The document discusses the need to reform the United States' international food aid program, Food for Peace, to use funds more efficiently and help more hungry people. It notes that while food aid has helped billions of people, the programs could better address nutritional needs, especially of women and children. Reforms like local and regional procurement of food aid and increased flexibility in resource use could save money, reach more people faster with more nutritious foods, and promote agricultural development in recipient countries.

1. Fact Sheet
International Food Aid Reform
October 2013
The United States has long been a global leader in
responding to humanitarian emergencies and is the
largest provider of lifesaving food aid. Since Food for
Peace—the largest food aid program–began in the 1950s,
approximately 3 billion people in 150 countries have
benefitted from American generosity and compassion.1
There is an opportunity to reform this valuable
program so that appropriated funds are used more
efficiently to reach the maximum number of hungry
people overseas, especially malnourished women and
children.
Food for Peace Appropriations
FY06 – FY12
2,500
US$, millions
Food aid is authorized through the Food for Peace
Act,6 and is provided as both disaster response and
developmental assistance. In a humanitarian response,
improved nutrition in food aid products–provided from
the United States or sourced locally–can save additional
lives. The U.S. Agency for International Development
USAID and its program-implementing partners need
additional flexibility to target the best possible food aid
products to recipients.
USAID
Food aid has been an integral part of the U.S.
government’s efforts to end global hunger, but its
shortcomings in meeting nutritional requirements of
recipients has been noted in the Tufts University Food
Aid Quality Review2 and reported by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO).3 Nutrition is especially
important in the 1,000 day-window of opportunity
between the beginning of a woman’s pregnancy and
her child’s second birthday. Should malnutrition set
in during this period, its effects are lifelong and often
irreversible with health, education, social, and economic
consequences.4 In fact, malnutrition can negatively affect
a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as
10 percent.5
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
I Base
I Supplemental
Despite the continued importance of Food for Peace, particularly among vulnerable women and children,
funding has decreased over the past several years. At the same time, more people are in need of assistance than ever;
especially as the lasting effects of drought are felt in places such as East Africa. In today’s budgetary climate, the U.S.
government needs to be as flexible as it can, while being a wise steward of appropriated funds. Food aid interventions
that address malnutrition are considered by experts to be among the best investments in developmental assistance.7
425 3rd Street SW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20024 • 1-800-822-7323 • www.bread.org

2. Why Reform is Needed
We have a unique opportunity to make reforms and use appropriated funds more efficiently to feed more hungry people.
Americans support effective development The average American believes the United States should spend about 10 percent
of the federal budget on foreign assistance.8 Yet the reality is that foreign assistance accounts for only about 1 percent of the
federal budget and poverty-focused developmental assistance that funds all food aid accounts for only 0.6 percent of the
total.9 According to recent polling, almost 90 percent of Americans believe that improving health for people in developing
countries should be one of the top priorities of U.S. foreign assistance; nearly two-thirds of those individuals specifically
prioritize reducing hunger and malnutrition.10 According to a recent study commissioned by Bread for the World, American
citizens feel strongly that our country has a moral and financial responsibility to help end hunger and poverty. (Read the
study in its entirety at www.bread.org/media/pdf/weber-shandwick-hunger-poll-sm.pdf).
Nutritional quality of food aid is essential An increasing
number of food aid recipients are women and children, and the
effects of malnutrition in the 1,000-day window of opportunity
can have devastating and lifelong effects. The types of food
aid provided by the United States and other donors in general
distribution do address hunger by providing needed calories,
but can come up short in addressing micronutrient needs.11
Ensuring good nutrition to vulnerable populations has not been
a high priority—at least partly because emergency programs
are seen to address short-term food emergencies. Improved
nutrition in food aid can build resilience that is needed to
withstand and overcome future food security challenges.
Every
$1
invested
in nutrition generates
as much as
$48
in better health and
increased productivity
Source: Hoddinott et. al,”The economic rationale for investing in stunting
reduction,” Maternal and Child Nutrition, Sept. 2013.
Flexibility Saves Dollars and Lives Funding to support complementary food security activities alongside direct distribution of food aid must be used as efficiently as possible. Procuring more food locally and regionally is, on average, 30
percent cheaper than traditional food aid and can be provided more quickly.12 For women and children in the 1,000day window, timely arrival of food aid can mean the difference between a life of health and opportunity and one of
stunted growth and human potential. The 2008 farm bill authorized a pilot program to implement and study local and
regional procurement (LRP) activities in both emergency and non-emergency settings. Results showed savings in both
money (50 percent) and time (62 percent faster delivery). Efficient programming can also be achieved by using cash and
vouchers where appropriate. Increasing program options will allow for specialized food aid products and fortificants
(vitamins and minerals) to be adjusted and targeted to most vulnerable populations to improve nutritional outcomes.
Reforms promote self-sufficiency of smallholder farmers Bagged food aid commodities are usually shipped from the United
States or a pre-position site, which can add to food aid cost and delivery time. The practice of monetization–shipping food
commodities purchased in the United States and reselling them to support food aid development projects–can mean losses of
as much as 30 cents on the dollar, compared to the use of vouchers or cash, and can in some cases be a disincentive for local
markets and farmers. In fiscal year 2012, $31.7 million was lost due to inefficiencies related to the practice of monetization.13
More than 800,000 additional people could have been fed through direct funding. According to GAO, monetization is
“inherently inefficient”14 and can undercut efforts to develop agricultural systems (which is a primary goal of Feed the Future).
A Call to Action
As specific food aid reform proposals in the 2013 farm bill are considered, final legislation must include the following
provisions:
• Authorization of Local and Regional Procurement: Support making permanent the authority for LRP projects at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at an annual authorized level of $60 million. This provision adds an important
and versatile tool that can be used to reach more food insecure people with better, more nutritious food.
Bread for the World • 425 3rd Street SW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20024 • 1-800-822-7323 • www.bread.org

