Advertisement
news.independent.co.uk/world/...490.ece
US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 17 August 2007
Critics of US food aid subsidies say they help cause obesity among Americans and starvation among Africans.
Now Care, one of the world's biggest charities, has announced that it will boycott the controversial policy of selling tons of heavily subsidised US produced food in African countries. Care wants the US government to send money to buy food locally, rather than unwanted US produced food.
The US arm of the charity says America is causing rather than reducing hunger with a decree that US food aid must be sold rather than directly distributed to those facing starvation. In America, the subsidies for corn in particular, help underpin the junk food industry, which uses corn extracts as a sweetener, creating a home-grown a health crisis.
The farm lobby meanwhile has a stranglehold on Congress, which has balked at making any changes that would interfere with a system that promotes overproduction of commodities.
Critics of the policy say it also undermines African farmers' ability to produce food, making the most vulnerable countries of the world even more dependent on aid to avert famine.
Under the system Washington buys tens of millions of dollars of surplus corn and other products from agribusiness. The food, which can only be exported on US flagged ships, is then sold by charities to raise money to pay for emergencies.
Globally, about 800 million are chronically hungry and the number is rising every year. US farmers love the present system, but it is slow and unresponsive when there are food emergencies.
Care has caused a huge upset in the American charitable sector by deciding to phase out the practice. It has also upset US agribusiness and shipping interests, which benefit to the tune of some $180m a year from the practice.
Attempts to get Congress to end the policy, as it debates a new farm bill that will last for the next five years, have failed.
Alina Labrada, a spokeswoman for Care said: "I don't think that Americans who generously donate want people to go hungry at their expense."
Care's decision has led to a rift with some of the biggest US charities, including World Vision, Feed the Children and Africare, who rely on the system to fund a large part of their budgets. They argue that it keeps hard currency in impoverished countries and stops food prices rising.
The US claims to be the world's most generous provider of food aid, giving $2bn annually. Much of that aid lost in the overheads of shipping it to Africa.
Not only does subsidised US food hurt African farmers, but food purchased in the US regularly takes four months to reach the destination where there is an emergency. In contrast food bought locally takes only days to arrive.
US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 17 August 2007
Critics of US food aid subsidies say they help cause obesity among Americans and starvation among Africans.
Now Care, one of the world's biggest charities, has announced that it will boycott the controversial policy of selling tons of heavily subsidised US produced food in African countries. Care wants the US government to send money to buy food locally, rather than unwanted US produced food.
The US arm of the charity says America is causing rather than reducing hunger with a decree that US food aid must be sold rather than directly distributed to those facing starvation. In America, the subsidies for corn in particular, help underpin the junk food industry, which uses corn extracts as a sweetener, creating a home-grown a health crisis.
The farm lobby meanwhile has a stranglehold on Congress, which has balked at making any changes that would interfere with a system that promotes overproduction of commodities.
Critics of the policy say it also undermines African farmers' ability to produce food, making the most vulnerable countries of the world even more dependent on aid to avert famine.
Under the system Washington buys tens of millions of dollars of surplus corn and other products from agribusiness. The food, which can only be exported on US flagged ships, is then sold by charities to raise money to pay for emergencies.
Globally, about 800 million are chronically hungry and the number is rising every year. US farmers love the present system, but it is slow and unresponsive when there are food emergencies.
Care has caused a huge upset in the American charitable sector by deciding to phase out the practice. It has also upset US agribusiness and shipping interests, which benefit to the tune of some $180m a year from the practice.
Attempts to get Congress to end the policy, as it debates a new farm bill that will last for the next five years, have failed.
Alina Labrada, a spokeswoman for Care said: "I don't think that Americans who generously donate want people to go hungry at their expense."
Care's decision has led to a rift with some of the biggest US charities, including World Vision, Feed the Children and Africare, who rely on the system to fund a large part of their budgets. They argue that it keeps hard currency in impoverished countries and stops food prices rising.
The US claims to be the world's most generous provider of food aid, giving $2bn annually. Much of that aid lost in the overheads of shipping it to Africa.
Not only does subsidised US food hurt African farmers, but food purchased in the US regularly takes four months to reach the destination where there is an emergency. In contrast food bought locally takes only days to arrive.
posted by:
|
Canada
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
Sat, August 18, 2007 - 6:18 AMActually, there are more things than food aid that are wrecking the continent.
