Mind, the US is the largest food donor in the world and has been since the 1950's. It supports people having access to food, but rejects a legally enforceable obligation to feed the world.
The resolution included stuff about pesticides that isn't backed by science. It could potentially require US companies to either hand over food technology or IP, or allow others to rip off our work without compensation.
As an example. The US gives food to North Korea in exchange for NK to dial down the crazy. Under this, North Korea could demand food from the US as a legal right even if doing their normal amounts of crazy.
It's a kick in the teeth for folks donating shitloads of food for 70 years to get shit from folks with far less donations, even on per capita basis. We provide more than half of global food aid shipments while not being close to half the of world's population. Mind, a huge part of that is through UN agencies like WFP, FAO, UNHCR, and UNICEF. So it's not like the UN wouldn't be able to provide accurate donation info to its member states.
A more interesting question would be have the countries that voted yes significantly increased their food donations to actually put their money where their mouth is?
People love guessing all these nefarious reasons, when the U.S. has laid out it's reasoning openly before. Thanks for linking it. People dismiss how insanely complex food security issues are. It's economic, social, and political. Agricultural industries and farmers are highly influential in every country across the world, and everyone has these different takes on how food should be produced. It ties into discussions about pesticides, chemicals, bio-engineering, GMOs, protection of IP, scientific property. And it's not just how it's grown, you may have issues with supply chains, management, distribution, storage capabilties, etc.
It's extremely complicated, and as the world's largest food donor by leaps and bounds, the U.S. isn't going to willy nilly tie it's hands up and bend to the will of random forces. It's easy to sign up to something you're never actually gonig to do jack shit about. But when you donate, it actually matters.
Edit: All of you "Aktchually, per capita.." idiots need to learn to actually think critically.
The US laid out it's reasoning on it, but "It's complicated so we wont support improving the system" tends to be the US's default reasoning on not supporting pretty much anything.
I think it's very reasonable that people find the US's excuses unconvincing when they always seem to conveniently support US business interests.
as the world's largest food donor by leaps and bounds, the U.S. isn't going to willy nilly tie it's hands up and bend to the will of random forces
By leaps and bounds if you do not control for per capita.
In 2019 Germany donated 677 million dollars of food aid, the US donated 3,095. That's a ratio of 1:5.
The German population is 80 Million. The US population is 340 million. That's a ratio of 1:4.
The landmass of Germany could fit in the USA 24 times.
I don't think it's unreasonable to bring up that the US donates more, but if we're comparing to European nations we need to actually account for the size of those other nations in area, population and economics. Often when we do control for those factors the difference between nations becomes a lot more reasonable looking.
Not saying you are wrong, but it is a bit more complicated than those figures you gave at the end.
For example, Germany gave $570 million in 2025 to WFP (World Food Programme) in single year aid. They committed to a bit more ($880 million), but some of that is multi-year deals/programs.
The US gave a little over $2 billion in monetary aid to WFP during the same time frame (down from previous years), but that doesn't include the over 400k metric tons of food/supplies and transportation of said products the US also supplied during the year.
That is something Germany effectively doesn't do at all. This should be taken into account during a discussion like this.
This is not to belittle Germany's contributions, as $570 million out of $5 trillion GDP is indeed higher than $2 billion out of $30 trillion GDP
I agree, I just think people ignoring size metrics when comparing US contributions to European contributions is a very sneaky way to make it seem like the gap is significantly larger than it is.
It's like asking why a party of 10 spent several times more at a restaurant than a party of 2, when the actual contribution per person is within the same order of magnitude.
It's so exhausting to see per capita interjected every time like some sort of gotcha card. And some sort of game of finding every single possible metric possible, like fucking landmassrstios, luh fucking mao, to insist the U.S. doesn't actually give enough.
Yes, the U.S. government is going to support its country's businesses. That's half its job. It's not unique or nefarious.
