U.S. taxpayers spend equal amounts on non-emergency food aid and shipping, study says

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

IRIN examines the findings of a study (.pdf) about the costs and effects of the U.S. Agricultural Cargo Preference (ACP) policy, noting that "U.S. taxpayers spend about $140 million every year on non-emergency food aid in Africa, and roughly the same amount to ship food aid to global destinations on U.S. vessels; money that could have been used to feed more people."

The study by researchers at Cornell University provides numbers to "back a long-standing call for reforms, and goes a step further in showing that the policy designed to 'nurture' or subsidise the U.S. shipping industry 'under the guise of humanitarian assistance' is not doing either effectively," IRIN writes. According to study authors Christopher Barrett, Elizabeth Bageant and Erin Lentz, USAID has provided more than half of the world's food aid for decades, but has been the "last and slowest donor to reform its food aid policies."

"The Cornell researchers used data available for every USAID food aid shipment in 2006 ... The un-reimbursed cost of ACP to food aid agencies was almost the same as what USAID spent on non-emergency food aid to Africa, which benefited 1.2 million people and was 'widely deemed important to preventing food emergencies.' USAID declined to comment on the findings of the study, saying the research 'spoke for itself,'" according to the news service.

IRIN notes: "The ACP was put in place to achieve four objectives: ensure that U.S. vessels remained seaworthy and prepared should a war break out; maintain skilled jobs for American seafarers; maintain the financial viability of U.S. ships; protect U.S. ocean commerce from foreign domination." But the authors found that "'contrary to its national security and 'buy American' objectives,' ACP used vessels which were not useful to the military, and most of the vessels used were ultimately owned by foreign corporations."

The researchers suggest that officials re-examine the policy and possibly separate security and aid goals (7/13). 

EU Decides To Leave GM Decisions Up To Member States

The European Commission on Tuesday "dropped its bid to impose a one-size-fits-all approach" to the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food in Europe, the Financial Times reports. "Brussels said it would now be up to each member state to decide whether to allow the cultivation of GM crops on its territory."

"The move could help developing countries that want to grow and export GM crops but have been wary of doing so for fear their exports would be excluded from Europe under cross-contamination rules," the newspaper notes. Currently the EU allows food to include "up to 0.9 percent unintended GM material, but this ruling has led some developing country governments and farmers to reject all GM crops."

The decision to allow EU states to make their own rulings "will make it easier for member states to impose a ban on growing GM crops - as six in effect do already - [but it also] leaves the door open for their cultivation in pro-GM countries such as Spain and the Netherlands," the Financial Times writes (Pignal/Harvey, 7/13).


Kaiser Health NewsThis article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Comments

  1. C. James Patti C. James Patti United States says:

    The article referenced in this post by IRIN  includes several sweeping statements about food aid and cargo preference with little factual evidence or context. Cargo preference is an important and successful program – not unique to the United States. Its purpose is to maintain a viable U.S. flag commercial fleet manned by highly skilled U.S. mariners, providing a reliable and cost-effective sealift capacity in times of war or national emergency. According to the Government Accountability Office, if Cargo Preference were to be eliminated, the number of U.S. merchant mariners would shrink by 75 percent. The annual cost to taxpayers is a small price to pay for securing a U.S. flagged maritime fleet.

    When it comes to transporting food aid, all vessels are limited to what the Maritime Administration considers to be “fair and reasonable rates.” Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the cost of shipping food aid alone on U.S. vessels provides $2 billion in economic output for the U.S. and $523 million in earnings for American households. In today’s era of budget deficits and high unemployment, there are not many government programs that can make that claim for so little cost – and so much benefit to our national security.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Food allergies' broad impact on quality of life demands greater awareness