Bill Overview
Title: Global Food Security Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 activities to implement the Global Food Security Strategy, a whole-of-government strategy to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition. The bill also modifies aspects of the strategy, such as requiring the strategy to seek to improve the efficiency and resilience of agricultural production. The bill also reauthorizes through FY2028 activities related to the Emergency Food Security Program, an international market-based assistance program.
Sponsors: Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]
Target Audience
Population: People suffering from food insecurity globally
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The Global Food Security Strategy targets improving food security and nutrition, impacting populations suffering from food insecurity.
- The strategy includes a whole-of-government approach, indicating involvement from multiple sectors and impacting a broad population globally.
- The strategy focuses on agricultural efficiency and resilience, largely impacting rural populations dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods.
- The Emergency Food Security Program targets international markets, particularly those undergoing food crises due to emergencies.
Reasoning
- The policy predominantly targets global food insecurity, which means its direct impact on US citizens is limited. However, certain US populations and industries may be indirectly affected, particularly those involved in agriculture, international trade, and humanitarian efforts.
- Farmers and agricultural technology providers in the US might see benefits from increased demand for agricultural efficiency solutions as the policy aims to enhance agricultural resilience globally.
- US taxpayers may have opinions on government expenditure related to global food security initiatives, though their personal well-being is unlikely to be significantly affected.
- In general, the US population will experience limited direct impact from this policy unless they are directly involved in related sectors or are personally invested in global food security outcomes.
Simulated Interviews
Agricultural Engineer (Iowa, USA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think supporting global food security is critical, and as a professional in this field, it can lead to more projects and collaboration.
- However, I hope the funds are managed well and result in tangible improvements globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Kansas, USA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs aiming to improve agricultural resilience are essential, especially as climate change impacts crop yields.
- Our farm might benefit if there are opportunities to engage with international markets or new technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Taxpayer and Investor (New York, USA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the benefits of such policies in promoting global stability, but I'm concerned about the amount spent in foreign aid when domestic issues need attention.
- These initiatives, however, might be beneficial in the long term if they stabilize global food markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Research Scientist (California, USA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my daily work, aiming for sustainable food systems.
- I'm optimistic about the increased collaboration opportunities it might bring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C., USA)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An effective food security strategy can lead to significant improvements globally, and supporting this policy can align with long-term goals.
- The budget allocation, while large, is necessary to tackle these complex issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Farmer (Texas, USA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of any efforts to enhance food security globally, but I'm skeptical about how much will actually reach the needy.
- Policy like this is crucial, yet it often gets mired in bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Georgia, USA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe global stability through food security indirectly benefits all economies, including ours.
- It's important students understand the reasons behind international aid and its implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
NGO Worker (Massachusetts, USA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's always concern about funding sustainability, but this long-term policy can ensure continued support for critical programs.
- I hope for better alignment in how these resources are distributed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Logistics Manager (Illinois, USA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on improving agricultural efficiency could benefit the supply chain over time and lead to more stable trading networks.
- I hope this also opens up new domestic opportunities in technology sharing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (Oregon, USA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a significant commitment to global food justice, and it's exciting to see potential stories of change.
- I hope to see this translate into effective outcomes I can report on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 5: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Annual global food aid needs can fluctuate based on unforeseen economic and environmental factors.
- There is a potential for diplomatic impacts that may alter future fiscal policies related to global security and economic aid.
- Coordination between departments (Agriculture, State, Commerce) can influence efficiency and budgetary impacts.