U.S. Food Policy

House and Senate pass Farm Bill

2008-05-16T05:57:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives this week passed the post-conference version of the Farm Bill by a veto-proof majority, after Republicans abandoned the White House position. The Senate also passed the bill on Thursday.

In a conference call with bloggers and public interest groups on Wednesday, White House official Barry Jackson said:

This bill is $20 billion over budget, not paid for, and full of accounting gimmicks and time shifts in payments... This is not in the best interest of American Agriculture. This is not in the best interest of American taxpayers. Congress can do better than this.... This Farm Bill deserves to be vetoed, and the President will veto it.

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner pointed out that, with current high commodity prices, farm incomes are higher than ever in recent years, so one could reduce trade-distorting subsidies without impoverishing farmers: "Now is as good a time as any for some of these reforms."

Because the Farm Bill's political support depends in part on anti-hunger and environmental groups, who might otherwise have been in favor of stronger reform to traditional row-crop subsidies, the bill includes some new funding for food assistance programs, new money for fruit and vegetable growers, some gains for the CSP conservation program, and small amounts of additional funds for some sustainable agriculture priorities.

I asked Deputy Secretary Conner whether these anti-hunger and sustainable agriculture priorities would be jeopardized if public interest groups tacitly supported a White House veto of the House-passed Farm Bill. He responded that the administration's concern is with the growth in total funding in the bill, and with the lack of reform to subsidies for rich farmers, not with specific anti-hunger or sustainable agriculture provisions. The administration would support the bill if Congress revised the row-crop subsidies by reducing trade-distorting price supports and capping payments to rich farmers, for example, while retaining the anti-hunger and environmental provisions.

Here is the summary by Ken Cook in the Environmental Working Group's Mulch blog:

[T]his farm bill could have gone far beyond the miserly spending increases it provides for nutrition assistance to the poor at home and abroad, conservation, farmers markets, organic food, minority farmers and other important priorities that have long been neglected or under-funded. And there would have been money left over to give taxpayers a break.

Apparently the Democratic caucus thought they were log rolling when the subsidy lobby tossed them some twigs.

In a period when crop prices and farm incomes are soaring to record levels, the continuation of bloated subsidies to the largest, most prosperous farms in the country can only be seen as a breathtaking cop-out on the part of congressional leaders.

Connect Nutrition

2008-05-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

From former student Kelly Horton's project in Seattle, Connect Nutrition.

Welcome to Connect Nutrition

Connect Nutrition was founded to address the need for unique and innovative solutions to solve problems of inadequate nutrition, hunger, and food insecurity.

We create connections and opportunities for Communities, Organizations, and People.

Connect Nutrition supports organizations participating in active food, nutrition, and agriculture policy advocacy efforts and nutrition program planning and implementation to increase community food security, decrease hunger, increase access to healthful foods, and create sustainable food systems.

We do this by assisting local, national, and international non-profit organizations, government agencies, academic institutions, socially responsible businesses, and community groups in all aspects of program design, evaluation, training and management, policy analysis, and advocacy in the areas of food security, community development, and poverty alleviation.

Oftentimes, our clients face unfriendly political environments, operate with dwindling resources, experience budget pressures, and are in need of expert knowledge of food, nutrition, and agricultural policy, nutrition science, or technical expertise for program planning. These problems present a variety of challenges. Connect Nutrition helps organizations to achieve their missions by capitalizing on core strengths and lending expertise in the areas most needed.

In the eloquent words of Doc Hatfield, "We are a community of shared values. . . healthy land, healthful food, healthy community. . . we're all one family."

Contact us today and achieve your mission!

"Wrong turf, Burger Boy"

2008-05-15T07:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a passage from the funny column by Fred Grimm in the Miami Herald today.

Corporate executives bent on an Internet smear campaign might first consider the ignominious unmasking of surfxaholic36.

Surfxaholic36 was the online pseudonym a Burger King vice president reportedly pilfered from his young daughter to post all manner of scurrilous stuff about his company's perceived enemies.

