Nicolás Maduro, President of Venezuela (although his claim is disputed), argues that the effect of US aid is small compared to the income loss due to sanctions, claiming that the US "robs us of 30 billion dollars and offers us four crumbs."
Is he correct? Setting aside the (likely incorrect) claims about the food being contaminated, how does its value compare to the projected lost income due to the recent oil sanctions (or to other sanctions if supposed to be significant)?
So, finally, the missing context: the food aid is explicitly not going to Maduro. It's going to Guaido and his volunteers. The US is using it as another bit of leverage to try to oust Maduro, and Maduro is purposely trying to shut the international aid down (with the quote "We are not beggars.")
Whether or not the aid is more/less than the embargo is kind of irrelevant. Because the embargo is specifically of a Maduro-run state enterprise... and the aid is something the opposition is calling for and Maduro doesn't want. If the US was providing 100 times the aid... Maduro would hate it 100 times as much. His objection isn't really one of quantity... but the argument that 'you're giving us food for 3,500 children while stealing 30 billion from us' is a lot more compelling than 'Don't send food aid for our starving citizens, because "we're not beggars"'.
robs us of 30 billion dollars and offers us four crumbs
Maduro’s statement is misleading because he’s referring to an “us” that is actually two different groups of people within the same country. The people being “robbed” of $30 billion are the people who run the state owned oil company. The people being given the “four crumbs” are people who are starving to death due to the government’s bad policies and likely wouldn’t receive any share of the $30 billion except in the most indirect ways at best.
It may be true that the sanctions cost Maduro’s regime $30 billion. It may be true that the US food aid is less than $30 billion dollars worth of food. It is not true that these policies are affecting an identical set of people.
EDIT: This answer has been flagged as requiring more sources. I think this is silly because my answer is a demonstration that a logical fallacy is being employed. But, whatever, I will oblige anyway.
Here is a list of current sanctions against Venezuela from the state department, which shows that the sanctions are directed against the state run petroleum company and specific individuals in the Maduro regime: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/venezuela/
If we assume that agriculture and GDP haven't changed much since these figures were released, the total Venezuelan domestic agricultural economy is about $3.84 billion. The same wikipedia page lists total imports for 2017 as $9.1 billion. If we assume 100% of that is food (which it isn't) that puts a ceiling of $13 billion on the amount of money Venezuela spends on food.
$13 billion is less than $30 billion. If we assume that Maduro's claim of sanctions costing Venezuela $30 billion is correct, then there is a minimum of $17 billion that would not be spent on feeding people. This minimum would assume that the Venezuelan government would completely shut down the agricultural sector of their economy in response to sanctions, which is an absurd assumption.
The people who are losing the money due to sanctions and the people who are not able to eat and are getting food aid are not the same people, because the money from sanctions is largely not being spent on food.