Monday, December 9, 2013
Typhoon Revives Debate on U.S. Food Aid Methods
Hi Everybody,
I'm assuming I'll be one of the last ones to upload a blog post here. With the semester almost over, I thought it would be important to look back at the topics we covered during lectures and find an article/issue that talks about some of them.
Related to current events, the following article from the NY Times talks about the debate over (the delivery of) U.S. food aid to foreign countries, in light of the recent typhoon Haiyan in Philippines. Much of the debate and what both sides are arguing about aren't novel ideas. The U.S. government, Congress, and aid workers/agencies, etc. have been seriously debating about whether U.S. should change its means of delivering food aid abroad since the mid-1900s with the introduction of First Farm Bill. Specifically to Typhoon Haiyan and the Philippines, the question lies on whether U.S. should continue to purchase U.S. food and deliver there, or allow for greater purchase of locally grown food. There are pros and cons to both sides: One of the pros is that the aid will get to the disaster-stricken area much quicker (in this case 8 weeks vs. 12 weeks from U.S.). But opposition argues that this would mean decrease in U.S jobs and rise in unemployment rates, especially in the agricultural sector.
Maybe it's just me, but this article also reminded me of the Banana War debate we did at the very beginning of the semester, with Dollar bananas vs. Caribbean bananas.
What do you think the U.S. law makers should do? Should we allow for greater purchase of local products? Is there a middle ground for this debate?
Good luck with the rest of your finals!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/typhoon-reignites-debate-over-how-us-supplies-food-aid.html?_r=0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're right, Jinny, this discussion does mirror the Banana Wars. The fact that the U.S. is the only major donor that does not rely on local purchases shows the U.S.'s U.S.-centrism, but is also understandable in light of the jobs that rely on this. I'm curious as to what the quantified effects of making this shift would be, for both the U.S. as well as the countries affected. I think there should be a gradual shift away from U.S. food to local food, and the U.S. should provide U.S. food only when there is no alternative. Like the article said: local production is faster to distribute, helps local economies, is easier to transport. There seem to be more positive sides to local food production.
ReplyDelete