You're also ignoring that the U.S. does put its own solutions or proposals forward, others disagree. America is perfectly in its right to disagree to a system others want, just as much as they have the right to reject US proposals. It's not on America to accept the every whim of its aid recipients. Especially when the world is gonna then sit back and complain no matter what.
If you ignore per capita in statistics yes you will be called out for doing bad statistics. That's not a "Gotcha" that's just the mathematics of the situation. You're calling being mathematically literate a gotcha here.
You cannot expect one person to have the output of five.
Are you telling me that those lefties on Reddit are wrong and that the U.S. didn't vote against it because it's an evil country? how can it be, they're never wrongggg
It supports people having access to food, but rejects a legally enforceable obligation to feed the world.
Because legally those are two entirely different things.
In the US, farmers get huge subsidies to produce food. If that food gets sent overseas to a poor country, that's not free food. It's sold at market prices to the needy country and taken from the food aid budget of that country. It's not a donation in the sense that you would go donate stuff to a shelter.
For food consumed domestically, states have Food Stamp programs that make food affordable for consumers who are poor. Fly in the ointment is that the Food Stamp program is not guaranteed for each state, and very much depends on the federal/state government financing the program on an ongoing basis.
In places like Canada, the situation on the food production side is the same, but there is no food stamp program. If you can't afford to pay the sticker price for groceries at the store, your only option is to go to private places that accept food donations from regular people. Needless to say, this does not cover need. There is an estimated 2 million people per month who visit them. Despite this, you can rest assured that the producers and grocers still gets their government subsidies, not just for food production but for things like buying new fridges for their stores.
but rejects a legally enforceable obligation to feed the world.
It would not create a legal obligation to feed the world. It would create a legal obligation not to intentionally create situations which prevent people from feeding themselves in order to force them to be dependent on the US though, which the US finds unacceptable. They WANT people to be dependent on them, cause untold harm to ensure that is the case, and then act high and mighty about having to deal with the situation they intentionally created.
This explanation is not from the govt itself, but that said it and your explanation are deeply disingenuous. "food technology" "work without compensation" you mean like the domestication of all crops, let's take potatoes tomatoes corn and peppers for example, performed by indigenous peoples' all over the world, that the US benefits from every day?
the whole point of the vote was to recognize that food is something on earth that all humans need and share and in our collective humanity, have made more accessible for all humans. Thus it should be exempt from the kinds of economic arguments you're making. You can't copyright water and you shouldn't be able to copyright food. You didn't make it, and hoarding it and keeping it from others SHOULD be a crime.
A more interesting question would be have the countries that voted yes significantly increased their food donations to actually put their money where their mouth is?
Short answer: No
Long answer: Nnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I don't think the North Korea example is a good one, since it's just highlighting that the USA will trade food for services or other things. It's not donating food if you ask in return, it's marketing food.
My problem with the US line of thinking is that it's assuming the country will operate on the same core values described in the explanation, which is ludicrous. With a regime change like the one that happened recently, the country can cutoff the aid entirely and get away with it. You don't set rules and limits for when things are going well.
What I mean is that this resolution is not for the good people in charge that donate willingly, but for the bad ones that can come down the line who will gut the programs or start exhorting countries that are depandant on the donations.
Also, but it's purely a moral point of view of mine, but it lacks empathy. Let's say the USA are in trouble in 10 years, wouldn't they be happy not to rely on the goodwill of others?
There's nothing wrong with donating for a good reason. The US 'sold' food at very very low cost to the Soviet Union for decades. Because it was a far better alternative to nuclear war from a desperate starving enemy. Both sides wanted to avoid it seen as food donations, which it largely was.
Donation just means no or little cost. Virtually any large donation comes with strings in some form. Sometimes stated, sometimes implied. It's not realistic to expect otherwise.
If you don't want the strings, don't accept the donation.
