Presented by the Global Remission Coalition
The U.S. is slashing food aid, reigniting debate over whether shipping American grain abroad still makes sense. Critics call it outdated and costly, but emergencies may still demand it. And behind it all? Politics.
Also in today’s edition: We look at what’s going on at COP30, and discover why experts don’t back a trans fat ban.
+ Happening soon at 8 a.m. ET: Join us for a Devex Pro Funding briefing with Simon Freeman, CEO of the Judith Neilson Foundation. The briefing will explore how the foundation is adapting to a changing funding landscape and what opportunities may lie ahead for NGOs, social enterprises, and other partners. Save your spot now.
US cuts reignite debate
As the U.S. slashes its foreign aid budget, a big question looms: Does the world still need American grain shipped across oceans? For decades, the U.S. has led the global food aid game, sending wheat, corn, and soy through its Title II Food for Peace program. In 2023, it reached 45 million people across 35 countries. However, with funding on the chopping block, critics are questioning whether this old-school model remains viable.
In-kind food aid has saved lives, no doubt. But opponents say it’s pricey, inefficient, and distorts local markets. It sticks around mainly because it’s great politics — U.S. farmers and shippers benefit from guaranteed government contracts. “There’s this cargo preference requirement that requires a certain percentage of U.S. commodities that are shipped overseas be transported on U.S.-flagged vessels,” says Erin Collinson of the Center for Global Development. “It does, typically, add to the cost and sometimes even the delays in getting food shipped.”
Even free market think tanks are among the critics. The Cato Institute has criticized the model, citing research showing it costs a third more than local sourcing.
Many emergency responses have moved toward sending people cash to buy their own food. But while that has gained traction as an alternative, it is not always a one-size-fits-all solution. Dan Gilligan of the International Food Policy Research Institute highlights research in Ecuador, Uganda, Yemen, and Niger found that cash and food transfers delivered similar results everywhere except for Niger: “The markets in Niger were so weak that people would receive cash and essentially couldn’t access a healthy diet,” he says. Gilligan also cited research in the Philippines, which found a cash injection led to sudden inflation, severe enough to cause child stunting.
Plus, there’s the nutrition factor, my colleague Ayenat Mersie writes. U.S. food aid often includes fortified blends packed with essential micronutrients. “In one study from several years ago, adolescent girls in late primary school had, you know, anemia rates around 20% and they almost fell to zero as a result of them getting access to fortified food,” Gilligan says. Cash just can’t do that — at least not yet.
But there’s a question about how necessary food aid is at all. Countries such as Tanzania are showing what self-reliance can look like. “Our view is that in general, there isn’t … a macro, large-scale need for in-kind food aid,” says Jonathan Said of AGRA. “Of course, you definitely have pockets,” he adds, pointing to conflict-hit countries such as South Sudan and Somalia. The goal now is to boost regional trade, so neighbors with surplus can support those in need.
So why does in-kind aid survive? Politics. “In-kind food assistance has survived for a real reason. And that has to do with obviously the constellation of domestic constituencies that support it,” Collinson says. It’s not just about helping hungry people — it’s about helping American industries. That’s why it stays funded, even as long-term programs such as Feed the Future get axed.
Bottom line: In-kind food aid is clunky, controversial, and politically charged. But in a world of fragile markets and deep inequality, it may still be a necessary tool. At least for now.
Read: What good is in-kind food aid? (Pro)
+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today to access all our expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, events, and more. Check out all the exclusive content available to you.
COP30 prep raises eyebrows
Brazil is racing to host the 30th U.N. climate change summit, or COP30, this November — but with the housing portal missing, the schedule extended last-minute, and a “business COP” splitting off in Rio, confusion reigns.
COP30 will be held in Belém, known as the gateway to the Amazon, in large part to symbolize the importance of the rainforest in the fight against climate change. But logistically, it’s proving a challenge. For locals, it’s more hassle than honor: Many are listing homes on Airbnb and planning to leave. Even officials admit things feel scattered. “The people from Belém will still be there,” says André Corrêa do Lag o, Brazil’s COP30 president. “They will just be a little further away.”
