US Congress votes down bill to unshackle 'tied' food aid
House rejects amendment to food in local markets instead of buying food aid and the American ship
The U.S. House of Representatives A Wednesday rejected an amendment to the farm bill to promote the use of locally grown in the poorest countries of the controversial practice of sending food products grown in the United States.
Class Actfood aid reform, presented by Ed Royce, the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman affairs, Karen Bass, the House subcommittee eliminated food aid is grown in United States and transported on US-flag vessels.
United Statesprovides about half of global food aid to an estimated $ 2 billion annual cost. But unlike many other major donors, almost all of the U.S. food aid is "tied" and must be purchased from U.S. suppliers and transported in American ships - even if there are cheaper alternatives. Critics have complained for years that the program is both social welfare for American businesses and help people suffering from hunger abroad.
A Guardian analysis of hundreds of food aid contracts awarded by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2010-11 U.S. showed that two thirds of the food aid program to one billion dollars in 2011 was purchased only three U.S. multinational - The very profitable and politically powerful that dominate world trade in cereals. ADM, Cargill and Bunge
A study by agricultural economists at the University of Cornell (pdf) found that buying food locally means leads to savings of more than half the cost of cereals like wheat and nearly 25% of legumes such as peas and lentils. However, it was found that some processed foods such as vegetable oils are potentially cheaper to buy and ship to the United States food.
The study estimates that the acquisition of local food, or distribution of cash or coupons, resulting in an average time savings of nearly 14 weeks. He suggested a more flexible approach to food aid programs with agencies empowered to choose between food aid sent by the United States, local or regional supplies purchased, vouchers and cash transfers -. According to the specific situation and goals
- Supporters of the amendment said that the future interest of American agriculture, not in the delivery of U.S. food aid as and in the allocation of food aid than money spent in local markets to stimulate local economies, which could become American goods markets over the long term. The Obama administration has argued that local purchases means faster delivery of aid at a lower cost.
Oxfam America expressed disappointment that supporters of the amendment could not "overcome political inertia and special interests aligned against us," but was comforted that there was a vote to all .
Find best price for : --Kripke----Oxfam----Gawain----Cornell--
0 comments:
Post a Comment