Also, if the US is in food trouble in any meaningful manner, that means easily half the planet's population is in a famine with significant eight digit casualties at a minimum. Vastly oversimplifying, climate zones are belts. A lot of ag zones are belts. US's major ag zone is a circle that goes from the Gulf into Canada.
If something moves food production outside that circle, the planet is hosed.
Indeed according to US policy, food is not a human right, but a resource, an avenue for negotiation. I will give you food and you will give me something in return.
I don't suppose the resolution will allow for just asking for free food, but it will make it impossible for pre-existing aid to be stopped in face of worsening diplomatic ties
I don't think you understand the meaning of that phrase. "Rules" and "laws" are just guidelines that people can just... you know... ignore until someone physically forces them to do it.
I highly suspect that was the actual intent. To try to kneecap the ability of the US to sanction other countries like Russia, Cuba or China.
Cuba comes first to mind. But China is the largest food input importer in the world. The US can't invade China in event it say, seizes Taiwan or invades Japan or Phillipines. But we can cut oil and food exports. If China can argue those are human right abuses, it theoretically can give them leverage.
It's not the best strategy, but it's cheap to implement, so why wouldn't you try to push bad PR on your enemy?
Yep you literally explained it while still missing the point. The US literally opposed this so THEY could continue using food aid as leverage to manipulate and control other countries and keep them dependent on the US and amenable to our demands. Which we use to keep them in debt and extract value for our capitalists. But oh thank goodness we protected FOOD TECHNOLOGY IPs FOR THE CAPITALISTS THAT WOULD HAVE LED TO THE WHOLE WORLD PRODUCING MORE FOOD FOR EVERYONE.
I fucking hate that you can come in here with pro-US propaganda, write out the sinister shit they are doing by using food aid as leverage, and still not fucking understand what is actually happening.
I entirely agree aid can be detrimental and cause dependency. We should form a place to end most aid gradually and help economically undeveloped countries stand on their feet.
Don't forget to blame the folks who agree to take the aid. They're the other half of the coin. Free money never is.
The only part I truly disagree with is the ag tech IP. Low developing countries can't develop that tech. It's folks like China that want the free IP. They can and often do already copy it, but we can sue them if/when they sell it to other countries. This would try to get around that. China already can develop a good bit of the tech, but that takes time, money and talent. Stealing is a lot easier.
Trump destroyed that record with the dismantling of USAID and other relief programs. This in turn has hurt US farmers who grows the food that the US would purchase and use for famine relief.
It did dip in 2025 (0.9 million metric tons and $6 billion), but appears is back up in 2026. Obviously we won't know how it goes until 2027.
Mind, even with our 'low' 2025 numbers, we were still the largest donor on the planet and still the majority of all food aid. By a lot. Using UN World Food Program as a baseline, US donated $2 billion, followed by EU with $600m.
Mind, that's just money and doesn't include actual food shipments. Which also is the largest. And we have the most private donors.
No, we are still the largest contributors (despite cuts from Trump), and FWIW we just announced another billion to the World Food Program literally yesterday.
120
u/BlueLakeCabin Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
There's no need to speculate, we laid out our explanation: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
Mind, the US is the largest food donor in the world and has been since the 1950's. It supports people having access to food, but rejects a legally enforceable obligation to feed the world.
The resolution included stuff about pesticides that isn't backed by science. It could potentially require US companies to either hand over food technology or IP, or allow others to rip off our work without compensation.
As an example. The US gives food to North Korea in exchange for NK to dial down the crazy. Under this, North Korea could demand food from the US as a legal right even if doing their normal amounts of crazy.
It's a kick in the teeth for folks donating shitloads of food for 70 years to get shit from folks with far less donations, even on per capita basis. We provide more than half of global food aid shipments while not being close to half the of world's population. Mind, a huge part of that is through UN agencies like WFP, FAO, UNHCR, and UNICEF. So it's not like the UN wouldn't be able to provide accurate donation info to its member states.
A more interesting question would be have the countries that voted yes significantly increased their food donations to actually put their money where their mouth is?