Groups oppose cash replacing grain in foreign aid
“A restructuring like the one proposed in the president’s budget would have a disastrous effect on that productivity and on the ability of WISHH to help the world’s hungry with American soy,” Murphy said.
ASA is among the drivers of a coalition opposing the “restructuring” to cash payments that includes groups in the agriculture, supply chain and logistics, labor, non-governmental organization (NGO) and development industries.
The groups have collaborated on a series of letters to President Obama and Senate leaders expressing opposition to the plan and citing the positive impacts of both programs both at home and abroad. “Growing, manufacturing, bagging, shipping, and transporting nutritious U.S. food creates jobs and economic activity here at home, provides support for our U.S. Merchant Marine, essential to our national defense sealift capability, and sustains a robust domestic constituency for these programs not easily replicated in alternative foreign aid programs,” wrote the groups. “Overseas, Food for Peace has a strong track record of reducing child malnutrition and increasing incomes and food supplies for very poor and vulnerable populations. Food for Progress expands business and income opportunities along the agriculture value chain and improves the quality and quantity of food supplies. Both of those programs are proven models for addressing global food insecurity.”
- Will high yields rescue 2014 crop returns?
- Pinnacle Agriculture Holdings acquires Kerman Ag Resources
- Syngenta global cereals collaborations hit home
- More than 50 million acres in Climate Basic
- New study charts the global invasion of crop pests
- Breakthrough in the understanding of plant growth, development