As shocking as it may sound but it appears that the US president favors with subsidies his fellow citizens from Illinois, farmers (e.g., big corporations operating out of his home state), who grow PUFAs (e.g., soy crops that fuel the polyunsaturated fatty acids vegetable oil industry). It seems that he cares not whether this may further impoverish Kenyan farmers let alone further damage the health of his other fellow Americans (e.g., the consumers that eat the PUFAs, h/t Ted Hutchinson via the Ev Med Forum).
From the paper of record, The New York Times:
It was a point Mr. Obama had to make when he was asked at a news conference on Friday about lowering American subsidies on farm produce so African farmers could compete.
He responded that many of his constituents were soybean farmers. “It’s important to me to be sure I’m looking out for their interests,” he said. “It’s part of my job.”

“A farmer gathers arid corn crops on his farm in Kenya’s coastal town of Kwale. Food shortage, which has left over 10 million Kenyans hungry, has forced the government to divert budgetary development funding to import maize. ”
And how did this food shortage happen? Even NPR, not the best supporter of free market principles, understands and reports on the issue:

“Bags of U.S. cornmeal are stacked in a U.N. World Food Program warehouse in Blantyre, Malawi. The United States ships millions of tons of food aid to Africa each year. While the food is desperately needed in many parts of the continent, some activists and economists say the inflow of huge amounts of surplus Western-grown grain stifles agricultural development in Africa.”
SO THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENS…
-The US grower receives a US taxpayer subsidy. The extra padding of this subsidy allows for the US grower to price the product lower than an unsubsidized product grown elsewhere, sometimes even lower than production cost.
-This US subsidized lower priced product is shipped/dumped in a foreign market of the third world. The foreign local growers find it difficult to compete by selling their locally grown unsubsidized products. Their domestically grown products may or may not have higher productions costs, but these locally grown products in these third world countries don’t have the benefit of the US subsidy which allowed the US product to be priced lower than the foreign country’s market price.
-Many farmers of the third world abandon their fields unable to compete with the US government subsidized grain that entered their countries. Given that they’re working 100 hours a week and yet can’t sell their crops for a price that’s competitive with the US subsidized product that’s entered their market, many of these 3rd world farmers have no choice but to abandon their farms, especially if the US subsidized grain is being sold at or below the production costs of these farmers.
-Domestic production in these foreign third world markets decreases. Now that farms have been abandoned there is less domestic production. This causes shortages which sends the alarm to start/increase US foreign aid (again paid for by the US taxpayer).
-The US growers continue to receive a subsidy from the US taxpayer to grow these crops.
-Now, the US growers also have their products purchased by the US government (e.g., US taxpayer) as food aid. Now this US subsidized crop is then bought by the US government to be shipped to some poor place half way around the world.
-US production of these subsidized crops increases. After all, as a farmer if you see a crop that the US government is subsidizing you to grow and then buying from you, it seems like a good bet.
-More US subsidized products are then dumped on these foreign third world markets. Now, in the forms of “humanitarian food aid” and/or with subsidized prices (still lower than the domestic unsubsidized price of this third world country’s production) more US grown grain floods these third world markets.
-The foreign domestic prices drop further. As the third world markets react to these huge dumpings of US food aid and subsidized goods, the increased supply further lowers the price. The profit margin for these foreign farmers in these third world countries is further squeezed.
-More farms in these countries are abandoned. The domestically grown supply of grains further decreases as domestic production decreases as third world farmers leave their fields.
-More US food aid is needed as 3rd world dependency grows. Now that US taxpayers via subsidies and food aid have decreased the grain production of 3rd world countries, the calls to increase US food aid grow louder.
-The US taxpayer foots the bill for all of this. In return we get poor Kenyans, and really cheap products made from grains and High Fructose Corn Syrup.
-The reasons given for continuing the US humanitarian food aid now are in perpetual motion. More food must be sent! More subsidies must be paid to the US growers!
Please ask yourselves, if you, as a US taxpayer, really wanted to see Kenyans, Africans, Asians, Latinos, Europeans… all humans fed!, wouldn’t you think it would make more sense that they be given the opportunity to feed themselves? Wouldn’t it make better sense that rather than having corn, wheat and soy shipped half way around the world from the US that poor countries should become enabled to feed themselves?
If these US subsidies were to stop, if food aid were to stop, and all of those US taxpayer funds were diverted to Africa for 5 seasons for them to grow food for themselves…. wouldn’t that be more of a sign that US food aid had an interest in feeding starving people? Mind you, I’m not in favor of this option either, as I’d rather see the talented and strong Kenyans compete in a fair market and undoubtedly feed themselves without any interference… but given the disarray caused by the US subsidies and the last 50 years of “humanitarian aid”, it would make more sense than shipping corn from Iowa and soy from Illinois all the way to Kenya while in the process destroying Kenyan farms.
And on these Kenyan farms weren’t just corn or wheat or soy, but other crops and animals that got shut down, too. In other words, US subsidized grains not only outcompeted Kenyan domestically grown grains, but also these US subsidized crops acted as cheap substitutes for other Kenyan domestically produced items.
Do I really think that Obama hates Kenyans and would rather see Kenyans suffer nutritionally and economically than lose votes by not showing enough sentimentality (e.g., love via subsidies paid for by the US taxpayer) in favor of American Big Agriculture?
No, I just believe that he is completely economically ignorant on this subject… as was Bush… as was Clinton… as was Bush the elder. It is either that these people don’t understand the economic hardships US subsidies cause in the third world countries , or all of these previous presidential administrations (and congresses for that matter) are truly beholden to the grain lobby at the expense of the impoverished foreign farmers and the US taxpayer’s wallet and health.
Or it can be both, I suppose… but it can’t be neither.
Interesting that The New York times article mentions how Obama supports these ag subsidies because he’s looking out for the “small soy farmer in Illinois” (ahem, you ever see a small soy farmer?), not how he’s looking out for the Africans’ interest because they somehow can’t grow enough food for themselves. After all, he could have corrected the Kenyan questioner in that these subsidized US crops are for Kenyans’ own good…. but he didn’t say that.
Was it an omission that Obama didn’t mention how important it was for these US subsidies to continue for the sake of Kenyan food security? Or was it the inclusion of truth to admit for whose interests these subsidies were really intended?

