Cash donations, not food: The DANA aid controversy

Cash donations, not food: The DANA aid controversy

Cash works. Donating food and water, however, achieves nothing. The thesis, presented without nuance in an article by Directo al Paladar on aid for DANA victims, was enough to reopen an old debate: what should be sent to a devastated area, who manages it, and how much is lost along the way. The most repeated summary was even more blunt: cash yes, water and food NO.

There are two underlying arguments. One is logistical: perishables spoil before arriving. The other is about control: whoever handles the money decides later what to spend it on. Between these lies a third, less confessional argument, regarding what happens to donations when no one audits the journey. If cash is the answer, the problem was never the food: it is traceability.

What the article that lit the fuse says

The text argues that in-kind donations pose a practical problem: they do not allow adapting the menu to the cultural customs of the affected population. This detail, read coldly, is what has sparked the most controversy, because it admits two opposite readings: a technical one, regarding the logistics of distributing cooked food, and a political one, regarding who is assisted and in what order.

The text did not ask to close the hand of those donating products: it asked, in theory, for efficiency. The way it was presented left the door open for each reader to complete the sentence as they wished. And the article deactivated comments shortly after publication, a gesture on the internet always interpreted as a confession. Coincidence, coincidence, they said.

Why it is defended that money yields more than food

The central argument is about efficiency: cash allows buying locally, reactivates local commerce, and avoids the cost of moving, storing, and distributing products that expire. On this point, shipments that arrived in bad condition are cited, including a statement by businessman Ángel Gaitán about tons of hamburgers rotting during transit.

The problem is the second half of the reasoning. That money is more efficient only holds if it arrives intact and on time. And here appears the calculation that has circulated the most: of every 10 euros donated, eight would go to executive salaries and barely one or two would reach the destination. It is an estimate without an audit behind it, but it works as a slogan.

The counterattack: with shops closed, nothing is bought

Here the controversy becomes tangible. If the aid consists of a 50 euro card, what use is it to someone from Paiporta who cannot leave the municipality and whose shops have been closed for days or without receiving merchandise? The question, repeated in different words, summarizes the position of those who defend physical shipments.

The inventory of what can be sent is detailed without reservation: non-perishable food, cleaning and hygiene products, clothing and footwear, toilet paper, batteries, flashlights, generators, suction pumps, masks, bleach, or fuel. It has its economic logic: these are goods that do not trade, are not easily resold, and do not depend on a point-of-sale terminal working.

Why are NGOs channeling donations questioned?

Distrust of the organizations managing aid runs through the entire conversation, from accounting opacity to the suspicion that distribution is politicized. Part of the messages claim that money ends up financing structures and salaries rather than food, and that without public traceability, charity is a blind bet.

The counterargument also exists: some defend that, with their on-the-ground presence, Red Cross, Cáritas, or the Food Bank remain the fastest and most verifiable channel. The distribution of arguments is not clean: those demanding transparency from NGOs usually demand it with less insistence from official channels.

From logistics to disqualification

In the final stretch, part of the messages abandoned the ground of calculation and drifted into disqualifications aimed at specific groups, without providing any data to support them. These statements reappear in every emergency and are supported by no report. It is advisable to separate them from the technical ground, where the figures are.

No official balance has yet settled the initial question: how much of what was donated arrived, in what form, and with what intermediation cost.

What can be expected from here

The foreseeable outcome is that the mixed formula will prevail by pure inertia: cash for what needs to be bought on the spot and physical products for what does not appear on shelves. But until there is a public breakdown of what arrived and what was lost, each emergency will repeat the same fight. And probably with the same slogans.