**The U.S. Contribution to World Food Security**

**The U.S. Position Paper**

**Prepared for the World Food Summit**

This paper is a joint effort of all concerned agencies of the U.S.
Government.

The co-chairmen of the Interagency Working Group responsible for
overseeing U.S. Government preparations for the World Food Summit are:

> Eugene Moos
>
> Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
>
> U.S. Department of Agriculture
>
> Timothy E. Wirth
>
> Under Secretary for Global Affairs
>
> U.S. Department of State
>
> J. Brian Atwood
>
> Administrator
>
> U.S. Agency for International Development

Any questions with regard to the U.S. position paper may be directed to:

> Avram E. ABuzz@ Guroff
>
> U.S. National Secretary for the World Food Summit
>
> Foreign Agricultural Service
>
> Room 3008-South Building
>
> U.S. Department of Agriculture
>
> Washington, D.C. 20250
>
> Tel. (202) 690-0855
>
> Fax. (202) 720-6103

Issue Date: July 1996

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital
and familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202)
720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or
(202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.

> This paper is dedicated to those who perished in Secretary of Commerce
> Ron Brown\'s trade development mission to Bosnia in April 1996. All
> the members of that mission\--from both government and the private
> sector\--gave their lives in the promotion of international
> development. They represent the best in American public service.

**Contents**

Executive Summary i

U.S. Country Paper 1

Introduction 1 Why a World Food Summit? How Can It Contribute to Global
Food Security? 1

What Is Food Security? 2

Why Is Food Security Important for the United States? 3

What Factors Influence Food Security? 3

What Can the United States Do To Improve Food Security? 3

A. What Has the United States Done To Improve Food Security

in the Past? 4

B. What Will the United States Do To Improve Food Security

in the Future? 5

What National Policies and Actions Does the United States Advocate To

Improve Food Security? 7

Conclusion 8

Annex I: Projections: World Food Security in the Years Ahead I-1

Introduction I-1

1\. Long-Term Outlook for Food Supply and Demand I-2

2\. Long-Term Food Needs I-4

Conclusion I-6

Bibliography I-7

Annex II: What Factors Influence Food Security II-1

Annex III: The U.S. Record in Domestic Food Security III-1

1\. Nutrition Programs III-2

2\. Programs To Promote Healthy Eating III-4

3\. Federal Actions To Promote Food Safety and Quality III-5

4\. Income and Medical Safety Net Programs III-6

Annex IV: The U.S. Record in International Food Security IV-1

1\. Commercial Trade IV-1

2\. Development Assistance IV-3

Annex V: Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations V-1

Annex VI: Relevant International Conferences and Conventions VI-1

1\. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and

Major Post-UNCED Activities, Initiatives, or Treaties VI-1

2\. International Conference on Nutrition VI-3

3\. U.N. Conference on Population and Development VI-4

4\. Fourth World Conference on Women VI-5

**U.S. Country Paper**

**Executive Summary**

**Over the past two decades, the international community has taken great
strides in reducing the numbers of chronically undernourished people in
developing countries. Today, many countries can point to a number of
battles won, particularly in terms of economic development and dramatic
increases in agricultural production. Nonetheless, a staggering number
of people\--nearly 800 million\--still go to bed hungry or malnourished
each night. This is simply unacceptable.**

**For the United States, improving global food security is an essential
key to world peace and the national security of our country. Food
security is simply too basic and too fundamental to individual human
dignity and survival. The November 1996 World Food Summit at the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome will help focus the attention
of world leaders on the devastating effects of chronic hunger and
malnutrition.**

The United States sees an urgent need for all countries to tackle the
food security problem with renewed intensity. Accordingly, the United
States is using the occasion of the World Food Summit to spur a
comprehensive review of its policies and actions \-- past and present
\-- as they relate to global and domestic food security. This paper
reflects that review, as well as policies and actions the United States
will pursue to help the world achieve food security in the future.

Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and
economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a
productive and healthy life. Many interrelated factors influence the
availability, access, and utilization of food, and thereby food security
of individuals and countries. Apart from natural disasters, the
following are root causes of food insecurity: war and civil strife;
inappropriate national policies; inadequate development, transfer, and
adaptation of agricultural and other research and technology; barriers
to trade; environmental degradation; poverty; population growth; gender
inequality; and poor health.

The root causes of food insecurity listed above must be addressed by
both individual countries and the international community as a whole.
The current budget environment means that developing countries will have
to take primary responsibility for improving their own food security
with limited external assistance. Nevertheless, the United States
intends to continue to play a major role in promoting food security
around the world. To this end, the United States intends to:

1\. Share its expertise with selected countries wishing to review and
change their national policies to improve food security.

2\. Enhance U.S. Government support for research and technology
development in agriculture and related sectors, both at home and abroad.

3\. Continue support for food security through the use of agricultural
programs, development assistance, and food aid. Employ an integrated
approach to sustainable development, with a strong emphasis on those
countries that show a good-faith willingness to adopt necessary policy
reforms.

4\. Work with all countries to achieve freer trade and to assure that
the benefits are equitably realized. Urge all countries to open their
markets in the interest of achieving greater stability and participation
in the world market.

5\. Continue support for international efforts to respond to and prevent
humanitarian crises that create emergency food aid needs.

6\. Continue efforts to encourage and facilitate implementation of food
security-related actions adopted at recent international conferences or
established in recently agreed-to conventions.

7\. Work within the multilateral system to enhance global approaches to
food security.

8\. Continue to work toward food security for all Americans.

Those countries that have demonstrated the most progress in achieving
food security are those that have seriously pursued policy reform,
macroeconomic stabilization, and structural adjustment, while focusing
government activities on public goods investment and provision of safety
nets. Such commitment and assumption of responsibility at the national
level create a climate conducive to private and public external
investment. Developed and developing countries alike should work in
partnership to achieve this climate, taking into account the particular
circumstances of each individual country. The United States stands ready
to join in a new kind of partnership with all countries prepared to face
the challenge of conquering world hunger and to take the difficult steps
necessary to meet and surmount that challenge.

**U.S. Country Paper**

**Introduction**

**Over the past two decades, the international community has taken great
strides in reducing the numbers of chronically undernourished people in
developing countries. Today, many countries can point to a number of
battles won, particularly in terms of economic development and dramatic
increases in agricultural production. Nonetheless, a staggering number
of people\--nearly 800 million\--still go to bed hungry or malnourished
each night. This is simply unacceptable.**

**For the United States, improving global food security is an essential
key to world peace and the national security of our country. Food
security is simply too basic and too fundamental to individual human
dignity and survival. The November 1996 World Food Summit at the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome will help focus the attention
of world leaders on the devastating effects of chronic hunger and
malnutrition.**

**Food security is often dependent on conditions we cannot control.
Farmers and other food producers around the world suffer serious
production losses as a result of drought, floods, and other forces of
nature. Other factors, however, are more susceptible to human
intervention, including national policies, production technologies,
population growth rates, resource management (especially soil and
water), and political stability. Unless efforts are undertaken now to
address the roots of hunger, millions more \-- particularly in
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia \-- will die of hunger or be
malnourished in the next millennium. (See Annex I.)**

**The United States sees an urgent need for all countries to tackle with
renewed intensity the challenge posed by food insecurity. Our
humanitarian interests, our economic interests, and our national
security are at stake. Moreover, if the United States is not part of the
solution, it will only end up dealing with the consequences on a scale
that makes recent crises in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Rwanda pale by
comparison.**

**Accordingly, the United States is using the occasion of the World Food
Summit to spur a comprehensive review of its policies and actions \--
past and present \-- as they relate to global food security. This paper
reflects that review, as well as policies and actions the United States
will pursue to help the world achieve food security in the future.**

**Why a World Food Summit?**

**How Can It Contribute to Global Food Security?**

**The World Food Summit, an initiative of FAO Director-General Jacques
Diouf, will take place at the FAO headquarters in Rome Nov. 13-17, 1996.
The Summit can provide a venue for a new kind of partnership between the
developed and developing world to improve food security and increase
food self-reliance in an era witnessing ever-tighter budget constraints,
including reduced resources for development assistance and food aid.
This will best be achieved through a variety of actions: adoption of
appropriate national policies, including conflict resolution; free and
open trading systems; shared agricultural and other research; promotion
of the critical role of sustainable development in the agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries sectors, with special emphasis on soil and water
management systems; adoption of social policies that recognize the
essential role of women, population stabilization, education, and health
factors in food security; and development and emergency assistance,
including, where necessary, food aid. While supportive government
policies are essential, farmers and other food producers grow food.
Individual members of the private sector and non-governmental
organizations are key to food security in the global market from the
farmer and other food producers to the consumer.**

**From the beginning, FAO member states have agreed that the World Food
Summit: is not a conference about pledging new resources; is not aimed
at creating new financial mechanisms, institutions, or bureaucracies;
and will not reopen agreements reached in other fora. Rather, this
FAO-sponsored event is designed to examine realistic approaches to food
security.**

**It is also essential that current market conditions and strong grain
prices not divert the Summit from its primary purpose of addressing the
long-term challenge of global food security. Failure to keep the current
situation in proper perspective can lead to calls for inappropriate
market-distorting actions and policy changes. Whatever near-term
benefits such changes might provide, they will only make the road to
long-term global food security even harder.**

**What Is Food Security?**

**Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and
economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a
productive and healthy life. Food security has three dimensions:**

**AVAILABILITY of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality,
supplied through domestic production or imports;**

