Trump Burns 500 Tons of Food Meant for the Hungry

[Fantine]

MSN

The Trump administration has officially ordered the destruction of nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food left undisturbed before the USAID program was shut down.

The food, worth $800,000,000, is enough to feed about 1.5 million children for a week. It will cost another $130k to incinerate the food, according to the Atlantic. The food is set to expire soon, after the agency was shut down and could no longer distribute the food, originally meant for needy children in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

No words. Just prayers. And tears.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Not surprised considering this administration.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The cost of the high calorie biscuits is 800,000, not 800,000,000

And it is a total waste, they should have distributed it first

 

[Clare73]

Can it be distributed before its expiratioin date in order to do it legally?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Here is an article about it:

Trump admin set to burn nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food

The food is set to expire soon after the USAID program was shut down and could no longer distribute the food

www.the-express.com

It includes this:

To make matters worse, The Atlantic reveals that even more food may soon expire and have to be discarded. Hundreds of thousands of "boxes of emergency food pastes, also already purchased, are currently collecting dust in American warehouses," the publication reports.​

​

This includes about 60,000 metric tons of food already bought by the government that is now "sitting in warehouses across the world." It remains uncertain what will become of most of this food.​

​

President Donald Trump's cuts to the USAID office are projected to result in the deaths of '14 million people,' many of whom are children, according to a recent study published in The Lancet.​

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Since USAID shut down. Workers weren't able to give food, to people in need. So, it's sound like Trump rather waist money on food. Then giving food to people, that need it. This is an evil act. But I'm not surprised, since we're talking about Trump. Remember that the next time people in the White House claim to be praying. As far as I've seen, they do everything that God /Jesus wouldn't do.

 

[Fantine]

The cost of the high calorie biscuits is 800,000, not 800,000,000

And it is a total waste, they should have distributed it first

To be fair, it is not the economic cost that most bothers me. It is the cruelty of spending $130,000 to burn the food instead of spending that money to deliver it to starving children.

Can it be distributed before its expiratioin date in order to do it legally?

They chose not to do so.

 

[rjs330]

Honestly if we already had it, we should have just shipped it to these countries and let their governments deal with it.

 

[Clare73]

They chose not to do so.

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Fantine]

Non-responsive. . .

By ordering their destruction Before the expiration date, they chose to deny 1.5 million children a week's food.

 

[Clare73]

By ordering their destruction Before the expiration date, they chose to deny 1.5 million children a week's food.

Non-responsive to my point. . .

 

[Fantine]

Non-responsive to my point. . .

The food had not yet expired.

 

[Clare73]

The food had not yet expired.

And? . . .read my post.

 

[DaisyDay]

And? . . .read my post.

Are you asking if the Trump admin could now make a different choice, negating their previous one in time?

I read your post and hers. You asked if the Trump administration could have distributed the food before it expired. She replied, "They chose not to."

Implicit in the idea of a choice being made is that a choice exists; in other words, they had a choice to distribute the food and took the "no distribution" choice. How that is unresponsive is beyond me.

 

[Clare73]

I read your post and hers. You asked if the Trump administration could have distributed the food before it expired. She replied, "They chose not to."

Implicit in the idea of a "choice" being made is that a choice exists.

Likewise Implicit in the idea of "choice" is that they were not able to do so in compliance with regulations regarding expiration, thereby necessitating the "choice" not to do so.
Choosing to indict without all the facts. . .reveals bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity, necessary for arriving at the truth of a matter.

The revealed bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity here do no service to the discussion.

 

[DaisyDay]

Likewise Implicit in the idea of "choice" is that they were not able to do so in compliance with regulations regarding expiration, thereby necessitating the "choice" not to do so.

Say what? You're arguing that an option impossible to exercise counts as a "choice"? What aninteresting take on the idea of choice: they chose to not do the impossible!

Choosing to indict without all the facts. . .reveals bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity, necessary for arriving at the truth of a matter.

Please add to our store of known facts: they were in charge of distributing food; they decided not to; the food is reaching expiration date; they decide to destroy rather than distribute. The initial choice to cancel the existing contracts to distribute the food, knowing that food expires, was theirs. The choice to not distribute the food as the months passed was also theirs.

They didn't simply delay the distribution - they cancelled it, well before it was due to expire.

The revealed bias, prejudice and lack of objectivity here do no service to the discussion.

Making excuses for those who made the choice to do away with the program and destroy the food rather than feed the children, on the other hand, is a great service! I do question exactly who in this discussion lacks objectivity, given known facts.

 

[RileyG]

MSN

No words. Just prayers. And tears.

Yikes!

 

[BCP1928]

And? . . .read my post.

Are you saying that they couldn't give it away until it had expired?

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying that they couldn't give it away until it had expired?

I am saying that the process of distribution may not have been able to be accomlished before it expired.

 

[BCP1928]

I am saying that the process of distribution could not be accomlished before it expired.

Perhaps so, but the burning of it was the message.