SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
President Donald Trump upended U.S. international food aid weeks after taking office. Farm-state lawmakers have since revived the country's flagship hunger program, Food for Peace. But as Harvest Public Media's Frank Morris reports, senators face a major decision about who will run the restructured program and whether its mission is primarily to feed hungry people or to help U.S. farmers.
FRANK MORRIS, BYLINE: The idea at the heart of Food for Peace came from a Kansas farmer more than 70 years ago, and it still has lots of support in wheat country.
MERRILL NIELSEN: It helps poorer people in the world that aren't able to produce what they need to. And the other thing is it allows us to sell some of our crops that normally we wouldn't have a market for.
MORRIS: Merrill Nielsen, who farms in north-central Kansas, says Food for Peace has helped to keep him in business for half a century. But on the day Trump took office, he stopped all foreign aid. Two weeks later, USAID, the agency that ran Food for Peace, went dark.
NIELSEN: It was a blow to us because the market realized - and these crops, whether it was wheat or milo, were going to be stored somewhere and be hanging over the market, which lowered the price of our crop that we could sell.
MORRIS: It also halted food shipments to millions of desperately hungry people around the globe. Days later, farm-state politicians like Kansas Senator Jerry Moran, a Republican, and Kansas Congresswoman Sharice Davids, a Democrat, launched an effort to revive Food for Peace at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
SHARICE DAVIDS: Food for Peace doesn't just support the folks who need the food. Yes, it does that, absolutely, and Kansas farmers are proud of that legacy. But it also helps keep our farmers' products in demand.
MORRIS: USDA certainly knows how to buy food. Food for Peace is spending $450 million on U.S. grain to ship overseas. But Dina Esposito, who led Food for Peace for six years, says there's no evidence that USDA knows how to deliver aid.
DINA ESPOSITO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, it's important to understand, has no humanitarian mandate. It has no humanitarian experts to determine how best to direct the food to save the most amount of lives, to monitor the programs and hunger hotspots.
MORRIS: Esposito says USDA is bypassing some of the most intense hotspots like Sudan, where 21 million people face starvation, according to the United Nations. In a statement, USDA said that Food for Peace allocations focus on regions where U.S. commodities can be delivered and monitored most effectively while ensuring strict accountability reforms and that the agency has been returned to its core function of delivering lifesaving food assistance while prioritizing American farmers. USDA has so far bought nothing but U.S. commodities. It's pledged to deliver at least half its food relief through U.S. shippers. That's good for American farmers and shipping companies, but Esposito says it's bad for program efficiency, which means that fewer people get to eat.
ESPOSITO: The way the program is done and where the food goes is absolutely critical. It is a lifeline for a hungry child in a refugee camp or in a war zone. And that assistance is the difference between life and death for that child.
MORRIS: But ag industry support could mean the difference between life and death for Food for Peace. President Trump's proposed budget would zero out funding for the program. The House passed a farm bill in April which includes permanently placing Food for Peace at USDA under the shield of powerful agricultural interests. But a Senate committee released its draft of the legislation June 23, and it does not include placing Food for Peace under USDA. Kansas Wheat Commission President Chris Tanner wants the agency transferred permanently to USDA. But he admits that Food for Peace is under the microscope.
CHRIS TANNER: I think they're on a short leash right now in the fact that, you know, they have a couple years to make sure that they have the staff and a way to implement it that is effective. And I hope that they do it well and do it right.
MORRIS: Because if they don't, a program dating back to the Eisenhower administration that's fed some 4 billion people in 150 countries may come to an end. For NPR News, I'm Frank Morris in Kansas City.
(SOUNDBITE OF CURTIS MAYFIELD'S "THINK (INSTRUMENTAL)") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.