World Food Board Proposal

MAC/WFY

Page-27

0230_553559_07_cha03

foundation of FAO, there had been a great deal of opposition to any centralized,
multilateral world food security setup. The idea of buffer stocks, designed essen-
tially as a commodity-holding operation to stabilize prices, had come up at the Hot
Springs conference, where it was politely shelved. While some producer groups
strongly favoured this approach, others were fearful of it, and trade interests were
in general strongly opposed.

Later, when writing his memoirs, Boyd Orr stated that the `first opposition' to

the proposed WFB came from Will Clayton of the US government who was trying
to organize the ITO with the aim of lowering tariffs and better regulating world
trade. Clayton urged Boyd Orr to withdraw his proposal. Boyd Orr argued that
the WFB need not conflict with the ITO: on the contrary, they would comple-
ment each other. But Boyd Orr placed opposition to his proposal mainly on
the two major powers at the time, the United States and the United Kingdom.
He wrote

Britain and America were not prepared to give either funds or authority to an
organization over which they had not got full control. Britain might have lost
her advantage of cheap food imports, while the US thought that she could do
better for herself as a world power through bilateral aid to other countries. This
is an understandable attitude for these national governments to adopt. Indeed,
to have decided otherwise might appear to their people as a dereliction of duty.
(Boyd Orr and Lubbock, 1953, p. 57)

In order that the search for an acceptable approach to the problem might

continue, the conference established a `Preparatory Commission on World Food
Proposals'. The commission was requested to examine not only Boyd Orr's ideas
but also any others that seemed pertinent. Sixteen governments were appointed
as members of the commission.

Boyd Orr nominated Stanley Bruce of Australia

as its chairman. The commission met in Washington, DC in October 1946 and
continued working until the end of January the following year. By then, as Boyd
Orr explained, `the political atmosphere had changed' The US government was not
prepared to give either funds or authority to any international organization over
which it did not have full control. With the US refusing to co-operate, the United
Kingdom not favourable to the idea, and the Soviet Union `cynically suspicious',
it was not possible to proceed with the WFB proposal.

The commission did not favour the creation of a WFB (FAO, 1946b). But it

emphasized that the traumatic experience of the inter-war years, the collapse of
agricultural prices, and the consequent misery of the farming communities in
several grain surplus countries caused by over-production, at a time when millions
were starving in other parts of the world, had laid bare the weaknesses of the
traditional methods of unregulated production and marketing of foodstuffs. With
state regulation of prices and trade in several countries in order to maintain farm
incomes and food supplies to consumers at reasonable prices, the commission
noted that the international market in agricultural products was by no mean a
`free' market in the traditional sense.

Home

eBook	World Food Security: A History since 1945


Useful links	World Food Board Proposal MAC/WFY Page-27 0230_553559_07_cha03 World Food Board Proposal 27 foundation of FAO, there had been a great deal of opposition to any centralized, multilateral world food security setup. The idea of buffer stocks, designed essen- tially as a commodity-holding operation to stabilize prices, had come up at the Hot Springs conference, where it was politely shelved. While some producer groups strongly favoured this approach, others were fearful of it, and trade interests were in general strongly opposed. Later, when writing his memoirs, Boyd Orr stated that the `first opposition' to the proposed WFB came from Will Clayton of the US government who was trying to organize the ITO with the aim of lowering tariffs and better regulating world trade. Clayton urged Boyd Orr to withdraw his proposal. Boyd Orr argued that the WFB need not conflict with the ITO: on the contrary, they would comple- ment each other. But Boyd Orr placed opposition to his proposal mainly on the two major powers at the time, the United States and the United Kingdom. He wrote Britain and America were not prepared to give either funds or authority to an organization over which they had not got full control. Britain might have lost her advantage of cheap food imports, while the US thought that she could do better for herself as a world power through bilateral aid to other countries. This is an understandable attitude for these national governments to adopt. Indeed, to have decided otherwise might appear to their people as a dereliction of duty. (Boyd Orr and Lubbock, 1953, p. 57) In order that the search for an acceptable approach to the problem might continue, the conference established a `Preparatory Commission on World Food Proposals'. The commission was requested to examine not only Boyd Orr's ideas but also any others that seemed pertinent. Sixteen governments were appointed as members of the commission. 5 Boyd Orr nominated Stanley Bruce of Australia as its chairman. The commission met in Washington, DC in October 1946 and continued working until the end of January the following year. By then, as Boyd Orr explained, `the political atmosphere had changed' The US government was not prepared to give either funds or authority to any international organization over which it did not have full control. With the US refusing to co-operate, the United Kingdom not favourable to the idea, and the Soviet Union `cynically suspicious', it was not possible to proceed with the WFB proposal. The commission did not favour the creation of a WFB (FAO, 1946b). But it emphasized that the traumatic experience of the inter-war years, the collapse of agricultural prices, and the consequent misery of the farming communities in several grain surplus countries caused by over-production, at a time when millions were starving in other parts of the world, had laid bare the weaknesses of the traditional methods of unregulated production and marketing of foodstuffs. With state regulation of prices and trade in several countries in order to maintain farm incomes and food supplies to consumers at reasonable prices, the commission noted that the international market in agricultural products was by no mean a `free' market in the traditional sense. back to top Next page
© 2009