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: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals experiencing food insecurity globally
Estimated Size: 10000
- The Global Food Security Strategy impacts smallholder farmers by aiming to improve their agricultural production efficiency and resilience, which could affect millions globally.
- Food insecure populations benefit from the increased focus on promoting food security and nutrition, including those living in regions vulnerable to climate change.
- Resilience efforts in agriculture are likely to impact rural communities in developing countries, which rely heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods.
- The Emergency Food Security Program targets populations experiencing food crises due to conflict, economic instability, or natural disasters, impacting significant numbers in affected regions.
Reasoning
- The Global Food Security Reauthorization Act primarily targets global populations but has indirect effects on the US. Therefore, affected individuals in the US may include those related to agricultural sectors, global markets, or those involved in international humanitarian work.
- The policy's primary functions being overseas limits its direct impact on US citizens. However, indirect effects like stability in food prices and reduced immigration pressures might have downstream impacts on certain communities.
- US citizens actively engaged in overseas agricultural or humanitarian work might feel more connected, influenced, or mobilized by expanded global food security efforts.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy binds US agricultural markets with international food security issues. Though it mainly helps overseas, stronger global food security could stabilize demand for exports.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech worker (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reauthorization aligns with my values of reducing world hunger and supporting international communities. While it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, I believe it's a step toward global good, which benefits us all.
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 |
Government employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports international stability efforts and by extension, US interests. Although it stretches budgets, the long-term benefits can scaffold other US foreign policy goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
NGO worker (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reauthorization is crucial for the projects I’m involved in. It ensures continuity in aid and development programs, directly amplifying the impact of my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Wheat Farmer (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Despite being focused internationally, the policy indirectly benefits my business by potentially stabilizing global wheat demand. Increased resilience in global agriculture should help uphold trade balances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Import/Export Specialist (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorized Act indirectly affects my work as it influences global food supply chains. It has potential prices implications which could create smoother operations in my job.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Working in policy, observing the Global Food Security Strategy enhances my understanding of geopolitical impacts on trade and agriculture. It’s a positive step towards structured foreign aid.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Sustainability Consultant (Colorado)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with sustainability goals by bolstering resilient agriculture, setting a global standard. This has indirect benefits by setting examples that my clients could adapt locally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Grocery Store Owner (Washington)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Global food security affects product availability and pricing in my store. Although indirect, stable food supply chains from impacted regions benefit my business bottom line.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Agricultural Scientist (Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Working in crop resilience, this strategy's goals align with my research interests, though it primarily benefits developing nations, it reflects positively on research priorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $920000000, High: $1240000000)
Year 3: $1040000000 (Low: $940000000, High: $1280000000)
Year 5: $1080000000 (Low: $980000000, High: $1320000000)
Year 10: $1180000000 (Low: $1070000000, High: $1450000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination with international partners is essential for maximizing the efficiency and effect of the program.
- Global geopolitical conditions could impact the program's implementation and effectiveness in various regions.
- The impact of climate change could increase the demand for emergency food assistance.