It feels good to be productive. As a Kansas farmer and rancher, I like the fact that I help transform air, water, and minerals into wheat and meat that can help sustain people. And as an agricultural advocate for Oxfam America, being productive means supporting sisters and brothers around the world to farm as I do and help feed their neighbors.
That's why the reforms to US food aid are so important to me. As a member of the Farm Bureau, it's also why I am so disappointed that the Farm Bureau would distort the need for those reforms in a recent editorial.
American Farm Bureau Federation President Stallman calls in to question the accountability and efficacy of using cash, rather than shipping food, when he writes that:
"Shipping a cargo load of food, rather than the money to buy food (if it is available), is the best and most secure way to ensure that taxpayer-funded international food assistance actually makes it to hungry people overseas."
Really?!? When the distance between the US and the country we are supporting means an average of 130 days between procurement and delivery, I find this hard to believe. When over half of those taxpayer dollars that could be helping to feed people are siphoned away into the pockets of middlemen before one hungry child is fed, I'm concerned that there are many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Yes, I like to know that what I do as a farmer can help people to be fed around the world. But I don't think that way when I consider that my "feeling good" (Stallman uses the word "pride" here) hurts the ability of other farmers in developing countries to feed themselves and their communities.
Mr. Stallman is concerned about "good international relations." So am I. Consider the effects on a Haitian farmer with rice to sell when the earthquake hit in 2010, as "free" commodities flooded the local market in Port au Prince. This same question arises for crisis areas in other countries and their neighboring regions, where food is available, transport is closer, and markets are functioning.
The proposed reforms don't eliminate US-produced commodities from being used for aid. In fact the majority of emergency food aid will remain in that form. But, these reforms are something of which the Farm Bureau should be "proud". First, they follow the conservative principle that public money needs to be used efficiently and seeks to achieve the greatest bang for the buck. Second, the reforms hope to take of advantage of and support existing markets by purchasing food locally or regionally when feasible.
From where I sit, overlooking my land on the Great Plains, US support of international agriculture has undercut neither our farmers, nor our national security over the decades. Some of the biggest markets for US commodities are in countries that used to struggle with food security. While emergency food aid may be a band-aid for a day, our support of long-term agricultural programs and market development helps create stability, more food, and new customers for our own goods.
Now that is the pathway to friendship-something we can feel good about for years to come.