Unfortunately for Steven Grover, those enemies included the Student-Farmworker Alliance. Middle-age inhabitants of fancy corporate suites should refrain, always, from picking Internet fights with any organization with ''student'' in its title. Wrong turf, Burger Boy.

Grover, as surfxaholic36, reportedly posted nasty comments laden with misinformation under Internet articles about the Immokalee-based SFA.

Surfxaholic36 charged, among other sins, that the alliance and their partners at the Coalition of Immokalee Workers were pilfering pay increases they had negotiated for Florida's beleaguered tomato-pickers and were ``reaping millions in cash from unknowing or duped supporters.''

For more about the dirty tricks company, Diplomatic Tactical Services, mentioned in the column, see the innovative SourceWatch wiki.

Farm Bill analysis

2008-05-12T16:32:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt of a Farm Bill analysis on Friday, following reports that Congressional negotiators had completed their work.

... At a time of record farm income, Congress chose to further increase farm subsidy rates, require the American taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers already earning up to $1.5 million per year, and expand government control over farm programs. This bill also adds a number of provisions never considered by the full Congress such as numerous trade-related provisions and expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act. Congress should reconsider increasing by $20 billion the current spending level of $596 billion over 10 years.

This Farm Bill Asks American Taxpayers To Support Still Higher Subsidies During A Time Of Record Farm Income

The United States' booming farm economy makes it impossible to justify further increasing subsidy rates and establishing additional subsidies for some crops. With rising food prices and farm income at an all-time high, Congress should not be looking to increase the burden on taxpayers by forcing them to further subsidize the part of our economy that is setting records....

Congress Should Not Jeopardize America's Support For The Farm Bill By Increasing Subsidies Without Real Reform

The lack of reform in this bill puts future farm bills in jeopardy by eroding overall support for farm programs.

The farm bill fails to adequately reform payment limitations and instead allows for excessively high limits on the level of allowable income for receiving farm subsidies. The Administration originally proposed to lower to $200,000 the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limit for receiving farm program subsidies. Congress wants to allow subsidies to continue for married couples who farm and have adjusted gross income of $1.5 million and for people with AGI of $500,000 who are not full-time farmers.

The farm bill fails to reform crop subsidies by increasing instead of decreasing the subsidy level for many crops at a time of record crop prices and record farm income. This legislation would establish additional subsidies for dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and large chickpeas. This amounts to adding crops to more subsidy programs....

The bill also restricts international emergency food aid, putting millions of people at risk and undermining our ability to save lives. This provision would alter current law by restricting the ability to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use, limiting the government's ability to respond to emergencies.

The bill walks away from conservation. The Administration is disappointed that the Conservation Title is nearly $4 billion less than the Administration’s proposal. It reduces enrollment in Wetlands Reserve Program WRP by thousands of acres, falling short of the President's goal of 250,000 acres enrolled per year. The bill dismantles the sodsaver proposal that would protect native grasslands from being cultivated to capture subsidies....

But please don't make me identify the author of this analysis. You may not like it. It may cause you to ignore the good common sense. Sigh. Okay, it's the White House.

Fuddruckers shares partial nutrition facts

2008-05-12T15:29:00.000-07:00

Fuddruckers restaurants today shared with me for the first time a spreadsheet table with partial nutrition facts.

As one might expect, the beef alone in a half pound cheeseburger, not counting the cheese, dressing, or extras, has 660 kilocalories and 110% of the recommended daily value for saturated fat.

An email from Fuddruckers said the company will release nutrition facts in the future.

Hello Parke,

Thank you for your interest in our Fuddruckers products.

At this time, we do not have a formal nutritional guide available on our menu items; however, we are in the process of developing a nutrition guide.

Since we are in the process of developing our nutritional guide, we do have limited information available. Attached you will find our available nutritional information. Please note that some restaurants may receive products from an alternate vendor and the nutritional/ingredient information may vary.

We do recognize the importance and need for nutritional information on our menu items and we are hopeful that we will be able to provide our guests with this information in the near future....

