What we are discussing is a U.S. public policy document. Its message reinforces and is complemented by the rising concerns of nonfarm groups. The right to food is discussed as a component of the human rights package. The World Food Council, some think, may become a serious forum for north-south dialogue. There is hope that Public Law 480 may become a food for development program with decreased emphasis on surplus disposal and diplomatic leverage. More importantly, international interdependencies among nations and societies are increasingly understood. Thus, a variety of forces is at work to place at least part of the World Food and Nutrition Study's (WFNS's) recommendations on the national policy agenda. In an effort to improve the performance of development aid, donors are demanding more sophisticated and rigorously prepared projects and programs. The capacity of many less developed countries (LDC's) to meet these standards is still limited. As a result, there has developed an increasing flow of development aid searching for suitable programs and projects. Equation of demand and supply cannot rely in the long term on transitory expatriate expertise. Rather, domestic LDC capacity to meet this need and tap into the global community of science, technology, and governance must increase. Much of what the WFNS recommends is intended to speed this process. But the new aid resources coming on stream will have to show at least some results rather soon if desired momentum is to be sustained. Against this background, I have four observations. First, as agricultural economists we may well be challenged to provide more than we are prepared to deliver. Scientific and technological advances of biophysical and engineering types, while exciting, critically important, and likely to be forthcoming, are in themselves insufficient to the task. Nontechnological constraints may well be the critical ones. Involved are proper public policies in the rich as well as in the poor countries and development of the institutions, programs, and projects they foster. Biophysical scientists frequently speak with conviction when they say: have the technological package right. All that is holding it back is wrongheaded price, trade, tax, land tenure, exchange rate, or investment policies. Often economists are the first to agree. We also know, however, that much technology has been unsuccessfully promoted because it was not well tailored to the agroclimatic and socioeconomic circumstances of the intended