**ACCESS by households and individuals to adequate resources to acquire
appropriate foods for a nutritious diet; and**

**UTILIZATION of food through adequate diet, water, sanitation, and
health care.**

**While not usually set apart, it is widely recognized that the
achievement of the above three dimensions must be sustainable
economically, socially, politically, and environmentally, preserving the
long-term productive capacity of the natural resource base. Moreover,
these dimensions must be addressed at the global, regional, national,
household, and individual levels. Achievement of food security at one
level does not ensure achievement at all levels. For example, there are
countries that have adequate food supplies, but still contain large
pockets of food insecurity within their borders. It is particularly
important to distinguish between food availability at global, national,
and regional levels, and food access at household and individual
levels.**

**Why Is Food Security Important for the United States?**

**It is in the best interests of the United States to make global food
security at all levels a priority for three reasons: our humanitarian
interests, our economic interests, and our national security. U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, at the FAO\'s 50th Anniversary
Observance in Quebec City, Canada, in October 1995, stated that the
United States is committed to working toward programs and policies that
recognize and respond to the food security needs of all nations.**

**The United States has a long tradition of answering the calls of those
in need. And more and more, we find that no one can go it alone in this
world. We are more connected than ever before by trade in goods and
services, information, and ideas. Grain imports in Asia affect farmers\'
purchasing power in Kansas and the amount of food available for hungry
children in Rwanda. Long-term U.S. strategic interests are also
affected. In crisis-ridden, food-insecure Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and
now former Yugoslavia, U.S. troops have recently played a pivotal role
in saving lives, restoring order, and protecting U.S. interests. Looking
to the future, a food crisis in North Korea could threaten stability in
a region vital to U.S. security.**

**What Factors Influence Food Security?**

**All three dimensions of food security \-- availability, access, and
utilization \-- may be seriously undermined by any number of root
causes. Apart from natural disasters, these include: war and civil
strife; inappropriate national policies; inadequate development,
dissemination, adaptation, and adoption of agricultural and other
research and technology; barriers to trade; environmental degradation;
poverty; population growth; gender inequality; and poor health. (See
Annex II.)**

**What Can the United States Do To Improve Food Security?**

**The root causes of food insecurity listed above must be addressed by
both individual countries and the international community as a whole.
With this in mind, the United States has established four primary
objectives to guide its participation in the World Food Summit:**

-   **Adoption of appropriate national policies by all countries as the
    foundation of food security at all levels;**

-   **Assertion of the U.S. role in assisting other countries to
    overcome hunger and malnutrition through U.S. leadership in
    agricultural, fisheries, and trade policies; development assistance;
    agricultural research; long-term environmental forecasting; and, as
    necessary, food aid;**

-   **Promotion of the critical role of sustainable development in the
    agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors in achieving food
    security; and**

-   **Recognition of the essential role of women, population
    stabilization, education, and health in the food security
    equation.**

**A. What Has the United States Done To Improve Food Security in the
Past?**

**At home and abroad, the United States has already taken steps designed
to achieve these objectives. The United States has a strong record in
support of domestic food security, which is in large part a credit to
the success of the nation\'s agricultural production, processing, and
distribution sectors. While significant problems remain with regard to
food access and nutrition for some sub-populations, public- and
private-sector efforts continue to work toward food security for all
Americans. The capacity of the U.S. farm and food system to contribute
to both domestic and international food security will be continued under
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which allows
flexibility to respond to market conditions, supports research, and
provides incentives for conservation and sustainable resource use.**

**The United States also contributes to domestic food security through
food assistance programs targeted at low-income individuals, programs to
promote healthy eating, and actions to promote food safety and quality.
A series of income and medical safety net programs indirectly support
household food security by maintaining adequate incomes for the elderly,
disabled, and economically vulnerable people. Sustainable forest and
fisheries management policies and programs are also critical dimensions
of the commitment to long-term food security. (See Annex III.)**

**The United States contributes to global food security by remaining a
major supplier of agricultural commodities to the world market. World
agricultural trade is approaching \$250 billion, and the U.S. share of
this total is estimated at about 23 percent. U.S. agricultural exports
for fiscal year 1996 are projected to reach a record level of \$60
billion. Additionally, the United States is the third largest
agricultural importer in the world. In fiscal year 1996, U.S.
agricultural imports are projected to reach \$30.5 billion, with more
than 50 percent coming from the developing world. Similarly, U.S.
fishery imports will total a projected \$6.5 billion in 1996, with more
than half of this amount originating in developing countries.**

**The United States is committed to remaining a reliable supplier of
food to its trading partners. In particular, the Secretary of
Agriculture has reaffirmed that the U.S. Government will not restrict
exports because of current high prices and tight supplies. The U.S.
market will efficiently allocate grains among domestic and export users
based on market prices. This policy is in sharp contrast to actions
taken by some exporters who are protecting domestic grain users from
tight supply by taxing exports to stem the outward flow.**

**Since 1962, the United States has provided over \$250 billion in
non-military economic assistance. In 1995, this assistance was over \$10
billion, of which nearly 80 percent was devoted to bilateral programs to
more than 90 countries. About \$1.35 billion worth of U.S. contributions
were in the form of food aid assistance, including \$500 million for
emergency relief. The United States provides over half of its global
food aid in most years through the Food for Peace Program and the Food
for Progress Program. The United States has made major contributions to
(and seen major benefits from) international agricultural research
programs and international financial institutions that deal with
agricultural and rural development programs. Finally, U.S. leadership in
implementing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)-mandated
trade liberalization measures has contributed substantially to freer
trade in agricultural commodities. (See Annex IV.)**

**B. What Will the United States Do To Improve Food Security in the
Future?**

**The current budget environment for foreign assistance is grim, both in
the United States and abroad. Developing countries must take primary
responsibility for improving their own food security with limited
external assistance. Despite this budget reality, the United States will
continue to play a major role in promoting global food security. The
United States intends to:**

**1. Share its expertise with selected countries wishing to review and
change their national policies to improve food security. Appropriate
national policies are essential for a country to improve food security.
The United States stands ready to provide technical expertise to help
selected countries develop and implement sound food security policy
frameworks.**

**2. Enhance U.S. Government support for research and technology
development in agriculture and related sectors, both at home and abroad.
A strong domestic research base will allow the United States to maintain
and increase its capacity to be a reliable source of food and a source
of technology for use by other countries. The United States will
continue support for international agricultural research centers and
genetic resource banks, as well as institutions devoted to development
and adaptation of research for local use, including reduction of
post-harvest losses.**

**3. Continue support for food security through the use of agricultural
programs, development assistance, and food aid. Employ an integrated
approach to sustainable development, with a strong emphasis on those
countries that show a good-faith willingness to adopt necessary policy
reforms. This support includes policy reform dialogue, population
stabilization, improved health and education systems, freer
international markets, rural development (including locally controlled
credit), and peaceful conflict resolution. Top priority will be given to
the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative and support for the Southern
Africa Development Conference. The United States also will consider
targeting assistance and other incentives to those countries and regions
most likely to take steps on their own to help themselves. The United
States urges other developed countries and non-traditional donors to
participate more actively in provision of food aid and other
assistance.**

**4. Work with countries to achieve freer trade and to assure that the
benefits are equitably realized. Urge all countries to open their
markets in the interest of achieving greater stability and participation
in the world market. The United States supports a freer and more open
trading system in accordance with the Agreement on Agriculture reached
at the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (see Annex V)
and urges countries to be reliable suppliers and refrain from taking
unnecessary actions to provide short-term internal price stability at
the expense of international market stability.**

**5. Continue support for international efforts to respond to and
prevent humanitarian crises that create emergency food aid needs. The
United States will continue support for refugee assistance, disaster
assistance, and food aid for emergency needs, and support international
and other humanitarian organizations that respond to such crises. The
United States will also continue to work with other countries to prevent
conflict and build local capacity to prepare for natural disasters in
order to mitigate their impact. The United States recognizes that the
sharp decline in large producer-held food reserves has reduced one means
of providing food in response to unforeseen emergency food needs. To
meet these situations, the United States currently programs food aid for
both predicted and unanticipated emergency needs, and urges other donors
to do the same. In addition, the United States has restructured its Food
Security Commodity Reserve to be more responsive to changing grain needs
and is reviewing ways to further strengthen this Reserve within
budgetary constraints.**

**6. Continue efforts to encourage and facilitate implementation of food
security-related actions adopted at recent international conferences or
established in recently agreed conventions. The U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development, the International Conference on Population
and Development, the International Conference on Nutrition, the Fourth
World Conference on Women, the U.N. Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks
and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries all emphasized sustainable national policies that
will improve global food security. (See Annex VI.)**

**7. Work within the multilateral system to improve global approaches to
food security. The United States encourages the multilateral financial
institutions to reinforce their efforts to assist eligible countries
facing balance-of-payments problems caused by short-term increases in
food import costs that undermine a country\'s ability to assure food
security. In addition, the United States encourages the multilateral
development organizations to give greater priority to agricultural and
rural development lending and grant commitments for the poorer
countries, especially countries which are pursuing sound economic
policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. The United States also urges these
organizations to improve their institutional capacity to enable them to
assist developing countries keen to revamp their own national food
policies and to enable developing countries to implement the agreements
listed above.**

**8. Continue to work toward food security for all Americans.
Recognizing that there exist food insecure populations in the United
States, the Government continues its pledge to maintain a nutrition
safety net that provides access to food and promotes healthy eating. The
United States is committed to insuring the effectiveness of Federal
nutrition assistance programs and supports the use of public and private
partnerships to increase food security.**

