Republished from Food First: Institute for Food & Development Policy and written by Brock Hicks.
Posted March 26th, 2013 by kerssen
On February 21st, 69 organizations submitted a letter to President Barack Obama in support of continued funding for Public Law 480 (also known as Food for Peace) and Food for Progress international food aid programs in the FY 2014 budget, and opposing rumored proposals to shift resources to local and regional commodity procurement. The signatory organizations were comprised almost exclusively by the iron triangle of US food aid spending recipients (the US agribusiness, shipping, and international development industries). Funding, which is attached to the Farm Bill, has been reauthorized by President Obama under Title VII of the fiscal cliff legislation through this September. However, these food aid programs depend on congressional appropriations, which have only been approved through March 27th. Big changes, or more of the same, could be in store for food aid legislation in the near future.
Currently, US food aid is dominated by in-kind donations (direct gifts of food)-an infamously inefficient system-and monetization, a system in which US agricultural commodities are donated to development organizations so that they can sell them to fund projects. This approach to food aid has been widely criticized for decades, including by the Congress’ Government Accountability Office. The NGO Oxfam, once a beneficiary of PL 480, has been calling for food aid reform for years, putting an emphasis on the need for local commodity procurement. CARE, one of the three major NGO distributors of US food aid across the world, recently followed suit. Canada and Europe have shifted nearly all food aid resources away from in-kind distribution in favor of local procurement. The US, sticking to its M.O., is the loner; in 2007, 99.3% of US food aid was in-kind.
The letter to President Obama notes that “food aid programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for nearly 60 years because they work.” The question is, for whom? By law, 75% of food aid from the US must be purchased, processed, transported, and distributed by US companies. In 2002, just two US companies-ADM and Cargill-controlled 75% of the global grain trade, with US government contracts to manage and distribute 30% of food aid grains. Only four companies control 84% of the transport and delivery of food aid worldwide .
The letter continues by stating: “Food for Progress expands business and income opportunities along the agricultural value chain.” This has certainly been the case for the US food, maritime shipping, and international development industries. For recipient countries, however, food aid has a long history of displacing local production. According to a 2005 Oxfam report, “There is strong historical evidence that the use of food aid tends to correlate with long-term dependence on food imports.” Due to foreign exchange difficulties during the 1990s, the Philippines was unable to sustain imports of soybean meal. PL 480 food aid was used to finance the purchase of US exports. By the early 2000s, the Philippines was the largest market for US soybean meal worldwide and 90% of total imports came from the US. This points to another use of food aid: the explicit expansion of markets abroad for US products. USAID states, “Of the 50 largest customers for US agricultural goods, 43 – including Egypt, Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand – formerly received food assistance. In short, aid leads to trade, from which Americans stand to benefit directly” .
The effects of food aid are not limited only to local food production, processing, and distribution. It has also outcompeted national exporters, as in the case of Guyana and Jamaica. When US food aid rice poured in to Jamaica, Guyanese producers were unable to maintain a hold in the Jamaican rice market . This process shifts poverty from one country to another, effectively defeating the public premise of food aid.
Food aid is perhaps most infamous for the practice of dumping, or disposing of surplus food commodities in vulnerable national markets. In this case, food aid functions as just another US agricultural subsidy. In 2007, despite growing hunger, food aid fell globally by 15%, the lowest level since 1961. This reflects the tendency of food aid to respond to international grain prices-and not to the food needs of the poor. When the price of cereals is low, Northern countries and transnational grain companies sell their commodities through food aid programs. When prices are high, they sell their grains on the global market. So, when people are less able to buy food, less food aid arrives .
In contrast, local and regional procurement of food aid, along with cash vouchers, could decrease US food aid costs by 50%, bolster the development of local food markets and long-term economies, and allow US food aid recipient countries to build their own assistance programs. Timi Gerson of the American Jewish World Service (AJWS) told IPS that a switch 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.” An anti-hunger coalition led by AJWS, Oxfam America, and Bread for the World Institute issued a joint statement saying: “Current regulations on the food aid program in the Farm Bill protect special interests,” aka the iron triangle of food aid, “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” .
The 2008 Farm Bill authorized a Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement pilot program, which funds cash food aid projects through grants and uses cooperative agreements for local procurement during food crises. Detailed results of the 2009 to 2011 pilot projects were reported to the USDA by grantees. A Cornell study of the results indicated that the pilot projects achieved greater efficiency and effectiveness of food aid delivery, while avoiding the negative impacts, such as displacement of local production and import dependencies that in-kind food aid has caused historically. When sourced locally versus when sourced in the US and shipped across oceans, cereals cost on average 54% less and pulses 24% less. Average delivery time was also reduced by 62% or about 14 weeks. For victims of natural disasters, this time window could be the difference between life and death .
