|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The pitfalls of ‘freebie food’ |
|
|
|
We’ve all seen the commercials: aid agencies featuring starving children in Africa, desperately staring into the camera with mute appeal. At some time or another, the advertisements have compelled the most hard-hearted to open their wallets.
These donations usually take the form of immediate food aid. To provide a permanent answer to endemic food shortages, industrialized nations must supply the expertise to allow agricultural self-sufficiency in the third world.
The “freebie food” policy ultimately does more harm than good. Donations promote chronic dependence on charity and the destruction of agricultural institutions in recipient countries.
Direct food aid, barring acts of nature, is misguided. Some donations don’t even reach those who need it. Unscrupulous regimes use food aid as a tool to retain their grip on power. Then there’s the cost of shipping – freight rates have tripled in the last 15 months.
Donations themselves have been reduced this year, as a series of crop failures sent prices soaring. Several traditional exporters warily eyed their own domestic supply, instituting export bans to curb shipments. Appeals for aid fall on deaf ears under such circumstances.
The UN budgets $3 billion toward direct food aid. A portion of that money could provide fertilizer and drought-resistant seed, along with teams of agro-professionals to assist local governments. Growing food domestically would ensure efficient use of arable Third World acres. This long-term solution would result in dramatic increases in production, guaranteed jobs in destitute areas, political stability, and, most importantly, a less hungry world.
Jerrod Kitt
Chicago, Ill. |
| 7/23/2008 |
|
|
|
|