The policy agenda also remains unclear. Instead of a single big outcome, Brazil is pushing a “menu” of solutions. One key item on the agenda is the Baku to Belém Roadmap, which was proposed last year to help bridge the gap between the $300 billion promised in public funding at COP29 and the $1.3 trillion needed to address climate change.
Do Lago has promised to “show to all the countries that there are many things and many directions we can take.” But disputes have broken out over the agenda, and Brazil’s goal for this to be the “implementation COP” appears ambitious.
Read: High stakes, loose plans, and an Amazonian COP in flux
Trans fat ban risks nutrition
The United Nations is gearing up to unveil a big declaration this September aimed at tackling noncommunicable diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — many of which are linked to poor diets. One major proposal? Wipe out all trans fats from global food systems. Sounds healthy, right? Maybe not entirely.
More than 115 agrifood experts and government officials are raising red flags. In an open letter, coordinated by the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi and backed by the African Union’s animal resources bureau, they warn that a total ban on all trans-fatty acids could backfire — especially in lower-income countries. Why? Because it lumps together natural trans fats found in meat and dairy with the industrial kind found in food such as fried snacks and packaged baked goods.
Their message: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. “The risk of a blanket commitment to eliminate all trans-fatty acids is that it unnecessarily discourages the consumption of highly nutritious dairy, meat and other animal-source foods,” the letter says. And that could hit lower-income countries hardest, where these foods are already under-consumed and are often the best sources of essential nutrients and calories.
ICYMI:
• Noncommunicable disease political declaration needs ‘more teeth’
• Noncommunicable diseases — a policy success but implementation failure
Trump ally eyes Rome
Lynda Blanchard — a “Christian conservative,” business owner, and Trump mega-donor — is up for the U.S. ambassador post to the U.N.’s Rome-based food agencies. In her Senate hearing, the Alabama native, speaking in a thick southern drawl, called the U.N. “bloated” and in need of urgent reform. “If confirmed, I will bring everything I have to ensure that the U.N. organizations the United States chooses to engage with are efficient and effective stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” she told lawmakers.
Blanchard — a MAGA loyalist who, with her husband, has given $2.6 million to Republicans, and previously served as Trump’s ambassador to Slovenia — has no prior U.N. experience. Her nomination would give her oversight of U.S. ties to the Food and Agriculture Organization, World Food Programme, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development — just as Trump’s budget cuts have gutted these agencies’ funding. WFP faces a 40% shortfall and may cut 6,000 staff, while IFAD’s proposed U.S. funding is zero, my colleague Elissa Miolene writes.
The role is typically low-profile but influential in shaping global hunger policy. Critics say her nomination signals a Trump-aligned shift that sidelines climate, gender, and diversity. As Rodney Hunter, the former interim head of the U.S. mission to the U.N. agencies in Rome, told WFP’s board: “The United States is no longer going to dole out money with no return for the American people.”
Blanchard seems aligned. At her hearing, she quoted Marco Rubio: “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Read: Who is Lynda Blanchard, Trump’s pick for the top UN food agencies post?
+ For more content like this, sign up to Devex Dish, our free weekly newsletter on the global food system.
In other news
A joint statement by 25 countries has called for an end to the war in Gaza and has condemned the “drip feeding of aid” into the enclave, as more than 90 people were killed trying to get food assistance on Sunday. [Arab News and NPR]
The International Court of Justice is set to issue a landmark opinion clarifying governments’ legal duties on climate action and potential consequences for polluters, in a move experts say could significantly influence global climate policy. [Barron’s]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Helen Murphy
Helen is an award-winning journalist and Senior Editor at Devex, where she edits coverage on global development in the Americas. Based in Colombia, she previously covered war, politics, financial markets, and general news for Reuters, where she headed the bureau, and for Bloomberg in Colombia and Argentina, where she witnessed the financial meltdown. She started her career in London as a reporter for Euromoney Publications before moving to Hong Kong to work for a daily newspaper.
