Current food aid legislation requires that all food aid be “tied”, meaning produced by US sources. Yet tied aid slows the response to food shortages, ineffectively utilizes the limited funds for aid and discourages economic development. Purchasing food from producers within the food emergency area or in nearby developing countries (a process called “triangular purchases”) can solve these problems.

Emergency situations demand quick responses, but it usually takes around four months to ship food aid from the United States to disaster areas. Consider the clamor if it had taken that long for food to reach the victims of Hurricane Katrina! Those in developing countries afflicted by natural disasters and food shortages suffer this frequently. Acquiring food aid from nearby producers could cut transportation time significantly and save the countless lives lost due to lags.

High transportation costs and other factors make using US agricultural goods for food aid an expensive proposition. An obscure and decades-old law on cargo preference exacerbates the problem by demanding that US ships carry 75% of PL480 Title II food aid (the main source of food aid). The GAO estimates that this inflated the cost of shipping by 78% in 2000! Thus while Canada, with around 50% of its aid untied, dedicates only 39% of its food aid budget to overhead costs, the US expenses consume over 65% of the US food aid budget. The United States could substantially lower costs by purchasing from nearby sources, allowing more food aid to go to those in need.

Shipping food aid from abroad hurts the development of recipient countries. Since buyers won’t patronize local farmers when free food aid exists, these farmers can lose a significant amount of business. This causes agriculture to flounder, hindering attempts at development and further perpetuating food insecurity. Late food aid deliveries further complicate the problem by stealing buyers from local farmers just as the farmers try to get back on their feet. Purchasing food locally and regionally aids development by supporting farmers in developing countries, which may lessen food insecurity and the need for development aid down the road.

Admittedly local infrastructure for transportation of food is sometimes so underdeveloped that using local providers would be just as slow or costly. But in nearly all situations, economic sense proscribes procuring food aid from abroad and especially from regional sources with decent infrastructure. The United Kingdom has lowered operating costs substantially by conducting all food aid purchases abroad, and others have followed its example. The United States would be wise to follow their lead and untie at least 50% of food aid resources for local and regional purchases.

President Bush has recently proposed that up to 25% of PL480 Title II food aid be acquired abroad (which Congress rejected in 2002), a laudable first step that should go into the 2007 Farm Bill. It estimates that this minor change will save 50,000 additional lives annually! The preference for US ships also makes little sense, especially in light of a recent bill’s increased subsidies for shipping. It should be rolled back. To help make this proposal a reality, you can write your member of Congress asking them to support this proposal and consider rolling back the shipping subsidy. Using our easy letter-writer, it takes less than a minute!

For a clear and more in-depth look at food aid in the 2007 Farm Bill, check out this paper written by Cornell Professor Chris Barrett.