**What National Policies and Actions Does the United States**

**Advocate To Improve Food Security?**

**The most important prerequisite for improving food security within a
country is the development and implementation of an appropriate policy
framework. Because their policies affect world market conditions, this
is important not only in low- and middle-income food-insecure countries,
but also in high-income countries. The United States advocates the
following national policies and actions to improve food security:**

**\--Adopt economic policies that facilitate and complement efficient
markets, rather than attempting to substitute government action for
markets. Government should establish and enforce the rules of the game
and create and sustain a stable economic environment that is conducive
to the full participation of the private sector. Government should also
invest in public goods infrastructure including transportation,
communications, education, and social safety nets.**

**\--Provide basic health and sanitary services, maintain basic levels
of nutrition, and facilitate voluntary population stabilization.**

**\--Develop institutions and a land tenure system that provide broad
access to land services and incentives for users to protect and invest
in the long-term productivity of natural resources.**

**\--Ensure a political system that does not discriminate against women
and which fosters political stability without resorting to repressive
measures.**

**\--Provide a macroeconomic and trade environment with linkages to
global markets so that long-term changes are transmitted to the domestic
economy, thus avoiding macroeconomic imbalances that could induce
destabilizing adjustments.**

**\--Foster food, agricultural, and fishery policies that are consistent
with the resource endowment of the country, including preservation of
biological diversity, and supportive of its natural comparative
advantage.**

**\--Adopt policies that provide an effective incentive structure for
sustainable management of natural resources, including: soil, water, and
genetic resource management, including preservation of biological
diversity; food, agricultural, forestry, and fisheries policies; and the
effective integration of trade and domestic policies.**

**\--Emphasize investment in agricultural research and technical
education, international research systems, and policies that facilitate
the flow of knowledge and technology among and within countries while
protecting intellectual property rights so necessary to provide
incentives for private sector research.**

**\--Establish a general development policy that does not discriminate
against the agricultural or fishery sectors, nor against rural or
coastal areas, and that recognizes that poverty alleviation requires an
integrated approach to rural development.**

**\--Combat graft and corruption wherever it exists, especially in the
political and economic systems.**

**Those countries that have demonstrated the most progress in achieving
food security are those that have seriously pursued policy reform,
macroeconomic stabilization, and structural adjustment, while focusing
government activities on public goods investment and provision of safety
nets. Such commitment and assumption of responsibility at the national
level create a climate conducive to private and public external
investment. Developed and developing countries alike should work in
partnership to achieve this climate, taking into account the particular
circumstances of each individual country.**

**Conclusion**

**Many battles have been won in the long struggle against hunger and
malnutrition around the world, but victory remains beyond our grasp.
Moreover, the problem of global food insecurity threatens to worsen
significantly in the coming years, as population growth and changing
consumption patterns increase demand, while uneven food distribution and
environmental pressures threaten supplies, at least in certain countries
and regions of the world. The United States stands ready to join in a
new kind of partnership with all countries prepared to face the
challenge of conquering world hunger and to take the difficult steps
necessary to meet and surmount that challenge.**

**ANNEX I**

**PROJECTIONS: WORLD FOOD SECURITY IN THE YEARS AHEAD**

**Introduction**

The last global food conference was the 1974 World Food Conference
(WFC), which was precipitated by the confluence of a series of events
that resulted in short food supplies, rapidly rising world market
prices, and the fear that this marked the beginning of a permanently
changed world. These events included: (1) a period in the late 1960s of
low returns to agriculture and concomitant low levels of investment,
particularly in research; (2) signs that the Green Revolution that had
been so successful in Asia was faltering elsewhere; (3) a 1972-73
monsoon failure in South Asia; (4) failure of the Peruvian anchovy
catch; (5) short cereal crops in the Northern Hemisphere (including the
USSR); (6) reduced global grain production by about 3.5 percent;

\(7\) a changed USSR policy, which led to the USSR=s entry into the
world market to buy grain rather than reducing its livestock herd to
deal with shortfalls; the USSR also attempted to maintain grain stocks,
which resulted in an 80-percent increase in world food commodity prices;
and (8) the first OPEC oil shock that increased prices of most
agricultural inputs in 1973. By the time the WFC was held, the crisis
was receding, but the need to increase agricultural supply response
remained.

The WFC=s goal of eliminating undernutrition within a decade was not
achieved, but there has been significant progress, especially since the
world=s population increased by 57 percent from 1969-71 to 1990-92.
Eighty-six percent of that increase has occurred in developing
countries. FAO estimates that the proportion of food-insecure people has
declined from 35 percent in 1969-71 to 20 percent in 1990-92.

The world has made significant progress to improve food security over
the past 20 years. In 1969, some 36 percent of the people living in
developing countries were undernourished; by 1990, the proportion had
dropped by half\--to 20 percent. Despite such progress, the number of
undernourished in the developing countries by the year 2010 is still
projected to be between 700 to 800 million. The two regions expected to
have the largest number of undernourished remain South Asia and
Sub-Saharan Africa.

The primary focus of the upcoming World Food Summit (WFS) is the
unfinished job of enhancing food security for that 700-800 million
people who are still food-insecure. In this sense, the crisis is
perceived to be geographically concentrated \-- not the global crisis of
the early 1970s. However, there are global concerns about the longer
term capacity of the world to meet ever-increasing food needs without
destroying the environment and natural resource base, particularly as
economic pressures and policy changes have reduced global public
investment in agricultural research and financial support for
agricultural development.

This annex contains two parts: (1) recent analyses/projections of world
food demand and supply over the next two to three decades, and (2) a
projection of food needs and availabilities and analysis of the effects
of alternative assumptions about population, technology, and economic
conditions.

**1. Long-Term Outlook for Food Supply and Demand**

Over the past 100 years or so, the world has managed to increase food
production faster than population has grown. It has done so with
increasing efficiency, resulting in ever greater per capita food
availability and decreasing real prices. More recently, however, growth
in agricultural production has slowed (3.0 percent per year in the
1960s, 2.3 percent in the 1970s, and 2.0 percent in the 1980- 92
period), dependence on yield increases is growing, the fish catch is
falling, some crops appear to be approaching their biological maximum
yield, arable land is being lost to non-agricultural uses and
degradation, water quality is being degraded, and irrigation has only
limited potential for expanding production. The question is whether a
\"turning point\" in the historical trend toward more plentiful and
cheaper food has been reached.

Several recent studies have focused on the long-term (20-30 years)
global food supply-demand balances. All generally agree that population
will grow at about the U.N.=s median projection variant and will double
in the next 40 years, reaching about 7 billion by 2010 and 8.5 billion
by 2025. They agree that per capita incomes will continue to rise,
further adding to food demand and that the trend toward urbanization
will continue. The combined effects of population and income growth will
result in food demand nearly doubling over the next 30 years.

As has been pointed out by Alex McCalla of the World Bank in his review
of world food supply-demand projections, studies are in reasonable
agreement on demand, but opinions differ as to how global agriculture
will respond. Three projections arrive at reasonably similar results:
Mitchell and Ingco (1993), FAO\'s *World Agriculture: Towards 2010*
(1995), and the International Food Policy Research Institute=s (IFPRI)
2020 project (1995). These studies are not predictions of the future,
but descriptions of what can be expected under a very specific set of
assumptions and circumstances. All assume small increases in cultivated
area, with production gains coming primarily from yield. The models
assume yield increases will continue at more recent, reduced levels
(1.5-1.7 percent) and not return to historically higher levels (2.4
percent). None foresees a global shortfall between supply and demand
because global demand is expected to grow at about the same rate as
supply (1.5-1.7 percent per year). All expect that real prices will be
constant (FAO) or decline in the future, although at a lower rate than
in the past. All expect that developing countries will increase food
imports, but that increased imports can be met by developed country
exports.

These three studies can be characterized as optimistic in that they see
no serious problems in meeting foreseen food demands over the next two
to three decades. They do not assume that this will happen without
continued investment in research, infrastructure, and human capital, and
continued movement toward appropriate policies. They do not assume any
weather outside the range of recent experience (e.g., any significant
effects of global warming). Moreover, projected changes in global food
supply, demand, and prices are very sensitive to assumptions made about
trends in population growth and agricultural productivity. For example,
a 25-percent decline in the global growth rate for cereal yields leads
to a rise in the world price by 70 percent for wheat, 40 percent for
rice, 50 percent for maize, and 58 percent for coarse grains (IFPRI, p.
2). A 20-percent increase in population causes increased demand and a
rise in world price of 30 percent for wheat, 18 percent for rice, 11
percent for maize, and 18 percent for other coarse grains (IFPRI, p.2).

A fourth study of global food prospects, Brown and Kane in *Full House:
Reassessing the Earth\'s Population Carrying Capacity*, and a follow-up
by Brown in *Who Will Feed China? Wake-up Call for a Small Planet*, come
to quite different conclusions and might be characterized as the
pessimist\'s view. They see as new constraints on production: (1) a
shrinking backlog of unused technology; (2) food demands pressing
against limits of contribution from fisheries and forests; (3) water
demands approaching the hydrologic limits; (4) declining response to
fertilizer; (5) loss of cropland to non-agricultural uses; and (6)
\"social disintegration\" undermining governments and efforts to expand
food production. Combined with the generally accepted demand projection,
these constraints are seen leading to a generally dismal picture for
world markets. These studies, especially *Who Will Feed China?*, see
China\'s grain production decreasing and the resulting high demands for
imports by China destabilizing markets and bidding food away from poorer
consumers. Many analysts disagree with this pessimistic outlook,
especially with respect to China. Regardless of their validity, however,
Brown\'s analyses offer an important warning against becoming complacent
about the future food situation.