Following the decision by Quiznos in November to release nutrition facts on the Quiznos corporate website, Fuddruckers was one of a small handful of remaining U.S. restaurant chains that would not share such information. Restaurant nutrition information is a significant public policy issue, because restaurants are exempted from the federal law that requires nutrition facts information for most other food sold in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration has recommended that restaurants share such information, but has no authority to mandate disclosure. States and municipalities have been stepping in to compensate for the absence of federal leadership.

From an economic perspective, information is essential for empowering consumers to defend their own interests in a free market. Under conditions of severe "information failure" in private markets, economists have no grounds for hoping that markets serve consumers well in the absence of government intervention.

I first heard that Fuddruckers might be sharing more nutrition facts information from an anonymous comment at U.S. Food Policy. Thanks anonymous commenter.

Federal food assistance programs adjust for food price inflation once per year

2008-05-09T18:09:00.000-07:00

Recent food price increases have been dramatic, and many people are discussing the causes.

One source of particular concern has been food assistance programs, such as food stamps and school lunch. Fortunately, federal food assistance programs are indexed for inflation, with updates to program benefits once per year. Program benefits may lag behind recent rapid price increases by 3-5% for a period, and then they are corrected at the next annual update.

A CNN story this week made it sound, unless you read closely, as if food stamp participants have been absorbing the brunt of the food price increases:

But for those on food stamps, higher prices for milk, eggs, bread and other staples often mean tough choices and empty bellies. Many are forced to forgo fresh vegetables and meat, while loading up on pasta and potatoes. Others are turning to churches, food banks and other charities, which are already strained by the increased demand....

"It's been very tough for families," said Stacy Dean, director of food assistance policy for the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. "They don't have the flexibility in their budgets so they just don't buy as much food or they buy cheap food or they skip meals altogether. Congress can and should act to help people survive the spike in prices."

The fifteenth paragraph explained the impact of price increases on food stamp benefits quantitatively.

The maximum food stamp benefit no longer covers the cost of the "thrifty food plan," the menu of food items the government uses to calculate its allotment. In March, it cost $567.20 to buy the items in the plan for a family of four, compared to $542.10 last June, when the inflation adjustment was set.

Food stamp participants are suffering from reduced real inflation-adjusted benefits at present. The real spending power of the food stamp benefit is currently just under 5% [percentage corrected from 3.5%] below what it was at the last annual update, which can be a substantial hardship for families on a tight budget. Barring Congressional action, this shortfall will continue to grow until the next annual update. Some people consider the benefits inadequate even at the time they are updated, but that is a different issue from food price inflation.

In a related story, Alexandra Lewin at Corporations and Health Watch has a nice article recently describing the hardship facing school meals programs, such as the National School Lunch Program.

Both the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and competitive foods, those foods sold a la carte outside the NSLP, are affected by rising food and gas prices. As documented by the Economic Research Service, in 2007 milk prices increased by 17%, cheese by 15%, bread by 12% and rice and pasta by 13%.

Kids in poorer communities will suffer most - these already cash-strapped schools are looking for ways to cut costs, undermining many efforts districts have made to implement the mandated, but unfunded, school wellness policies.

The reimbursements for federal child nutrition programs are updated once each year using the federal government's price index for restaurant and cafeteria food. The real value of the reimbursement may currently be running 3-5% below what it was at the last annual update.

In the 2004 reauthorization for child nutrition programs, the federal government required local school districts to establish wellness policies. During the preceding several years, the nutrition environment in schools had been deteriorating, with the growing sales of sugary sodas and high-fat, high-sugar products in schools, but it was difficult to find any one person or committee that had actually chosen these changes. The important bad decisions had been made made piece-meal. The "mandated, but unfunded" school wellness policies mentioned by Lewin were written by the districts themselves in answer to the mandate in the reauthorization bill. Except in trivial ways, the government did not actually require particular policy changes.

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service recently completed a major report on the question of whether reimbursement rates cover the costs of producing school lunches and breakfasts.

Meat: the other culprit in world food price increases

2008-05-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

Ronald Trostle at USDA's Economic Research Service has a fascinating report this week on the causes of global food price increases.

The scope of the price increase is dramatic.

