Headline
by pushing for a more flexible approach, one
that invests in local agriculture, develops selfsufficiency, and feeds more people in less time.
Their proposal will not cost additional money
and will increase the efficiency of programs.
7. Why is now the time to reform U.S.
food-aid programs? What are the
benefits of reform?
Currently in the U.S. food-aid programs,
there is a great deal of inefficiency. It is time to
update and modernize policies that were put in
place in the 1950s and make our government
able to respond more flexibly and quickly in a
21st century, globalized world. There is a unique
opportunity to make reforms this year that will
use funds more efficiently and ultimately feed
more hungry people at no additional cost.
Obtaining more food in the country or
region where it is needed is, on average, 30
percent cheaper than traditional food aid, and
the food can be moved to where it is needed
more quickly. For women and children in the
1,000-day window, timely arrival of food aid
can mean the difference between a life of health
and opportunity and one of stunted growth and
limited potential. If the government had more
options in its programs, such as being able to
use local and regional purchases (LRP), it could
target the best possible mix of food products to
vulnerable groups.
We also need to improve the nutritional
value of food aid that we provide. For example,
the main type of U.S. food provided in general
distributions (such as in feeding camps in Sudan)
provides energy and calories but can fall short in
providing essential vitamins and minerals. New
types of specialized food-aid products have been
developed to address this issue, and reforming
food aid will make it easier to provide them
where they are needed.
Over the past decade, Congress has
allocated between $1.18 billion and $2.32
billion to the Food for Peace program.
However, pressures on the federal budget have
caused funding to decrease 37 percent from its
peak five years ago. When rising transportation
costs and higher food prices are factored in, an
equivalent amount of funding reaches only half
as many hungry people as it did when the Food
for Peace program began.
8. How will food aid help farmers in Africa
and elsewhere?
The current practice of selling Americangrown food on the open market in a developing
country to fund development projects has been
shown to sometimes undermine the livelihoods
and productivity of local farmers by depressing
prices in the market. Reforms to U.S. food aid,
such as increasing the use of local and regional
purchases (LRP), cash, and food vouchers, will
support local smallholder farmers, who are often
women. By relying less on the resale of shipped
items (monetization) and purchasing more food
through LRP, reforms will support small farmers
in the country of need while saving money on
shipping and time on delivery.
Fintrac Inc.
In Kenya, the U.S. government,
through Feed the Future, is
working with families to improve
food security and childhood
nutrition. The program introduces
farmers to nutrient-rich crops and
teaches families new recipes full
of vitamins and minerals needed
to ensure healthy growth.
9. Won’t buying food in developing
countries hurt American farmers and
shippers?
There will be very little impact to American
farmers with reforms to U.S. food aid. U.S. food
aid accounts for less than 1 percent of total U.S.
agriculture exports, and in 2011 accounted
for only 0.56 percent of net farm income. With
reforms, the majority of emergency food aid (55
percent) will continue to be used for the purchase,
transport, and related costs of using American
commodities for humanitarian assistance.
Impacts on the U.S. shipping industry would
be small as well. Food aid is a minimal part o