With respect to fishery resources in particular, it should also be noted
that many experts agree that unless major steps are taken, world food
production from fishery resources could decline over the next 15 years
while need and demand \-- especially in the developing world \-- will
increase by approximately 50 percent. Even under optimum conditions, we
cannot expect significant increases in world fisheries production by
2010. To a large extent, the limits of the productive capacity of the
oceans have been reached. World production from ocean fisheries can be
increased through improved conservation and management practices and
reduction/utilization of waste, including fishing capacity reduction.
The one fisheries sector that is subject to global increase is in the
field of aquaculture. Resources should be applied in the development of
aquaculture, as well as to assuring that this development is
environmentally sensitive and sustainable.

Even with adequate global supplies, however, recent studies have all
projected serious food problems in developing countries, primarily
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (***see graph: \"Food Aid Needs To
Maintain Consumption\"***). Food insecurity will grow significantly in
these regions, resulting either in higher food aid requirements or more
serious malnutrition. All the studies conclude that such a dismal
situation could be improved. They identify the keys to improvement as
investments in technology and infrastructure to improve agricultural
productivity, increased income growth, and reduced population growth
rates. Responsive actions should be carefully targeted and focused on
these specific countries or regions, rather than global actions.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.129861111111111in"
height="2.727777777777778in"}

**2. Long-Term Food Needs**

The implications of growing regional food insecurity were explored in
USDA\'s recent analysis of the food security situation in some 60 food
aid recipient countries, which found that food aid needs will nearly
double over the next decade, even with reasonably optimistic assumptions
about the countries\' ability to produce their own food or have the
capacity to import food commercially. Total food aid needed to maintain
consumption and meet emergency needs for refugees is projected at 15
million tons in 1996, increasing to 27 million tons by 2005. More than
twice as much would be needed if the consumption target were to meet
minimum nutritional standards.

There is a looming mismatch between food aid resources and needs. In the
past, food aid availability has averaged about 70-80 percent of needs.
This is not projected to be true in the future. If global food aid
budgets are maintained at 1995 levels, the gap between needs and
resources will grow rapidly.

Factors limiting food aid resources are budget reductions in donor
countries, coupled with the adoption of more market-oriented
agricultural policies, which will reduce surpluses of traditional food
aid donors such as the United States and the European Union (EU).
Current high price levels also will reduce the quantity of food aid that
can be purchased with given food aid expenditures.

The projections assume emergencies will continue at the level of the
recent past and, thus, projected food aid needs in 2005 are chronic (80
percent). Fifty-five percent of the need is projected to be in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Emergency needs, arising from production (weather)
variability and political turmoil, which trigger refugees and displaced
persons, are only 20 percent of total needs. However, these could grow
to 30 percent if the increase in the number of refugees follows the
trend of the past decade.

The analysis highlights the importance of appropriate policies in
developing countries as the foundation for improved food security.
Countries that have undertaken policy reform and adjustment are better
positioned for economic growth. About one-fifth of the 60 countries are
projected to have no food aid needs because, theoretically, they will be
able to meet minimum nutritional standards, even with slower growth in
their export earnings, because of their strong economic and agricultural
performance (assuming no problem of market access). These countries are
mainly those that have undertaken and maintained successful policy
reforms.

On the other hand, about half the countries are projected to have food
aid needs even under optimistic assumptions. These countries have
persistent economic or political problems, and all except Haiti,
Nicaragua, and Afghanistan are in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the remaining
countries, food aid needs are more sensitive to improvement in economic
and agricultural conditions.

The driving forces behind increased chronic needs are large population
increases, slow growth in agricultural productivity, and slow overall
economic growth. Projections of food aid needs are very sensitive to
changes in agricultural productivity, population growth, income, and
higher world market prices.

Increasing agricultural productivity would significantly reduce food aid
needs. In Sub-Saharan Africa \-- the most serious case \-- doubling the
projected rate of increase in grain yields could cut the region\'s food
aid needs by half and total world needs by 25 percent. A similar result
could be achieved by reducing projected Sub-Saharan Africa\'s population
growth rate from 2.8 percent to 2.3 percent. On the other hand, the
scenario for lower growth in export earnings could increase needs by 16
percent.

Higher world market prices would also have a significant impact on food
aid needs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture=s Economic Research
Service (ERS) analyzed the impact of significantly changed short- and
long-run market conditions. This analysis attempted to include both
uncertainties about the current situation and some issues raised by
differing long-term projections. In the short run, it assumed that 1996
was another year of below-trend production, with yield reductions
similar to those in 1995. In the long run, it assumed that China\'s
grain imports were 35 percent higher than the baseline (47 million tons
in 2005) and that net import demand by the rest of the world increased
by 13.5 million tons over the baseline by 2005. Under these assumptions,
world food cereal prices would be \$60 per metric ton higher than the
1996/97 benchmark, then decline over the years, but never reach the
lower levels of the benchmark scenario. Prices do not return to the
benchmark level because of the increased import demand, but world prices
do not stay at the initial high level because as prices rise, other
suppliers respond by increasing production and exports. At higher
prices, the EU is projected to increase wheat exports (without using
subsidies) and to increase wheat production, but not to their historical
peak.

Projected food aid requirements rise by 3.3 million metric tons (21
percent) in 1996/97 because higher prices limit what countries can
import commercially, and remain some 265,000 tons higher in 2005. Food
aid shipments decline because fixed budgets buy less grain at higher
prices. Compared to the benchmark, food aid availabilities are about 1
million tons lower in 1996/97 and 280,000 tons lower in 2005. The gap
between projected food aid needs and food aid availabilities rises an
additional 4.3 million tons in 1996/97 and more than 500,000 tons in
2004/05.

**Conclusion**

Long-term projections underscore the critical role of agricultural
productivity in enhancing food availability. Productivity increases come
primarily from public and private investments in agricultural research,
which are translated into technologies that are transferred to and
adopted by producers. Technology transfer itself depends heavily on the
existence of open and efficient input markets and the ability of private
firms to operate effectively within them. It is critical that
investments in agricultural research, both at the national and the
international level, are adequate to support sustained increases in
productivity over the next several decades.

The studies cited above also generally support the conclusion that
achievement of food security is constrained more at the national than at
the global level. National food security, in turn, depends heavily on
the decisions of national leaders \-- the macroeconomic and sectoral
policies they pursue, the extent to which they invest in research and
technology to improve yields, the adoption of policies that provide
incentives for sustainable natural resource management, the integration
of trade policies with sectoral and resource policies, and population
policies.

Both the current situation and the higher price scenario highlight the
importance of international market conditions to the food security of
countries pursuing open, self-reliant food policies. Particularly in an
era where many countries are making a transition to more market-oriented
policies, sharing the adjustment of shortfalls across importing and
exporting countries is critical. Policy-induced contractions of
international market supplies both increase variability in years of
shortage and short-circuit the process by which open international
markets provide increased stability in the long run.

For food-insecure countries facing significantly tighter international
markets, short-term assistance for commercial imports may be an
important safety net for the world\'s most vulnerable consumers. There
may be a need to review the facilities of the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank for helping poor countries deal with short-term
price shocks. Also, World Bank decisions resulting in the recent decline
in lending for agriculture and rural development should be revisited.

Developed countries have a special incentive to look closely at the most
effective uses of limited food aid resources. This covers several
dimensions, including the more effective coordination of food aid and
development assistance; the desirability of targeting food aid to
food-insecure countries willing to make a commitment to improving their
domestic food security; and options for smoothing the interface between
food aid, development assistance, and international trade.

**Bibliography**

Alexandratos, Nikos. (ed.). 1995. *World Agriculture: Towards 2010, An
FAO Study*. New York: John Wiley and Sons for the FAO.

Brown, Lester R., and Hal Kane. 1994. *Full House: Reassessing the
Earth=s Population Carrying Capacity*. The Earthwatch Environmental
Alert Series. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Brown, L.R. 1995. *Who Will Feed China? Wake-up Call for a Small
Planet*. Worldwatch Institute. Washington, DC.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 1995. *A 2020
Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment.* Washington, DC.

Mitchell, Donald O., and Merlinda D. Ingco. 1993. AThe World Food
Outlook.@ Draft paper. International Economics Department. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.

McCalla, Alex F. 1994. AAgriculture and Food Needs to 2025: Why We
Should Be Concerned.@ Sir John Crawford Memorial Lecture. Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research, CGIAR Secretariat. The
World Bank, Washington, DC.

