Food for peace or food for profit?

The United States is by far the largest food donor in the world. With less than 1/10 of the world population we donate 59.2% of all the food aid. This seems mighty generous of us if we weren't making so much money out of it. The agribusiness and shipping lobbies both heavily support our current food aid policy. This is because they drive down prices for American consumers, increase profits for large farms, and ensure a market for the huge surplus that American agriculture produces each year.

The food aid that America gives goes mostly through a program called Food for Peace which was created in the 1950s by the Eisenhower Administration. It facilitates the use of taxpayer funds to purchase surplus food stock from farmers and the donation of this food to foreign governments. The food aid comes in emergency and non-emergency situations. Emergency situations are those that we see about on the news; floods, famines, wars, etc. Non-emergency situations are those where people suffer from chronic hunger and malnutrition. It is estimated that 80% of all U.S. aid is designated for non-emergency programs.

This sounds perfect, right?. American farmers receive money to ensure that they stay in business and less economically developed countries (LEDCs) receive food at extremely low costs. Well it isn't perfect. The influx of cheap food into LEDCs has undermined their markets, driving food prices through the floor. Farmers then go out of business because of reduced income, adding to rural poverty that is already at intolerable levels. Once the agricultural sector of the country has collapsed, they become reliant on U.S. food aid. This process may help large agribusiness in the United States, but for most of the world it is a pretty raw deal.

Even in the United States this is a problem. Because only large farms can produce the types of surpluses that are bought by the federal government. Large agribusiness stands to profit from these subsidies, leaving small farmers in the dust. The subsidies essentially tilt the playing field in favor of the large agribusinesses.

If we really international development to be the central goal of our food aid program, this policy has to be scrapped. A program of agricultural credit or an extension system would be much more beneficial to food security in impoverished nations. It would also develop local agricultural markets, reducing the need for food aid in the future. The only thing we know is, what we're doing now sure isn't working.