One of the culprits, which has rightly been receiving a lot of attention, is the growing use of crops for biofuels instead of food.

Another important culprit, however, is the growth in meat consumption. Meat consumption is rising rapidly, especially in India and China. Just over half of the rate of growth in meat consumption is due to population growth. The rest of the growth is due to increases in the amount of meat each person consumes.

Meat consumption is an important resource use issue, because the conversion of animal feed into meat wastes the majority of the food calories in the original crops.

Ethanol subsidies have recently come under great scrutiny. But why aren't more people questioning the wisdom of the large semi-public U.S. boards for beef and pork, which use the federal government's powers of taxation to collect many hundreds of millions of dollars each year, to spend on promoting increased beef and pork consumption at home and abroad?

It is fine for consumers to have the freedom to choose meat. But why is it the U.S. government's business to try to get the world to eat more meat at this particular time? That seems as strange as massive subsidies for converting corn to ethanol.

More Reading
Follow the checkoff tag for more coverage of these programs. Also at USDA/ERS, Ephraim Leibtag recently reported on corn price increases. Kat at Eating Liberally last month covered Marion Nestle's moderate and reasonably skeptical perspective on the contribution biotechnology will make to solving the current food problems, which provides a contrast with Agriculture Secretary Schafer's recent discussion. On meat issues more broadly, see the recent Pew report (large .pdf), also described by Elanor Starmer at Ethicurean and by Rick Weiss in the Washington Post.

[Update May 14: A couple people have sent me links to the Indian response to recent discussion of meat consumption and food price increases. It's entirely correct. As richer countries moderate their meat consumption, which is a great idea for a long list of reasons, it should be possible for Indian and Chinese consumers to increase their own consumption to nutritionally reasonable levels, without increasing total per capita global meat consumption. If I'm careful not to blame India and China, I hope the rest of the commentary goes through just fine?!]

Diary of a Young Farmer: Zoe looks into a USDA loan

2008-05-05T18:27:00.000-07:00

In her Diary of a Young Farmer, on the Edible Portland site, writer Zoe Bradbury logs her adventures trying to return to her farming roots. In the latest funny episode, she looks into the possibility of a USDA loan.

The next bad news: the loan amount they could offer me, explained Jim [the regional Farm Service Agency agent], would be determined according to my projected income, which they calculate by multiplying my predicted crop yields by the state commodity prices for each crop.

“Huh,” I said, “So what are the state commodity prices this year?”

Jim began reading off the list: “Carrots, 14 cents a pound. Asparagus, 45 cents a pound. Winter squash, 8 cents a pound. Strawberries, 50 cents a pound. Broccoli, 33 cents a pound. Cabbage, 4 cents a pound.”

I did some quick math while he rattled off the numbers. On my 2.5 acres, growing about 25 different crops and selling them at the state commodity prices, it looked like I would gross about $4,900 for the whole year – which would make me eligible to borrow a few hundred dollars from FSA. Maybe enough to buy a stack of Megabucks tickets and hope for better luck from the lottery than the USDA.

“Um…Jim,” I said slowly, “I think I might be farming on a different planet. We’re talking about a few intensive acres, and I’ll be selling my stuff direct, not through a brokerage or a distributor. It’s possible that I’ll get 10 times those prices by selling to local markets here.”

He told me that if I could prove that I’d received those higher prices for my crops for the past three consecutive years, then they could project my income based on those numbers instead.

“But, Jim,” I said, “this is my first year in business. I don’t have three years of records yet.”

Jim paused and his voice sounded regretful. “Then all we have is the state commodity prices.”

Of course, there is no way to write the rules for USDA loans to give Jim more flexibility, while at the same time maintaining program integrity. Like a character in a Greek tragedy, poor Jim is doomed by powers beyond his control to be the villain of this story.

Secretary Schafer

2008-04-30T16:37:00.000-07:00

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer spoke this morning at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Students and faculty asked questions on issues ranging from biofuel production to nutrition policy.