**ANNEX II**

**WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE FOOD SECURITY?**

**All three dimensions of food security \-- availability, access, and
utilization \-- may be seriously undermined by any number of root
causes. Apart from natural disasters, these include:**

-   **WAR AND CIVIL STRIFE \-- Without exception, these are the most
    catastrophic of the self-inflicted causes of food insecurity,
    causing death and suffering and disrupting food production and
    distribution, displacing large segments of the population, and
    destroying years of investment in human, physical, and institutional
    infrastructure.**

-   **INAPPROPRIATE NATIONAL POLICIES \-- Government actions can impede
    every dimension of food security by failing to provide an enabling
    environment conducive to sustainable food availability, access, and
    utilization. To prevent this from happening, governments need to
    adopt economic, political, and social policies that facilitate and
    complement efficient markets, ensure political stability without
    resorting to repressive measures, and provide appropriate public
    goods infrastructures.**

-   **INADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION, ADAPTATION, AND ADOPTION OF
    AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY \-- Agricultural
    research and extension provide the foundation for technological
    innovation and productivity growth. Recent levels of international
    support for agricultural and other research in both developed and
    developing countries, including the Consultative Group on
    International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), are widely considered
    inadequate to meet anticipated growth in demand for food while
    maintaining and augmenting the productive capacity of the world\'s
    natural resource base. Future success in improving plant varieties
    and animal breeds will also depend on preservation of a diverse
    biological resource base accessible to scientists, farmers, and
    fishers around the world. In addition, developing countries in
    particular need to invest in research and extension capacity that is
    appropriate to their long-term food needs. Dissemination of
    knowledge, genetic resources, and appropriate technologies from
    research institutions to producers is important.**

-   **BARRIERS TO TRADE \-- Despite agreements reached in the Uruguay
    Round to reduce barriers to trade in food products and related goods
    and services, significant restrictions still remain. Also,
    continuation of the reform process as called for in the Agreement on
    Agriculture should address these issues.**

-   **ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION \-- In many areas of the world,
    degradation of the natural resource base is already contributing to
    lower yields in food production, reducing food availability at
    national levels and food access at the household level. Long-term
    food security requires sustainable development in the agriculture,
    forestry, and fisheries sectors based on production systems that
    preserve the productive capacity and biological diversity of these
    sectors\' natural resource bases.**

-   **POVERTY \-- A lack of resources at the individual level remains
    the fundamental cause of malnutrition. This makes poverty
    alleviation, including basic education, employment, and income
    generation and all the policies and actions required for their
    realization, fundamental to improving food security. In many
    developing countries, large rural populations depend on agricultural
    production and coastal communities on fish and fish products for
    employment and income. Thus agricultural and rural development must
    be a basic component of economic development, and sustainable
    agricultural productivity must increase if rural incomes are to
    increase without raising the cost of food.**

-   **POPULATION GROWTH \-- Stabilizing population reduces the risks of
    food insecurity by reducing the number of people who need food. The
    ability to reconcile food needs with the constraints imposed on food
    production by natural resource endowments and environmental
    degradation argues strongly for continuing the recent slowing of
    population growth with the goal of eventually stabilizing global
    population.**

-   **GENDER INEQUALITY \-- Women make a major contribution to global
    and national food availability. They are also key players in
    household and individual food access through their use of income,
    and in facilitating food utilization through their role in health
    maintenance. Yet women face economic, social, cultural, and
    political obstacles that constrain their ability to fulfill these
    crucial roles in food security. If access to inputs were more
    gender-equal, substantial gains in agricultural output would
    occur.**

-   **POOR HEALTH \-- The largest impediment to proper food utilization
    is poor health, a major problem in most developing countries. Poor
    health is in turn related to poor access to basic health services,
    health and nutrition education, safe water, sanitation, and family
    planning. Ensuring access is particularly critical in the first 3
    years of life, when illness and malnutrition interact, having
    devastating life-long consequences.**

**ANNEX III**

**THE U.S. RECORD IN DOMESTIC FOOD SECURITY**

**Domestic food security in the United States exists largely thanks to
the nation\'s agricultural production, processing, and distribution
sectors that have provided abundant supplies of food in a variety of
forms during all seasons of the year at increasingly affordable prices.
The average American spends a smaller proportion of income on food than
the citizen of any other country, and this percentage continues to
decline. The declining real cost of food is largely due to long and
continuous investment in agricultural research and extension, which is
responsible for increasing productivity rapidly enough to allow farming
to remain profitable even while prices declined and supply increased
faster than demand. A competitive food industry supported by a public
market information system and physical and institutional infrastructure
has demonstrated the ability not only to provide abundant supplies of
food for the U.S. population, but also to make the United States the
largest exporter of agricultural products in the world.**

**The continued capacity of the U.S. food system to contribute to both
domestic and international food security has been improved by the recent
adoption of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of
1996, which increases the flexibility of the farm sector to respond to
changing market conditions, continues public support for research, and
continues to provide incentives for conservation and sustainable
resource use. The continued investment in agricultural research is
critical not only to further increases in domestic agricultural
productivity but also to the availability of new knowledge and
technology for the world at large.**

**The sustainable use of technology and natural resources is essential
to maintain agricultural productivity. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
policies and programs to conserve soil and water resources by
controlling erosion, to protect prime farmland from conversion to
nonagricultural uses, to support initiatives for environmentally
friendly pest management techniques and integrated pest management
programs, to manage animal waste to avoid pollution of ground and
surface water, to reduce agricultural damage to air and water quality,
and to reduce consumption of non-renewable energy in agricultural
production.**

**Sustainable fishery and forest management policies and programs are
critical dimensions of the commitment to long-term food security in the
United States. Already the productive capacity of oceans has largely
been reached, indicating that increased production can best be realized
through improved conservation and management practices and
reduction/utilization of waste, including fishing capacity reduction.
The main fisheries sector subject to increase is aquaculture, and this
should be undertaken in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable
manner. Forests provide a direct source of food, they support
agricultural production by helping to manage soil and water systems and
by controlling wind, they provide essential nutrients and medicines that
increase the nutritional impact of other foods, they provide fuelwood
for cooking, preserving, and processing foods (especially in developing
countries), they support livestock systems by providing fodder, and they
provide genetic resources for the improvement of food crops.**

**The contribution of the food and agriculture sectors to food security
is augmented by food assistance programs targeted at low-income
individuals, programs to promote healthy eating, and actions to promote
food safety and quality. A series of income and medical safety net
programs also indirectly affect household food security by maintaining
adequate incomes for the elderly, disabled, and economically vulnerable.
The following overview of programs and policies in support of domestic
food security draws heavily on the draft plan of action prepared as
follow-up to the International Conference on Nutrition.**

**1. Nutrition Programs**

**The United States has a plentiful supply of safe, nutritious food,
with productivity and efficiency on American family farms growing
rapidly in recent years. This growth has allowed the United States to
amply feed its own population and yet provide an average of some 165
million tons (valued at \$57 billion) for export commercially and for
utilization in critical food aid programs (1995-96 average). Through a
combination of domestic production and global sourcing, U.S. food
markets feature a wide variety of inexpensive food year round. In part,
this accounts for the major successes in improving the nutritional
well-being of our population. Chronic dietary energy deficiency and
protein-energy malnutrition are extremely rare. Once prevalent
micronutrient deficiency diseases (e.g., rickets, pellagra, and scurvy)
are now almost unknown within U.S. borders.**

**Despite these advances, significant problems remain. There are
sub-populations in rural areas, reservations, and inner cities where
long distances, limited access to transportation, and limited financial
resources restrict the ability to purchase an adequate diet. National
studies have found that 2-4 percent of American households report that
they sometimes or often do not have enough food. (Low-income households
are at greater risk, with about 10-16 percent reporting food
insufficiency, according to a 1994 USDA/Department of Health and Human
Services \[DHHS\] study). For some people, food security problems are
compounded by poor facilities for cooking and food storage or limited
skills in food preparation and home economics.**

**The United States, largely through the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
has developed a strong programmatic response to problems of domestic
food insecurity. USDA administers 16 food-assistance programs whose
goals are to improve nutritional status by providing access to a more
nutritious diet, improve the eating habits of the nation\'s children,
and help America\'s farmers by providing an outlet for the distribution
of foods purchased under farmer assistance authorities. An average of
more than 45 million people per month, or 1 in 6 Americans, are now
served by the nutrition programs. The Food Stamp Program alone serves
almost 27 million people each month, more than half of whom are
children. Another 7 percent are elderly.**

**USDA works in partnership with the states and the private sector in
all its programs. The Federal government is generally responsible for
food costs for the programs and shares administrative costs with the
states. States are responsible for determining the eligibility of needy
persons to participate in the programs, as well as for the delivery of
services. Non-governmental institutions, such as food banks, soup
kitchens, and emergency food assistance sites, work with Federal and
state authorities to provide access to nutritious foods.**

**Outlays for USDA\'s food-assistance programs totaled almost \$38
billion in fiscal 1995. Designed as a safety net to help meet the basic
nutritional needs of eligible low-income people, USDA\'s food-assistance
programs take a variety of forms, differing by size, form of benefit,
and target population. Three programs \-- the Food Stamp Program, the
National School Lunch Program, and the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) Program \-- account for 88 percent of total food-assistance
outlays.**

**The cornerstone of USDA\'s food assistance programs is the Food Stamp
Program. It supplements the food purchasing power of eligible low-income
households by issuing monthly benefits through coupons or Electronic
Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which are redeemable at authorized retail
food stores. The Food Stamp Program is the only one of the nutrition
programs designed to meet the nutritional needs of low-income
households.**

**The National School Lunch Program provides subsidized lunches to
children in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child
care institutions. Low-income children receive free or reduced-price
lunches.**

**The WIC program is designed to improve the health of nutritionally
at-risk, low-income pregnant and post-partum women, infants, and
children up to 5 years old by providing nutritious supplemental food and
nutrition education, and by serving as an adjunct to health care.**