3. • Improve Food Aid Quality and Measure Nutrition Outcomes: Support
extending 2008 farm bill authority to allow USDA and USAID to adjust food
aid products and formulations, accelerate the use of specialized products
that have proven to be superior in improving nutritional outcomes, and
continue to test new food aid products. Senate farm bill language maintains
authorized annual funding levels at $4.5 million that will allow this vital
research to continue and move toward becoming operational.
• Increased Flexibility on Resource Allocation: Consistent with existing
authority, Congress should allow cash funds within the Title II and Food
for Progress programs to be used to pay the cost of up to 20 percent of
activities. This would increase program implementing partners’ flexibility
in selecting between cash-based resources and in-kind resources and reduce
reliance on monetization.
• Increased 202(e) Funding: Support raising the level of project food aid
program resources available as cash from 13 percent to 15 percent to help
provide funding for important programmatic tools that had been previously
procured from monetization proceeds.
• Monetization Transparency and Reporting: The need to monetize
should eventually be replaced by other program options, recognizing the
importance of a responsible phase-out period to ensure program continuity.
• Donald M. Payne Anti-Hunger Grants: Congress should authorize the use
of focused programming in the 1,000 day-window between the beginning
of a woman’s pregnancy and her child’s second birthday in order to build
individual and household resilience and self-reliance.
Endnotes
USAID, Food for Peace: Bringing Hope to the Hungry, Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/
PDABZ818.pdf
2
Webb, et al. (April 2011), Delivering Improved Nutrition: Recommendations for Changes to U.S. Food
Aid Products and Programs, Food Aid Quality Review Report to the U.S. Agency for International
Development, Tufts University
3
U.S. Government Accountability Office (May 2011), International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition
and Quality Control Can Further Improve US Food Aid, Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO11-491). Available from: http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318210.pdf
4
Webb et al., op. cit.
5
Available at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/infographic_2013_lancet.pdf
6
As Amended Through P.L. 110–246, Effective May 22, 2008
7
The Copenhagen Consensus Center, Consensus Results 2008, http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
8
CNN Opinion Poll, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/31/rel4m.pdf; ‘American Public
Opinion on Foreign Aid’, World Public Opinion.
9
Office of Management and Budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/
fy2012/assets/12msr.pdf
10
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012 Survey of American’s on the U.S. Role in Global Health, http://
kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8304.pdf
11
Webb et al., op. cit.
12
GAO, International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can Enhance the Efficiency
of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain Its Implementation, GAO-09-570 (Washington,
2009), www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-570
13
Available at http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/USAIDFoodAidReform_
FactSheet.pdf
14
U.S. Government Accountability Office, op. cit.
1
“It’s not just the waste that should
bother us, but the harmful impact of
dumping such commodities, which
can destroy local farming, and in turn
increase the dependency on aid we’d
like to see end.”
– Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), chairman, House
Foreign Affairs Committee, on current food
aid system
n
“It is time we apply some innovation,
ingenuity and flexibility to our nation’s
food aid program in a way that does not
disrupt agricultural markets and better
achieves our goal of a food secure
world.”
–Cargill statement, May 22, 2013
n
“Land O’Lakes sees the value that such
LRP efforts can bring to countries like
Bangladesh, and supports steps that
will help meet development objectives
through food aid reforms and ultimately
make populations more resilient in the
face of future shocks.”
–Jon Halverson, vice president of
Land O’Lakes International Development
n
“At a time of such urgent human
need and budget constraint, reforms
that enable us to reach more hungry
people while saving taxpayer dollars,
and continue to engage the talent and
generosity of American agriculture, are
the right choice.”
–Roger Johnson, president,
National Farmers Union
425 3rd Street SW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20024
1-800-822-7323 www.bread.org