There are at least two approaches the United States can take to help end the global food crisis. We can send food aid directly to the world's starving populations. Or, we can send cash and enough other support to help poor countries buy the local foods they need and develop the ability to help themselves.
President Bush's request to Congress last week for an emergency $770-million increase in aid to food-starved countries would use both methods. That represents a different -- and better -- approach than the traditional U.S. method of shipping American-grown subsidized food overseas.
Congress should support the measure, which is included in a $70 billion Iraq war funding bill. The money would be in addition to more than $550 million in pending and requested food relief aid, bringing the administration's two-year total to over $5 billion. The United States' support of biofuels undeniably contributes to the rising cost of food, but the aid isn't intended as a counter-balance, Mr. Bush said.
The president outlined the new approach in his last State of the Union speech, saying some cash purchases of crops in developing countries would ''transform the way that food aid is delivered.'' About 25 percent of the emergency aid would be used for cash purchases and helping farmers develop agricultural systems that can sustain them during hard times. It is a modern adaptation of the old Chinese proverb: ``Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.''
The farm-subsidy industry isn't happy with the idea. Rebecca Bratter, director of trade policy at the U.S. Wheat Association, said the industry supports food aid, but not the local and regional purchase option.
When Mr. Bush presented the plan last week, Republicans and Democrats in Congress seemed favorably disposed to support it. The funding would not kick in until the 2009 fiscal year, but the crisis is urgent and Congress should quickly give its blessing.
