In response to reports that U.S. food donations are taking too long to arrive in developing countries, lawmakers are considering ways to make such aid less expensive and more efficient.

Senate draft farm-bill language by Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, would authorize $100 million for a pilot program by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that would buy crops from the same region where food is needed instead of shipping it from U.S. sources.

A provision approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June as part of an international food-aid measure (HR 2844) would direct USAID to use its exisiting authority to procure food locally or regionally. The measure could be added to the farm bill (HR 2419).

The Bush administration also has a separate proposal to spend 25 percent of appropriated food aid on commodities that originate closer to where they are needed.

Proponents of those ideas say they would cut down on shipping costs and enable food to reach hungry people more quickly.

“With Darfur and the tsunami . . . people are grappling with how to get food to people who need it most,” said Mary Chambliss, a consultant for food-aid organizations.

Such proposals could face opposition, however, beyond the usual criticisms of food aid. Opponents typically argue that food donations stymie local agricultural markets in poor countries and increase the price of homegrown crops there. But the current proposals could be derailed by more specific concerns from agribusinesses and shippers.

Those industries argue that food bought locally could be of lower quality and that the cash used to buy crops could be stolen. They have business to protect, too: Since the last farm law (PL 107-171) was enacted, the government has spent about $2 billion per year on food donations, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

American food aid typically goes to countries that have experienced a major natural disaster or war, or are generally impoverished. The government buys surplus crops and ships them to needy countries on U.S.-owned-and-operated ships, resulting in a more than $3 billion profit for American farmers and shippers over the past three years, according to Agriculture Department data.

Nevertheless, rising transportation and business costs have contributed to a 52 percent decline in average tonnage delivered over the past five years, according to the same GAO report.

The process can take months. The federal government buys crops only in times of low commercial demand, and packaging and shipping prolong the process, often resulting in food spoilage by the time the cargo reaches its destination, according to GAO.

Harkin seems aware of the political environment his proposal faces.

“It is important that we act cautiously, learn from the experience of other nations and better evaluate the administration’s proposed local purchase,” he said.

Farm groups, at least, may be more open to a pilot program so long as the money to fund it does not come out of the farm bill budget, which is already strapped.

“The battle will really come down to whether it’s farm money or foreign affairs money,” Chambliss said.