The letter in question makes several accurate statements yet omits the true impacts of food aid on recipient countries. It does, however, contain one lie, stating that PL 480 facilitates “developmental programs to end the cycle of hunger,” when in fact it propagates it. Hunger is big business. Food for Peace ends up looking a lot more like Food for Profit. The letter ends with one final truth, declaring that food aid programs are “some of our most effective, lowest-cost national security tools.” By handicapping local food markets across the world, food aid keeps poor countries poor and compliant, and provides US-based companies with dependable markets for the dumping of surplus food commodities when global grain prices are low. Rice and wheat cost a lot less than bombs.
Companies and Organizations supporting Public Law 480
What is their interest? / Follow the money (sustain PL 480)
1 ACDI/VOCA, Intl Dev NGO
2 Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, Intl Dev NGO
3 Alliance for Global Food Security, nonprofit alliance
4 America Cargo Transport Corp., Transportation Business
5 American Feed Industry Association, Food Industry Lobby
6 American Maritime Congress, Transportation M Lobby
7 American Maritime Officers, Transportation M Union
8 American Maritime Officers’ Service, Transportation M Lobby
9 American Peanut Council, Food Industry Lobby
10 American Soybean Association, Food Industry Lobby
11 APL Limited, Transportation M Business
12 BKA Logistics LLC, Transportation M Business
13 California Wheat Commission, Food Industry Research
14 Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Transportation M Business
15 Congressional Hunger Center, Food Industry Lobby
16 Counterpart International, Intl Dev NGO
17 Feed the Children, Intl Dev NGO
18 Food for the Hungry, Intl Dev NGO
19 Global Food & Nutrition, Food Industry Business
20 Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC, Transportation M Business
21 International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Transportation M Union
22 International Partnership for Human Development, Intl Dev NGO
23 International Relief & Development, Intl Dev NGO
24 International Services Corporation, OTHER – Funeral + Cementery services
25 Joint Aid Management USA, Intl Dev NGO
26 Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District, Transportation M Port
27 Land O’Lakes, Food Industry Business
28 Liberty Maritime Corporation, Transportation M Business
29 Maersk Line, Ltd., Transportation M Business
30 Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, Transportation M Union
31 Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development, Transportation M Business
32 National Association of Wheat Growers, Food Industry Lobby
33 National Barley Growers Association, Food Industry Lobby
34 National Corn Growers Association, Food Industry Lobby
35 National Cotton Council, Food Industry Lobby
36 National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Food Industry Lobby
37 National Farmers Union, Food Industry Union
38 National Oilseed Processors Association, Food Industry Lobby
39 National Potato Council, Food Industry Lobby
40 National Renderers Association, Food Industry Lobby
41 National Sorghum Producers, Food Industry Lobby
42 North American Millers’ Association, Food Industry Lobby
43 OIC International, Intl Dev NGO
44 Pacific Cargoes Incorporated, Transportation M Business
45 PCI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI
46 Planet Aid, Inc., Intl Dev NGO
47 Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, Transportation M Union
48 Salesian Missions, Intl Dev NGO
49 Seafarers International Union, Transportation M Union
50 Sealift, Inc., Transportation M Business
51 Southern United States Trade Association, OTHER
52 TechnoServe, Inc., Intl Dev NGO
53 Transportation Institute, Transportation M Lobby
54 United Maritime Group, LLC, Transportation M Business
55 United Methodist Committee on Relief, Intl Dev NGO
56 US Dry Bean Council, Food Industry Trade Assoc
57 U.S. Grains Council, Food Industry Trade Assoc
58 U.S. Meat Export Federation, Food Industry Trade Assoc
59 U.S. Overseas Cooperative Development Council, Intl Dev NGO
60 US Rice Producers Association, Food Industry Trade Assoc
61 U.S. Wheat Associates, Food Industry Trade Assoc
62 USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, Food Industry Trade Assoc
63 USA Maritime, Transportation M Lobby
64 USA Rice Federation, Food Industry Trade Assoc
65 Washington State Potato Commission, Food Industry Trade Assoc
66 Waterman Steamship Corporation, Transportation M Business
67 Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association, Food Industry Trade Assoc
68 Winrock International, Intl Dev NGO
69 World Vision, Intl Dev NGO
Definitions of categories
Lobby = associations of food industry, transportation, and trade groups
Trade association = organization that develops new and existing intl markets for US food commodity exports
Transportation M – Business = maritime shipping, container transport, commercial shipping, etc.
 Holt-Giménez, Eric, and Raj Patel. Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice. Food First Books, 2012.
 Holt-Giménez et al. 2012. Op Cit.
 Kripke, Gawain. Food Aid or Hidden Dumping? Separating Wheat from Chaff. Oxfam International, 2005.http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp71_food_aid.pdf
 Kripke 2005. Op Cit.
 Holt-Giménez et al. 2012. Op Cit.
 Biron, Carey L. “Groups Applaud Potential Reforms to U.S. Food Aid.” Inter Press Service News Agency. February 27, 2013. http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/aid-groups-applaud-potential-reforms-to-u…
 American Jewish World Service. The Time Is Now for Food Aid Reform: Five Reasons Why U.S. Policies Are Ripe for Reform in the Next Farm Bill, 2012.