This week, UN World Food Program issued a bleak warning: In the future, the WFP said, there will be food on the shelves. It's just that many won't be able to afford it.
As food prices have spiked--in some places, by up to 40%--the WFP announced that its $2.9 billion budget is no longer enough to maintain even current food deliveries, much less expand. Last year to take one example, with the rising cost of fuel and food prices, the United States purchased less than half the amount of food aid it did in 2000.
But in the case of the U.S., it doesn't have to be that way. Currently, existing U.S. rules mandate that at least 75% of its food aid be grown and packaged in the United States (that is, benefit U.S. producers) before being shipped across the sea. Accordingly, the cost in transport--particularly as oil prices have risen--is extraordinary. (A recent GAO study reported shipping costs account for 65% of total program expenditures for the largest U.S. food emergency program.) These days as the UN scrambles to ration food, as the Bush administration has proposed (and Congress has rejected), it'd be a much more charitable gesture for the U.S. to step up what it buys locally--where it's needed.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet

Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit




RSS
not to demand that even our "charity" in reality be about subsidizing corporate agribusiness further.----Posted by ZERO 02/27/2008 @ 4:14pm
Occasionally even a blind squirrel finds a nut....
in this case, ZERO has a point. Wouldn't an increase in food bought by the US for the UN mean....more money for Archer-Daniels-Midland and friends?
Just curious.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:22pm
CHEN: ....it'd be a much more charitable gesture for the U.S. to step up what it buys locally--where it's needed.
I have a silly question! If they are growing the food needed by the hungry "locally", why the hell do they need our help???!!!
I have no problem w/requiring foreign aid be mostly American sourced.....many countries have same! As for wiring funds abroad and buy the needed stuff closer to where it's needed and transport costs are lower, this is where corruption invariably will take some big bites! One solution is simply help out in our own hemisphere, have China & Japan handle Asia, Europe w/Africa and Russia w/the Mid East.
Posted by Happy at 02/27/2008 @ 9:53pm