Ross B. Talbot

The three US food policies: An ideological interpretation

Abstract Historically, and notably so since 1933, three ideologies have been evident, and in conflict, in the farmfood policies of the USA. The gradual transformation of US agriculture since World War II into an agribusiness industry, and into the dominant world food exporter, has necessitated the modernising of these three ideologies. How the new food politics of the Carter Administration will differ from those of the Nixon-Ford Administration is of worldwide concern. Whether the new food policy ‘agenda’ will be aggressively committed to the development of a neo-Jeffersonian food ideology will be a major US political issue in 1977.

The four world food organizations: Influence of the Group of 77

Abstract The influence of the Group of 77 (G77) within the four world food organizations in Rome is limited. The structure of power and the policy making process within each organization varies rather considerably, but in each of them G77 has neither the resources, information, unity nor leadership needed to play a very influential role. The international economy is presently in a state of doldrums, and the Group of 77 is struggling, not without some success, to maintain the status quo within the world food organizations that it estabilshed during the 1970s.

The USA at the 9th World Food Council : Testing the bureaucratic model

Abstract The US governments preparation for, and involvement in, the 9th session of the World Food Council are used as source material for testing the utility of the bureaucratic model in this paper. The results, based solely on this case study, indicate that the model is useful in terms of ‘who decides’, but for a special set of reasons. The Reagan-Block administration has decided not to initiate or support international policies relating to a renewed emphasis on development assistance, food aid or food security. Consequently, the author argues, the middle-range bureaucracy in the USDA, the Department of State, and AID became the principal architects of US policy positions at World Food Council meetings. However, the original bureaucratic model was designed to explain strategy for ‘high politics’ decisions; ‘low politics’ decision making, as in this instance, needs a different kind of analytical framework.

World Food Council's Tenth Session

Abstract The World Food Council held its 10th ministerial session from 11–15 June in the Africa Hall of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, which is located in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The meeting was historic: ten years had swiftly passed by since the World Food Conference met in Rome. What had been accomplished? The solemnly proclaimed resolution on the eradication of hunger had obviously not been fulfilled. In fact, the worlds hungry and malnourished continue to prevail at around the half-billion number. Moreover, Africa was in the throes of a food crisis which had almost swept across that drougt-plagued continent, at least south of the Sahara.

Farm Organizations and the National Interest

A world-wide contest for power between the na tions of the free world and those within the Communist orbit is the dominant phenomenon within international politics today. This situation is certainly not new, but the pace is accelerating. Within the next decade or so the loyalties of the underdeveloped and uncommitted nations will be molded. Food can be a sig nificant weapon for the United States, both in terms of national interest and national morality. One major difficulty, however, is the inability of American farm organizations to see the central issue of our times and to concentrate their unified efforts upon this objective. They tend to confuse rhetoric with reality and thereby dissipate our national strength through their misunder standing of the crucial goal. A White House Conference on Farm Policy is proposed as a means for beginning the redirec tion of American farm policy. The genius of American politics seems to call for a new accommodation in view of the threatened national security and the mounting dissatisfaction with present farm policies.