provide emergency food supplies to various regions around the world, but much of the money allocated to feeding the world's hungry is wasted or otherwise used inefficiently.
A report detailing the specific amount of waste conducted in 2011 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that about $300 million a year is wasted, while a similar report conducted by Oxfam America showed that figure to be closer to half a billion dollars.
Advocates for food aid reform refer to what has been described as the iron triangle of food aid, which is comprised of agriculture business, maritime business and development organizations, as leading the main opposition for food aid reform.
One component found in the 1954 law states that any purchases specifically for the purpose of food aid must be bought through domestic agriculture suppliers and producers. This has long limited the options food aid organizations have in trying to development sustainable agricultural processes in developing countries.
"In his proposed budget, President Obama has not only supported global anti-poverty programs that literally save lives, he has also proposed long overdue reforms to bring our food aid system into the 21st century," Paul O'Brien, vice president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America, said in a statement.
One of the main reforms being proposed is what is known as LRP or Local or Regional Procurement. This would allow food aid funding to be used to purchase food supplies that were not domestically grown or to purchase supplies that had been cultivated in the specific country. This would reduce the cost of shipping U.S. food aid as well as reducing the time food aid takes to get to those who need it most.
A commitment to local procurement "would be able to reach 17 million more people - so we're only getting to about two-thirds of the people we could be." Timi Gerson, of the American Jewish World Service (AJWS), told Inter Press Service.
"Current regulations on the food aid program in the Farm Bill protect special interests … at the expense of the hungry, and [that means] that more than a quarter of every dollar the U.S. spends on food aid goes to waste," Gerson added
Another aspect of the reform aims to end the practice of "monetization." This practice came about after the passing of the 1985 Food Security Act and grants development organizations who receive U.S. food aid the ability to sell food aid they receive to needy countries in order to fund other development projects.
This practice is also known as "in kind" in which U.S. agricultural supplies are purchased by the government and given to aid organizations who then sell them in developing countries to fund on-going and future projects.
"Proceeds generated through monetization to fund development projects are less than what the US government expends to procure and ship the commodities that are monetized," with some estimates detailing the total difference being $219 million every three years, according to the GAO.
While the program has merit it is not financially efficient given that it usually costs more to purchase food in the United States, ship it, and then sell it again, than what aid organizations make from the process.
"Critics view the practice of converting cash to commodities and then back to cash as an inefficient use of resources that may also have adverse market impacts in recipient countries. These market impacts may include displacing commercial trade and discouraging local food production," according to the GAO.
The undermining of a regions food production is a main concern with many food aid organizations and can have a devastating effect on a country or a regions ability to produce enough food to meet demand.
The concern stems from the reality that U.S. food aid is sold under market value, undermining the local farming and agriculture business, thus furthering the problem of food insecurity and maintaining the dependence on foreign food aid.
"Members of Congress who want to pursue fiscal responsibility should be the first to back the President's efforts to modernize our aid programs, especially food aid," said O'Brien. "The President's proposal will get food to more hungry people faster, cheaper and more efficiently."
"The proposed reforms have already received positive reviews from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Congress must fund these life-saving programs and move forward on common sense reforms to the food aid program," O'Brien added.