More consideration needs to be put on organic farming.
More money should be invested in irrigation, desalination, and water management as a means of combating the effects of climate change.
A broader circulation of capital is perhaps the most important thing.
a) Money is often controlled by a few
b) Most enterprises that contribute to large percentages of GDP in African nations are foreign firms. It is not that Africans are incapable, the problem is too many "connected people" profit.
Immortal Technique talks about how developed nations give developing nations commodities they do not need, while taking massive amounts of natural resources for next to nothing.
<controversial policy of selling tons of heavily subsidised US produced food in African countries.>
When you consider the irresponsibility of the Bush administration it is even sicker. close to half a trillion dollars has been spent enriching cronies. The gross mismanagement of the American taxpayers money has resulted in a wrecked economy, that effects many other economies. If the money had been spent on investment in output in the US and other developing nations, the increased access to capital should spur consumption of commodities of the US and the developing nations.
However some people believe in insanity, thus we have a lot of "wreckage"
-
Re: US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
Sun, August 19, 2007 - 9:36 AMI love when people begin to think with a large scale systems perspective. On a hopeful note, aid groups often now look for small locally grown projects that are successful to scale up, rather than trying to invent and impose a large Western-style project. -
-
Re: US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
Tue, January 29, 2008 - 4:50 PMOn a hopeful note, aid groups often now look for small locally grown projects that are successful to scale up, rather than trying to invent and impose a large Western-style project.
~~~~~~~~~
THAT l agree with.
-
-
Re: US food aid is 'wrecking' Africa, claims charity
Tue, January 29, 2008 - 4:49 PMOne of the worst problems facing the US' ideas about aid to starving countries is that they move in, introduce new crops that aren't staples, then wonder why the village or local economy fails. lt happens because the farmers don't have room for anything other than the crops they've been successfully selling for decades, so when a new crop is introduced that has a low demand, the subsistence crops suffer, as do their profits on those crops. Then, when the aid pulls out, they're left with a crapload of agriculture that the area or region has no need for. This is a *major* problem with the aid organizations, and their understanding of the challenges facing the communities in which they're working. Both of my parents worked with CARE, and despite that connection, l agree with its decision. lt continues to be an aid organization l support because it's willing to change its practices in order to do the most good.
That said....
"Actually, there are more things than food aid that are wrecking the continent.
More consideration needs to be put on organic farming.
More money should be invested in irrigation, desalination, and water management as a means of combating the effects of climate change.
A broader circulation of capital is perhaps the most important thing.
a) Money is often controlled by a few
b) Most enterprises that contribute to large percentages of GDP in African nations are foreign firms. It is not that Africans are incapable, the problem is too many "connected people" profit."
All of this is true. But only the first two points on farming and water are immediate concerns for survival. As far as the climate change, they don't have enough water to feed themselves or their animals. There are Masaai bringing their cattle in from WAY out just to feed and hydrate their cattle. lf it's that bad for the animals, imagine how challenging it is for the people. My dad says there have been rations on water and electricity, and l know that when l lived there, there was nothing even close to that, and that tells me something.
Circulation of capital is largely dependent upon the government at this point in time. That's why the recent Kenyan elections are such a big deal. (A) and (b) are both true, but they aren't the biggest problems Kenya is facing right now, and are longer term concerns that aren't relevant to the now.
"Immortal Technique talks about how developed nations give developing nations commodities they do not need, while taking massive amounts of natural resources for next to nothing.
<controversial policy of selling tons of heavily subsidised US produced food in African countries.>"
Well, Kenya doesn't need American food. The Kenyan food is pretty sufficient. There's no reason to give them Twinkies.
"When you consider the irresponsibility of the Bush administration it is even sicker. close to half a trillion dollars has been spent enriching cronies. The gross mismanagement of the American taxpayers money has resulted in a wrecked economy, that effects many other economies. If the money had been spent on investment in output in the US and other developing nations, the increased access to capital should spur consumption of commodities of the US and the developing nations."
lt has nothing to do with money. lt has to do with the Americans' understanding of what Africa really NEEDS, and that understanding is far from being whole.
"However some people believe in insanity, thus we have a lot of "wreckage" "
Meh.