**There are a number of lessons learned from the 20-30 years of U.S.
experience with nutrition programs that have applicability to developing
countries. First, even in developed countries such as the United States,
there exist subgroups of the population that are often at risk of hunger
and food insecurity. Targeted nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp
Program and WIC, are an efficient, effective way of reaching these
vulnerable groups. National U.S. data from 1965/66 to 1977/78 indicate
that the diets of low-income households participating in the Food Stamp
Program improved more during this time period than did the diets of
other income groups. Targeting of benefits based on income and/or
nutritional risk increases the effectiveness for reaching vulnerable
households and individuals.**

**2. Programs To Promote Healthy Eating**

**In the United States, the typical American diet is high in fat,
saturated fat, and sodium and too low in fiber and complex
carbohydrates. Such diets are associated with increased risk of chronic
health conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes,
hypertension, obesity, and osteoporosis \-- conditions estimated to cost
the United States \$250 billion in annual medical care costs and
productivity losses.**

**Federal policies to promote healthy eating in the United States are
guided by the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
published jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Health and Human Services. Put together by a panel of
experts based on the preponderance of scientific and medical evidence at
the time they are published, the Dietary Guidelines provide general
recommendations for healthy people 2 years and older. To ensure the
recommendations keep pace with scientific developments, the Dietary
Guidelines are updated every 5 years. The 1995 Dietary Guidelines make
seven recommendations: Eat a variety of foods; balance the food you eat
with physical activity; maintain or improve your weight (i.e., adjust
toward your recommended healthy weight); choose a diet with plenty of
grain products, vegetables, and fruits; choose a diet low in fat,
saturated fat, and cholesterol; choose a diet moderate in sugars, salt,
and sodium; and if you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.**

**The Food Guide Pyramid and the Nutrition Facts label serve as
educational tools to put the Dietary Guidelines into practice. The Food
Guide Pyramid, developed jointly by USDA and DHHS, translates the
recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines into the kinds and amounts of
foods to eat each day. It aggregates foods into five major food groups
and provides a recommended number of daily servings for each food group.
The Nutrition Facts label, now required on most processed foods and
available on a voluntary basis for the most commonly consumed types of
raw fish, meat, poultry, vegetables, and fruits, provides information on
the major nutrients to help consumers place each food into an overall
healthy diet. In addition, the 1993 nutrition labeling regulations
provide definitions for nutrient content claims so as to prevent label
information from being false or misleading, and authorize specific
health claims about diet/disease relationships. USDA\'s \"Team
Nutrition,\" launched in 1995, includes over 200 public and private
partners in an effort to improve the health and education of children by
creating innovative partnerships that promote food choices for a
healthful diet through the media, schools, families, and the community.
Other governmental strategies for improving eating patterns in the
United States include updating nutrition standards of established
programs to conform to the Dietary Guidelines, as has been done in the
School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children; developing public-private
partnerships, such as the 5-A-Day for Better Health (a joint effort by
the National Cancer Institute of DHHS and the Produce for Better Health
Foundation, with the aim of increasing average consumption of fruits and
vegetables to at least five servings daily by the year 2000); expanding
and improving current nutrition education approaches; and improving
policy action through research and evaluation.**

**3. Federal Actions To Promote Food Safety and Quality**

**Federal, state, and local governments and the food industry work
together to provide safe and abundant food and water supplies. As a
result, food and drinking water in the United States is generally safe
for human consumption. Yet, despite advances in technology, public
health problems such as food-borne disease occasionally do occur.**

**The U.S. Government assures the safety of the food supply in several
ways, including the promulgation of regulations, in-plant inspections,
regulation of food additives, regulation of chemical compounds used in
agricultural production, laboratory analyses for contaminants, and
enforcement actions. The Government also regulates product offerings by
foreign firms and countries for import into the United States.**

**At the Federal level, the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are primarily
responsible for ensuring the safety of food supplies. USDA is
responsible for inspection of meat and poultry products at the
processing level, for egg and egg-related product safety, and for
on-farm efforts to improve food safety and quality. The FDA is
responsible for the safety of all other foods. The EPA is responsible
for regulating the use of pesticides and other farm chemicals that may
pose a health risk to consumers when residues are present in the foods
they eat.**

**Several Federal programs are in effect to address food safety and
quality. The USDA\'s Pathogen Reduction Program focuses on the
prevention and reduction of microbial pathogens in food production. The
program includes activities that study the relationships among pathogens
in animals on the farm, changes occurring in the pathogen profile in
animals during transit, and changes occurring in the slaughterhouse. In
another initiative, the USDA, EPA, and FDA recently announced the
formation of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. Through
this voluntary partnership, the Federal Government will promote the use
of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technologies that develop site- and
crop-specific pesticide use and reduction strategies. The goal of the
program is to enroll 75 percent of U.S. agricultural acreage in IPM
risk-reduction strategies by the year 2000.**

**As an improved means to identifying and preventing food safety
problems before they reach consumers, the United States is actively
championing the food industry-wide use of the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. The system shifts from the
traditional end-point testing, which relies upon the inspectors**=
**sense of sight and smell to identify unsafe foods. While effective at
identifying some forms of degraded food product, these traditional
testing methods do not identify microbial pathogens that may cause
illness when present in products eaten by consumers. The HACCP system
uses a science-based analysis to identify potential hazards and
establishes critical control points where the hazards can be prevented,
eliminated, or reduced to acceptable levels during food production and
processing. The FDA recently required the establishment of HACCP plans
for improving the quality of fish and shellfish products in the United
States. The USDA has proposed such a system for meat and poultry
inspections. This proposal is currently under review, with a final
decision on implementation due in 1996.**

**4. Income and Medical Safety Net Programs**

**In the United States, as in other countries, food insecurity is most
often a problem of lack of access or insufficient income. It is relevant
to the discussion of food security in the United States to note that in
addition to food assistance programs, Federal social insurance,
disability insurance, welfare, and medical programs provide retirement
income and medical insurance to virtually all the elderly, transitional
assistance to individuals and families facing temporary economic
hardship, and a social safety net for the most economically vulnerable
populations.**

**The largest Federal income support program is the Old Age, Survivor,
and Disability Insurance program (OASDI) operated by the Social Security
Administration and popularly known as** A**Social Security.\" Social
Security accounted for 22.1 percent of all Federal outlays in 1995, and
its benefits amounted to 6.4 percent of total personal income
nationwide. The program is funded by a payroll tax on all wage, salary,
and self-employment earnings. Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI)
provides income support to low-income blind and disabled persons and to
low-income elderly persons not covered by Social Security. Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) provides income support to
very-low-income families with children under age 18. The overwhelming
majority of beneficiaries (93 percent) are in female-headed families,
although two-parent families with both parents unemployed also qualify.
The Federal Medicare program provides subsidized health insurance for
the elderly (aged 65 or older) and certain disabled persons under age
65. Medicaid is a combined Federal-State program that provides medical
assistance for certain categories of the poor, including disabled
persons, families with dependent children, and elderly not covered by
Medicare.**

**ANNEX IV**

**THE U.S. RECORD IN INTERNATIONAL FOOD SECURITY**

**In addition to its leadership in agricultural and trade policies,
agricultural research, and long-term environment forecasting, the United
States has contributed to international food security by its commercial
trade and through foreign aid.**

**1. Commercial Trade**

**During the post-World War II era, the United States has been a leading
force in making the world more food-secure. The United States
contributes to world food security by remaining a major source of
agricultural commodities. U.S. agricultural exports for fiscal year 1996
are projected to reach a record level of \$60 billion. Imports are a
major source of food in many countries and they are becoming
increasingly important as agricultural trade has grown more rapidly than
production in almost every year of this era. World agricultural trade is
approaching \$250 billion and continues to grow. The U.S. share of this
total is estimated at about 23 percent, up more than one-third since
1986.**

**The United States is committed to remaining a reliable supplier of
food to its trading partners. With current grain supplies tight, the
Secretary of Agriculture has taken several steps to ensure that more
U.S. grain will be available to the market, announcing an early-release
option for eligible land in the Conservation Reserve Program and the
authority to release wheat from the U.S. Food Security Commodity Reserve
to meet humanitarian food aid needs. The Secretary also has reaffirmed
that the U.S. Government will not restrict exports because of current
high prices and tight supplies. The U.S. agricultural sector has
traditionally borne the brunt of swings in global grain production. In
times of global surplus, the U.S. Government carried excess grain
stocks, which had a depressing effect on U.S. prices. When the world
market was short, importers looked to the United States to meet their
needs. In doing so in years of reduced U.S. grain harvests, domestic
users (along with importers) of grain faced higher prices. For the U.S.
livestock sector, the largest use sector for U.S. grains, tight supplies
have regularly resulted in sharp cutbacks in U.S. feed use of grains.
Keeping the U.S. market open has meant that domestic users compete for
tight supplies at higher prices.**

**The U.S. market makes major adjustments in grain use for livestock
feeding in periods of tight supply in order to maintain its role of a
reliable supplier of grains to world markets. During 1995/96, higher
prices for grain reduced U.S. livestock feeding by 30 million tons from
the previous year. This 18-percent reduction in use came as customers in
Asia imported and consumed record volumes of grains. The U.S. reaction
is in sharp contrast to actions of other exporters who are protecting
domestic grain users from tight supplies by taxing exports to stem the
outward flow. Feed use of grain in exporting countries is expected to be
up for the third consecutive year, while importers are forced to seek
alternate supplies from nontraditional exporters.**