“It’s important to me to be sure I’m looking out for their interests,” he said. “It’s part of my job.”
This is not a political attack on Democrats or a defense of Republicans. I’m simply highlighting Obama because he is the current president, and he has gone on record to say that US ag subsidies are in fact part of his job in looking out for his big ag constituents’ interests.
US ag subsidies causing damage to third world food production has been going on for decades, this is simply a fact, and remains a fact regardless of whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or not. If you have a knee-jerk reaction to defend your political party regarding US subsidies and their intentions but you are blind to their immoral results (at least when your candidate is in power) then ask yourself why.
If cognitive dissonance is forcing you to say… “yeah, but the other party did it, too!” or “yeah, but the other party did even worse things…”, then I’m afraid my points in this essay may not be ready for your contemplation. For the paleo living movement I’m interested in exploring has people with concern for property rights, freedom of division of labor, cares about the interests of their own families, and respects how these interests may indeed affect others’ property rights and freedom of division of labor.
US ag subsidies are a disrespect toward your property rights as a US taxpayer. Your wealth denoted in dollars is being degraded by debt and inflation as more dollars are printed to give to a few select US politically favored citizens, US grain farmers. US grain farmers receive subsidies and then have their crops purchased by the US government for food aid to be dumped in third world countries. Almost like a guaranteed financial annuity. Well, until too much money gets printed, I suppose.
US ag subsidies are a disrespect toward third world farmers’ property rights and freedom of division of labor, as well. These cheap US government subsidized goods flood their markets forcing them off of their property and denying them the ability to receive the proper market price for the fruits of their labors (I suppose fruits of their labors when talking about grain crops is a bit out of line…).
We should not be interested in moral intentions that result in immoral consequences. If you judge the free market immoral somehow but it results in the moral consequences of Africans being able to feed themselves and paleo nutritious food being able to compete against the state sponsored granaries …
Then ask yourself, “why am I AGAINST the moral consequences of a free market for food production that would help Africans AND Americans better feed themselves in a healthy way and FOR the immoral consequences of US ag subsidies and food aid as long as they have good intentions espoused by MY CANDIDATE’s rhetoric?”
Have you ever asked yourself this question?

Does it really have to be this way? 