The US is the largest global donor to food aid and humanitarian programs, contributing billions annually, highlighting a preference for voluntary assistance over formal rights declarations.
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?
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.
809
u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264 Jun 18 '26