4 Food Aid and Development

The Food Aid Regime

After the First World War, the United States Congress funded a massive government food relief program. Food and agricultural supplies were sent to many European countries that were highly affected by the war. Even though the program, called the Appropriation Act, was focused on foreign aid, it also benefited some US producers by giving preference to American wheat exports (U.S. Department of State, 2017). On July 10, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, Public Law 480, creating the program which became known as “Food for Peace” (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). This program wanted to divest the United States of agricultural excess, stimulate new markets abroad, and improve the domestic market.

The Food for Peace program allowed the sales of agricultural surplus stocks to countries that were lacking food supplies on lenient loan terms in local currency (U.S. Department of State, 2017). These funds were used to finance US diplomatic efforts in receiving countries. The initial focus was on the shipment of excess supplies to “friendly nations” and not on humanitarian issues (U.S. Department of State, 2017). This program ended up being a mainstay for the US foreign policy when it was supposed to be temporary.

Food aid often had the adverse effects of reducing local production of food in recipient countries and exacerbating rather than alleviating hunger (Hopkins, 2009). The epistemic community developed and proposed ideas for more efficiently supplying food aid, avoiding “disincentive” effects, and pushed for reforms to make food aid serve as the basis for the recipients’ economic development; to target it at addressing long-term food security problems (Hopkins, 2009).

“Food Aid Regime” infographic by Ilse Fick; Somi; and Kendra Stanton. For personal, educational purposes only. All rights reserved to copyright holders.

“Food Aid Regime” a presentation by Ilse Fick, Somi and Kendra Stanton, [YouTube]. Created with Animaker in accordance with their Terms of Service. For personal, educational purposes only. All rights reserved to copyright holders. See “References” section for photo credits.

To learn how to access the transcript for this video, see “YouTube transcript instructions (opens a new window)“

Connection to Course Themes of Global Perspectives in Community Development Practice

When we look at the food aid regime, we can see its relationship to Community Development, because its failure in locations such as Colombia, was a result of a lack of research and communication with the communities it was placed (McMichael & Weber, 2022). “Agriculture turned into a commodity system where cheap food policies encouraged the growth of urban populations dependent on food as a commodity, and where land and labour became commodities” (Gaviria, 2010, para. 4). Carlos Gaviria, professor at the University of Antioquia, Colombia, also argues that:

“This tendency has been called the postwar international food regime. The Food for Aid Program (FAP), the Green Revolution (GR) and the Alliance for Progress (AFP) is deemed to have been the beginning of this tendency, mainly following internal policies of the United States. These programs have helped to create an international division of labour and consequently restructured Third World agriculture, quite often having forgotten the social component of agriculture: peasant families, small-scale farmers, and rural dwellers.

Colombia has followed these tendencies under the idea of modernization of agriculture—this model depends on massive government subsidies given to the private sector and on environmentally destructive technologies. Modernization has turned agriculture in Colombia from producing traditional agricultural products to promoting non-traditional agricultural exports—certain fruits and vegetables—and more recently, biofuel crops which have brought about several environmental issues, food sovereignty risks, the commodification of land, and displacement of peasants from their direct production of food, pushing them to urban areas (Grassroots, 2007). (para. 5)

The postwar international food regime—called modernization—brought about a high level of dependency on cereal imports, technology, and agrochemical inputs. The modernization consolidated the bimodal agrarian structure in Colombia and forgot the internal land conflict. Instead, landholders and agribusiness have used modernization policies and land conflicts to accomplish particular aims in sectors such as mineral extraction and agricultural production (Richani, 2005). This tendency still persists into the present day because the government is promoting ‘’the cultivation of biofuel crops, especially in areas mainly dominated by paramilitaries, big landholders or illegal groups’’ (Tenthoff, 2008, p. 5). In spite of these arguments, the main agricultural issues lay in the history of policies applied by the Colombian government since the post-war period began. Or in simpler terms, there was no Bottom-up approach. There was also no assessment or care of the community’s current conditions, which relates directly to the negation of CD Principles of Practices (i.e. clear vision and goals established by the community). (para. 6)

There is a direct connection here to the course material in the Global Perspectives about colonialism. We talk about colonialism a lot and how its role in history and even today is, but now we will discuss its connection to the food aid regime. An example is the Indian Famine of 1965-66 where food aid was contingent upon India’s acceptance of Westernized practices, and support for the U.S. foreign policy objectives (U.S. Department of State, 2017).

How Food Aid and Food Dependency Show Up in Current Society

The problem with food still exists today, and in current society. The problem of food insecurity has become a major issue of concern. For the most part, it is developing countries that experience the highest levels of food insecurity. The most large-scale food operations occur between developed countries, which act as providers, and under-developed countries, which are the recipients of food aid (FAO, Unicef, IFAD, et al., 2022).

As we currently begin as a global society to recover from the Covid-19 Global Pandemic, the thought was that the world would re-emerge to a renewed sense of normalcy and food security would begin to improve, but despite hopes, world hunger rose further in 2021 (FAO, Unicef, IFAD, et al., 2022). As many as 828 million people are hungry, and 150 million more people faced hunger in 2021 than in the previous year (FAO, Unicef, IFAD, et al., 2022). Hunger is rising in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean in 2021; and 8% of the world population is projected to still face hunger in 2030 (FAO, Unicef, IFAD, et al., 2022). There are disruptions in supply chains, rising grains, fertilizers, and energy prices. As a result, severe export shortfalls suggest an increase of up to thirteen million in 2022 (FAO, Unicef, IFAD, et al., 2022).

Reflective Questions