**The United States is a major importer of food from developing
countries, providing them with valuable foreign exchange. The European
Union, Japan, and the United States are the world\'s largest importers
of agricultural products by a large margin. For fiscal year 1996, U.S.
agricultural imports are forecast at \$30.5 billion. Taken as a group,
developing countries have historically supplied just over half of total
U.S. agricultural imports. In fiscal 1996, imports from developing
countries are forecast at \$16.4 billion or 54 percent of the total.**

**Six developing countries made the list of the top 10 suppliers of
agricultural products to the United States in 1995. Third-ranked Mexico
was followed by Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand; Guatemala
placed tenth. If the list were expanded to include the top 20 suppliers,
the number of developing countries would jump to 15 and include Costa
Rica, Ecuador, the Philippines, Chile, China, Malaysia, Argentina,
India, and the Dominican Republic.**

**Many of the products the United States imports from developing
countries are generally not grown domestically, such as coffee, cocoa,
tea, rubber, bananas, and tropical oils. However, the United States also
imports large quantities of products identical or similar to those
produced domestically. These include a wide assortment of fresh and
processed fruits and vegetables, nursery products, sweeteners, live
animals, and tobacco. As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO),
the United States applies its sanitary and phytosanitary regulations in
a non-discriminatory fashion.**

**In addition, the United States has provided leadership in assuring a
more open, fair, and efficient world trading system. This leadership has
most recently been exhibited through efforts to bring agriculture more
effectively under the multilateral rules in establishing a more
effective dispute settlement mechanism for the new WTO. The North
American Free Trade Agreement (the first regional trade agreement to
include developing and developed countries), the Caribbean Basin
Initiative, and U.S. participation in discussions of an Asia-Pacific
Economic Community are indications of U.S. willingness to open its
markets to developing countries and its recognition of the importance of
free and open markets to ensuring improved availability and access to
food by developing as well as developed countries. The Uruguay Round
Agreement and the WTO represent important steps in reforming the global
trading system, opening markets, and establishing new rules for fair
trade. Trade stimulates competition, helps gear production to demand,
increases employment, boosts investment, bolsters economic growth, and
facilitates the broad sharing among countries of supply and demand
shocks, thus reducing the variability of world market prices.**

**2. Development Assistance**

**The United States has given over \$250 billion in non-military
development assistance since 1962. In 1995, such assistance totaled over
\$10 billion, of which nearly 80 percent was given in bilateral programs
to more than 90 countries. About \$1.35 billion worth of U.S. assistance
was in the form of food aid, including \$500 million for emergency
relief. The United States provides over half of global food aid in most
years. In addition, the United States made major contributions to
international agricultural research and international financial
institutions that deal with agricultural and rural development
programs.**

**Most U.S. development aid is administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). All USAID programs are directed
toward sustainable development. Food security is an important aspect of
sustainable development and is closely linked to each of the Agency\'s
key goals. Achievement of broad-based economic growth reduces poverty
and thereby improves the distribution of resources used to obtain food.
Stabilizing population reduces the aggregate need for food production.
Protecting human health facilitates the utilization of food and improves
the capacity to produce income. Managing the environment for long-term
sustainability reduces the risk of shortages in income for poor people
who are dependent on natural resource inputs to production. It also
assures the long-term productive capacity of the earth. Building
sustainable democracies strengthens access to resources by poor people.
Saving lives and reinforcing development potential in emergency
circumstances provides a safety net against acute regional food
shortages and speeds the rehabilitation of local capacity for food
security. USAID recognizes the importance of several themes that
crosscut its main objectives and that also contribute to enhancing food
security. These are women\'s empowerment, community empowerment,
research and capacity building, and crisis prevention. Finally, USAID\'s
linkages with non-governmental organizations, U.S. universities, private
businesses, and bilateral and multilateral partners bring to bear these
institutions\' experience and resources to improving food security in
developing countries.**

**The U.S. contribution to economic development efforts is put in
perspective by a recent evaluation of USAID investment in agriculture,
which presented two overarching conclusions. First, a country\'s
predisposition to agricultural development is important for success \--
whether or not this commitment is linked to donor investments. Second,
the main bottlenecks binding agricultural growth are most likely to
occur in policy reform, technology development, and rural
infrastructure; they are least likely to occur in services and asset
distribution.**

**The United States is the largest donor of food aid in the world. In
total levels, the United States provides over half of all food aid,
followed by the European Union and Canada (*see graph: \"Food Aid by
Donor\"*). Food aid is administered under five separate programs:**

-   **Title I (concessional sales) is administered by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA). Countries eligible for Title I
    agreements are less poor than those addressed in the other two
    titles. They are expected to graduate from concessional sales in a
    relatively short time; they will then be able to purchase
    agricultural commodities in the world\'s commercial markets. Title I
    countries buy U.S. farm products on credit, then sell them through
    public or private channels. Sales proceeds can be applied to various
    development efforts.**

-   **Title II (relief and development) is administered by USAID. USAID
    programs commodities under this Title through the World Food Program
    (WFP), international and local non-governmental organizations
    (NGOs), and private voluntary organizations (PVOs), as well as on a
    government-to-government basis for emergencies. Commodities are used
    to support both development and emergency aid projects. Disaster
    preparedness programs blend the two ideas, reflecting the awareness
    that the devastating effects of disasters can be mitigated or
    prevented by efforts to anticipate and prepare for them. Title II
    commodities may be sold (\"monetized\") in order to provide local
    currencies to assist the development impact of food aid.**
    ![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.545138888888889in"
    height="3.21875in"}

-   **Title III (government-to-government grants) is also administered
    by USAID. Title III commodities provided to countries characterized
    as** A**least developed\" may be used in direct feeding programs,
    including those that deal with special health and nutritional needs
    of children and mothers. These commodities may also be sold locally
    by the government of the recipient country; proceeds of the sale
    must be used in development programs that alleviate hunger, improve
    nutrition, and support various child survival efforts, or used to
    promote policy reforms that lead to these objectives.**

-   **The Food for Progress Program is administered by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture. Commodities are provided on a grant basis
    to developing countries that are emerging democracies and have made
    a commitment to introduce or expand free enterprise elements into
    their agricultural economy.**

-   **A Food Security Commodity Reserve of up to 4 million metric tons
    is authorized to meet humanitarian food needs in developing
    countries. In response to the current tight world market for grain,
    the President recently authorized release of up to 1.5 million
    metric tons of wheat from the Reserve.**

**Food aid in emergency situations and transitions from emergencies is
provided primarily through Public Law 480 Title II. Also important is
non-food emergency and refugee funding from the Migration and Refugee
Assistance (MRA) account and the no-year funding in the President\'s
Emergency and Refugee Migration Assistance (ERMA) fund. The State
Department provides annual contributions to major international
organizations, including the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), on a
multilateral basis for their worldwide humanitarian assistance
activities. Depending on the situation and other sources of U.S.
Government funding available, contributions from these accounts may be
provided to the World Food Program to support refugee-related activities
performed in conjunction with UNHCR under the provisions of their
Memorandum of Understanding.**

**Finally, the United States has made major contributions to
international agricultural research and international financial
institutions that deal with agricultural and rural development programs.
Specifically, it provided substantial resources to the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system
(approximately \$28 million in 1995) and other collaborative
international research. The United States has had a leadership role in
the agricultural and rural development activities of the World Bank and
other international financial institutions through their capital
replenishments. U.S. appropriations for 1995 to international financial
institutions like the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, and the African Development Bank totaled approximately
\$1.84 billion; 1996 appropriations stand at \$1.15 billion. The United
States has in the past and will continue in the future to support the
important work of these institutions in the battle to help improve world
food security in the neediest countries of the world.**

**ANNEX V**

**URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS**

**The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations was the first
round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations to
address comprehensive reform to improve international competition in
agricultural trade. The United States and more than 120 other countries
participated in the Round from 1986 through 1994. The United States
reaffirms the commitments it made in the Uruguay Round and will
faithfully carry them out. These include commitments to reduce
trade-distorting subsidies and provide new market access opportunities.
In addition, the United States views the Uruguay Round as a first step
in the reform process to promote a more free and fair trading system for
global agriculture.**

**The Agreement on Agriculture resulting from the Uruguay Round
negotiations brings agricultural trade under the multilateral discipline
of the GATT (now the World Trade Organization or WTO) for the first
time. It entered into force on Jan. 1, 1995.**

**For market access, all countries were required to eliminate non-tariff
trade barriers and replace them with tariffs, thus simplifying future
negotiations to liberalize agricultural markets. Developed countries
must also reduce each agricultural tariff by a minimum of 15 percent
over 6 years, while developing countries must make minimum 10-percent
reductions in each agricultural tariff over 10 years. Within those same
time frames, countries must make an overall average tariff reduction of
36 percent (developed countries) or 24 percent (developing countries).
The agreement also required all countries to establish minimum access
opportunities and maintain current access opportunities for products
previously subject to non-tariff import barriers.**

**The Uruguay Round also resulted in the first meaningful discipline on
agricultural export subsidies. Using the average levels of export
subsidies in the 1986-90 period as a base, developed countries must
reduce export subsidies by 21 percent in quantity terms and 36 percent
in budgetary outlay terms. These two reduction requirements for
developing countries are 14 percent and 24 percent, respectively.
Products which did not receive export subsidies in the base period are
not eligible for future subsidies. *Bona fide* food aid programs are
exempt from reductions.**

**Prior to the Uruguay Round, national support for farmers was
restricted only by countries\' own budgets. Under the WTO, developed
countries must reduce total trade-distorting support (from the 1986-88
average level) by 20 percent by the year 2000. Developing countries must
reduce support by 13 percent by the year 2004. For all countries,
certain specified types of domestic support, which were determined not
to induce production or distort trade, are not subject to reduction.**

**The Uruguay Round is projected to increase global income and promote
economic growth and development throughout the world through free and
fair international trade. New opportunities for developing countries\'
agricultural and manufacturing producers to supply domestic and export
markets will contribute to overall economic growth and, thus, food
security.**

**ANNEX VI**

**RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS**

Conclusions reached and action plans adopted at a number of recent
international conferences and conventions will, if implemented, make a
significant contribution to global food security. Among these fora, the
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the
International Conference on Nutrition (ICN), the U.N. Conference on
Population, and the Fourth World Conference on Women all emphasized
sustainable national policies that would impact, in part, on enhanced
global food security. The United States intends to promote vigorously
the realization of the goals set at these conferences and other
meetings, and believes it is important that the World Food Summit build
upon these existing initiatives.

