Research and development for U.S. agriculture would be a good way to help poor nations and farmers, argues Daniel Sumner of the University of California at Davis in a report that is highly critical of U.S. farm policies that hurt poor people.
The report, called Picking on the Poor, is part of a package of reports prepared for the American Enterprise Institute and intended to influence politicians as they prepare the next U.S. Farm Bill for 2013-2017.
Sumner says the long delays in negotiating a new World Trade Agreement have cost poor nations and farmers billions of dollars.
He cites several examples of U.S. farm policies that are hurting them:
- - Import protections, such as those applied to sugar, and export subsidies, such as for cotton.
- - Biofuels policies that use crops to produce fuel, driving up world-wide prices for food, and then erecting tariff and other barriers to keep ethanol and other foods out of the U.S. market.
- - Regulations that keep imports out of the U.S., including Country of Origin labeling and some food safety standards and protocols.
- - Food aid that favours U.S.-produced, U.S.-stored and U.S.-transported commodities.
Sumner said the U.S. Food Aid programs are a “relic” of times when there were persistent surpluses.
He argues that U.S. farm policies ought to be reformed to cut subsidies and import barriers and to increase agricultural research and development.
He said the research advances tend to flow around the world and eventually benefit all farmers, including those clinging feebly to survival in poor nations.
Although Sumner does not include it in his report, the World Trade Organization has reached agreement on major points of reform on international food aid. The United States stands out as the country that would be forced to make the most and biggest changes to its policies under this agreement.
The agreement will not, however, take effect until an overall deal is reached.
