The United States government has been the world's largest donor of food aid for decades, and since 1990, with the end of the Cold War, its overall purposes and explicit policies are directed to alleviate world food insecurity and hunger. Yet many assert that a human rights approach would be the best way to reduce food insecurity and hunger. This study posits that the security concerns of U.S. foreign policy and the political–economic interests of U.S. stakeholders deflect the program from a human rights approach that would more sustainably and effectively reduce world hunger and meet the food needs of hungry people. Referring to case studies of post-2000 U.S. food-security programs in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, the study finds these distortions directly affect the management of the U.S. food program and influence the ways recipient countries use and abuse food provided by the American people.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marchione et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: