“U.S. food aid, totaling $2.4 billion a year, is a highly visible symbol of Americans’ commitment to assist the downtrodden wherever they are in the world,” write three analysts in an American Enterprise Institute paper that calls for sweeping reform. The paper recommends that the 2018 farm bill eliminate the requirement that half of U.S. food aid travel on U.S. ships, the “safe box” that earmarks money for local food projects and away from emergency aid, and restrictions on cash-based food aid.
“No debate exists among serious scholars who have studied the issue: Significant U.S. food aid reform is overdue,” write Cornell professor Christopher Barrett, University of Texas assistant professor Erin Lentz and economist Stephanie Mercier. Compared to other nations, who almost universally donate cash instead of the U.S. practice of sending food, “the costs of U.S. food aid are excessive, delivery of assistance is slow and the programs have not kept pace with international needs.”
The “cargo preference” rule of using U.S. vessels to transport U.S.-grown food means that for every $1 allocated for food aid, “only 35-40 cents in food commodities is delivered to those in need,” said the AEI paper. By comparison, Canada delivers nearly 70 cents of each dollar in food because it uses vouchers, cash and local purchase of food.
U.S. food aid programs were created during the Cold War and provided U.S.-produced food as a sign of American largess while also helping to offset farm surpluses. The AEI paper says the common arguments for donation of U.S. food — that it bolsters commodity prices and maintains a fleet of U.S. cargo ships in case of military emergency — are thread bare. The United States could save $150 million a year and reach an additional 4 million people a year if it switched to local or regional food procurement.
To read the AEI paper, click here.