**1. U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and Major
Post-UNCED Activities, Initiatives, or Treaties**

The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) \--
popularly known as the Rio Earth Summit \-- launched the current cycle
of U.N. conferences on global issues that culminated in the Habitat II
Conference in Istanbul in June 1996, as well as various environmental
negotiations. Sustainable development is the underlying principle in the
post-UNCED era. UNCED\'s Agenda 21 and the documents that emerged from
the subsequent conferences recognized that socio-economic development
and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing
components for sustainable development. The components have been further
elaborated under various negotiations and initiatives as they apply to
population, social development, forest, climate change, biodiversity,
desertification, and women, just as they were applied to urbanization at
Habitat II and to genetic resources for agriculture at the Leipzig
Conference.

Throughout the post-UNCED era and during the course of this conference
cycle, the United States has continued to emphasize the importance of
sustainable development and has opposed efforts to substitute the term
\"sustained economic growth\" for \"sustainable development.\" Sustained
economic growth is an unacceptable retreat from UNCED because it
downplays the environmental aspects of development. The United States
has repeatedly stressed the need for sustainable development as the
overarching building block for worldwide economic, environmental, and
social progress at all levels: local, national, regional, and global.

In follow-up to the UNCED, the U.S. Government has firmly supported the
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as a forum for resolving
sustainability issues and has actively participated in various important
environmental discussions and negotiations, such as the climate change
convention, desertification convention, lead-up to the International
Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, CSD Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests, renegotiation of the International Tropical Timber
Agreement, and international and regional agreements on criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management.

The essential role of forests in maintaining productive agricultural
systems in many areas of the world is now well-recognized. It is also
acknowledged that unsustainable agriculture had led to widespread
deforestation around the world, often destroying the very soil and water
conservation functions necessary to support downstream and adjacent
agriculture. Since UNCED, the United States has taken steps domestically
and internationally to promote sustainable forest management for the
full range of socio-economic and environmental benefits. In June 1993,
at the European Ministerial Conference on Forests in Helsinki, the
United States became the first country to publicly commit to the goal of
achieving sustainable management of its forests by the year 2000.
President Clinton personally reaffirmed this commitment in his message
to the July 1994 World Forestry Charter Gathering at St. James Place,
London.

The United States also reaffirms its support for the objectives of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The conservation of
biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components serve important
environmental goals. Benefits include new food sources, improved
agricultural products and procedures, as well as tools for combating
disease and helping maintain the health of the world\'s ecological
systems.

Additionally, the United States recognizes the importance of other
recent environmental agreements for the sustainability of the world\'s
food resources. These include the recently completed Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the
FAO Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries. The United States places highest
priority on ratification and implementation of the U.N. Agreement and
the Compliance Agreement and on implementation of the Code of Conduct.
Priorities include strengthening/creating sub-regional and regional
fishery organizations, issues of overcapacity and bycatch/discards, and
efforts to promote and strengthen scientific research as the fundamental
basis for sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture
activities to ensure food security.

These activities are all worthy of mention as they elaborate the concept
of integrating environment and development concerns and are illustrative
of a progressive/innovative approach to food security that looks at the
Abig picture@ of what is involved in sustainable agriculture. Key themes
that the United States has stressed in the course of these activities
include:

\-- Pursuit of sustainable economic development is a prerequisite for
reducing poverty and attaining social progress.

\-- National economic strategies needed to ensure that the benefits of
development are widely shared.

\-- The key role of free markets, private enterprise, and an open world
trading system.

\-- Protection of the environment, including the conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources (e.g., forests, water, genetic
resources, and biodiversity) in order to preserve the benefits of
economic development for future generations.

\-- Investment in human capacity building is essential for sustainable
development. This includes investment in:

\-- protecting human health and improving human nutrition,

\-- promoting literacy,

\-- promoting gender equity, and

\-- stabilizing population growth.

\-- Good governance and transparency as essential to ensure meaningful
participation by all members of society in decisionmaking.

\-- Government as a force for enablement, creating the conditions that
empower key players to solve problems on their own.

\-- Partnership among all levels of public and private actors in the
public decisionmaking process so that communities and individuals have a
stake in their success.

\-- Respect for human rights is a vital component of sustainable
development.

**2. International Conference on Nutrition**

The 1992 International Conference on Nutrition (ICN), jointly sponsored
by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization at FAO headquarters in Rome, emphasized the following
principles and themes which the United States and 158 other countries
adopted:

\-- Incorporating nutritional objectives, considerations, and components
into development policies and programs;

\-- Improving household food security;

\-- Protecting consumers through improved food quality and safety;

\-- Preventing and managing infectious diseases;

\-- Promoting breast feeding;

\-- Caring for the socio-economically deprived and nutritionally
vulnerable;

\-- Preventing and controlling specific micronutrient deficiencies;

\-- Promoting appropriate diets and healthy lifestyles; and

\-- Assessing, analyzing, and monitoring nutrition situations.

Since the 1992 ICN, the United States has moved forward in the fight
against hunger. The Government has renewed its pledge to maintain a
nutrition safety net for the food-insecure and nutritionally vulnerable,
as articulated in the U.S. Plan of Action for the ICN. That plan
emphasized a variety of specific strategies: access to nutrition
assistance, including access to food for all food-insecure groups;
improved community efforts to combat food insecurity; and improved
future policy and action through continued research on identifying
effective approaches to alleviating food insecurity. Putting these
pledges into action, the recently passed Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 extends the authorization for the U.S. Food Stamp
Program. The Administration has also endorsed full funding for the
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
in order to serve all eligible individuals.

**3. U.N. Conference on Population and Development**

The 1994 U.N. Conference on Population and Development produced the
Cairo Program of Action, which emphasized the role of unsustainable
resource use as a cause of environmental problems and urged the
development and sharing of environmentally sustainable technologies and
practices. It also called for the integration of population dynamics
into planning for sustainable development and asked governments to
integrate women into matters of natural resource protection and
management. In its support for the Cairo Program of Action, the United
States has sought to emphasize the linkages between food security and
population stabilization, rational population distribution, alleviating
poverty, protecting the environment, and introducing appropriate
technologies. The United States has advocated sound national development
policies that integrate these objectives.

Chapter III (\"Interrelationships Between Population, Sustained Economic
Growth, and Sustainable Development\") highlighted the following issues:

\-- The need for measures to strengthen food, nutrition, and
agricultural policies and programs with special attention to the
creation and strengthening of food security at all levels;

\-- The need for measures aimed at the eradication of poverty, with
special attention to income-generation and employment strategies
directed at the rural poor and those living within or on the edge of
fragile ecosystems;

\-- The importance of utilizing demographic data to promote sustainable
resource management, especially for ecologically fragile systems;

\-- The need to modify unsustainable consumption and production patterns
\... with the aim of fostering sustainable resource use and preventing
environmental degradation.

\-- The importance of implementing policies to address the ecological
implications of inevitable future increases in population numbers and
changes in concentration and distribution.

**4. Fourth World Conference on Women**

The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women produced the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action with its 12 strategic objectives. It
refocused the attention of the world on the critical importance of
eliminating discrimination and violence against women, increasing
women\'s access to education, health services, productive resources, and
employment, and fully involving women in power structures and
decisionmaking, including environmental and conflict resolution.

The Beijing Platform emphasizes women as agents of change rather than as
passive beneficiaries or victims. It outlines in detail actions to take
that will enable women, as agents of change, to participate fully in
decisionmaking at all levels in economic, social, and political
institutions. And it looks forward to their doing so in full partnership
with men.

For the first time, in every area \-- health, education, violence
against women, economic development, work, and family \-- the document
stresses the rights of the individual. There are actions to ensure that
women have access to information, to credit, and to the careers or
professions of their choice, and to be safe from violence, in or out of
the home.

The Platform advances the agenda for women\'s economic security, which
is essential for independence, self-sufficiency, and, increasingly, for
family well-being. The Platform calls for equality for women in the work
place and equal opportunity for entrepreneurs, with a special emphasis
on credit. Access to credit, particularly through micro-enterprises, is
a key priority. As First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Beijing:
\"If there is any message that this Conference could bring about
economic opportunity, it is that we must engage in micro-credit in order
to build micro-enterprises. We must open doors of banks and other
existing financial institutions to women who can become self-sufficient
and responsible borrowers.\" Economic security for women, in turn,
enhances the prospects for food security around the world.

The United States strongly reaffirms its support for the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action and recognizes the special role
played by women in achievement of food security.