Talk:Food for Peace

Untitled

I see there is no discussion of the possible negative aspects of this program. Why don't we start with this:

"I have heard . . . that people may become dependent on us for food. I know that was not supposed to be good news. To me that was good news, because before people can do anything they have got to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific. -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, in naming US Public Law 480 the "Food for Peace" program, Wall Street Journal, May 7, 1982 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.237.88 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dreaster. Peer reviewers: Dreaster.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing Perspectives

Hello,

I appreciate how this article gives the historical context of the Food for Peace program as well as provides more up to date information on its direction. There's an overview at the start of the article as well as various headings and subheadings that help guide readers to important information about the program. A critique for this article is that there is definitely missing information with regards to the underlying rationale behind food aid (i.e. anti-communist agenda). This article seems to have a focus on the humanitarian reasons for the U.S. giving aid but neglects the political reasons for giving food aid abroad; these political reasons are very important in understanding food aid and its impact on world hunger, especially around the time right after World War II. This perspective is definitely missing. The article could also be strengthened by including the negative effects of the food aid regime, more specifically the Food for Peace program's role in that regime. Perhaps including a better variety of sources could help incorporate missing perspectives and information.--Dreaster (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreaster (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Also missing is the economic side of the "food for peace", as being an implicit farm subsidy for the American farmers. Without it, the American agriculture was under the danger of collapsing in a glut. I have added some entries in the Further reading section, which you are welcome to use to expand the article.

On the other hand, I couldn't find any sources on the aftermath of "food for peace". The program sold American grain for payments in local currencies. The American government then accumulated huge local currency reserves. What did it do with those reserves? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• This quote: "Approximately 3 billion people in 150 countries have benefited directly from U.S. food assistance" should have an in text citation. It should also be made clear what measures they used to define what it means to "benefit".
• The Early History section should explain each of the programs instead of just listing them. Especially the last sentence should be clarified because it doesn't explain how the Marshall Plan allowed for European countries to become donors themselves; author should explain how the countries were "rejuvenated" and "united".
• "He found space for the program in the Executive Office Building rather than be subservient to either the U.S. Department of State or U.S. Department of Agriculture." Subservient isn't the right word here. "Found space" is also a strange phrase to use in this sentence. Also "or" should be changed to "nor".
• Author should add sentence variety and avoid repetition. For example: "USAID’s Office of Food for Peace manages two programs to support emergency food assistance efforts. Emergency programs..." Emergency programs could be replaced in this sentence with "One type of program consists of..."

Naomirose (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Naomi

USA Maritime's criticism of replacing food with cash

The article's introduction ends with an opinion of the chairman of [USA Maritime], a coalition of carriers and maritime unions, regarding the replacement of food with cash. This should be in its own section about that policy change, rather than featured so strongly in a way that readers could think is a government position. It would also be good to verify and/or contextualize the statistic cited, given the financial interest of USA Maritime in keeping food aid. MaxGhenis (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ended?

I don't have time to correct everything but I did so in the first line in both FFP and OFDA. OFDA and FFP no longer exist. Both merged in 2020 to form BHA. These are pretty gross inaccuracies at this point. I highly suggest someone who does have the time creates a BHA page. The bureau responded to 82 crises in 68 countries last year and provided $8 billion. I think it warrants its own page...https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BHA_Fact_Sheet-FY2021.pdf 23 July 2023 IP 71.114.77.160