Schafer, the former Governor of North Dakota, has clearly made biotechnology, and agriculture research more broadly, one of his priorities. Much of his talk was devoted to putting his goals for U.S. policy in the context of the recent trends in global food prices-- the increased consumption and demand for meat in developing nations, diminishing grain stocks, and other "grim news broadcast in the headlines today."

These current conditions let the Secretary outline his beliefs that increasing yields will be the most important future goal for countries around the world in order to meet growing demand. In this vein, Schafer expressed his hope that every country in the world will be able to use genetic modification to increase their yields. He seemed dismayed at the "problem of some countries worrying about" genetic modification of their food supply and pronounced that it is "time to not allow political and social issues to run the show" in lieu of science. "Focusing only on risks and not benefits is the riskiest" said Schafer.

One interesting question about the difference in policy needed to address global food shortages and obesity in the U.S. led Secretary Schafer to mention his visit to a food bank earlier that morning where he was able to "go and touch hungry people." He indicated that both the Food Stamp Program and school lunch programs are working to provide healthier food. He recognized the problem of availability of fresh, healthy food faced by many urban residents--a problem for which he admitted he does not yet have a solution.

In addition to a lengthy discussion and several questions about government incentives for biofuel production and the shift from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic, the Secretary highlighted the "new" dietary pyramid and efforts to place it on packaged food labels.

Other questions fielded by the Secretary were about rotation of lands out of the Conservation Reserve Program and the implications for animal health and resource utilization of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.

Overall, Secretary Schafer presented a broad picture of the scope of USDA policy without any particularly surprising perspectives. Although the remarks were billed as being about the farm bill and food safety, he had little news on the preliminary Farm Bill deal reached among Congressional leadership last Friday. It is expected that a final deal will be reached in 1-2 weeks, precluding the need for an extension of the 2002 Farm Bill.

If you attended today's talks, please feel free to share your observations.

What are you calling a food desert?

2008-04-24T07:15:00.000-07:00

Does a healthy local food environment require a major brand-name supermarket? Does a neighborhood without such a supermarket automatically deserve to be called a "food desert"?

I considered these questions on a long walk here in Boston from my office south of Chinatown through the South End to a meeting in Roxbury last week. The store with the mural reminded me of the local markets I loved growing up in DC. Often Hispanic-owned, they were heavily used by White and African American neighborhood residents also.

The Super 88 Markets here are Asian American owned, but they also market effectively to Haitian and Caribbean immigrant communities.

If a neighborhood can be a "food desert" then this vegetable stall (below) on a back street can be a "food oasis."

A graduate student once asked me for advice on a study he was doing of the supermarket desert in the Northeast Kingdom region of Vermont. I think of the fresh fish and vegetables I bought last Fall at a farmers' market in St. Johnsbury and cooked for old friends who had gathered to go biking in the hilly woods near there. If this part of the country is a supermarket desert, does that mean the remedy is necessarily a supermarket?

It sometimes seems to outrage my students when I ask if the retail environment for low-income communities in the United States is so bad and whether larger stores would improve it. I don't know the answer to my own question. But I do distrust assessments that seem to stack the deck in favor of finding a "desert" by defining too narrowly what type of large retail qualifies as adequate.

U.S. Food Policy TV (episode 3): Interview with Mark Winnne

2008-04-20T11:02:00.000-07:00

This week, I spoke with Mark Winne, former director of the Hartford Food System and author of the recent book, Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty. The book stands out for its integration of environmental and anti-poverty themes.

Mark speaks plainly about tough lessons learned. He describes the growth of the emergency food system in stark terms. Similarly, he tells of working on a non-profit food cooperative in inner-city Hartford that failed, while later public-private partnerships to recruit for-profit supermarkets thrived. He ends by discussing the growth of food policy councils, including a recent proposal to establish a Massachusetts Food Policy Council.

WIC messages: "Touching Hearts, Touching Minds"

2008-04-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

Instead of lecturing low-income mothers about nutrition science, the Touching Hearts, Touching Minds site from the Massachusetts WIC program takes an emotion-based approach towards healthy living education for pregnant women and mothers of infants and young children.

In addition to providing nice posters and teaching materials for free, the WIC site offers much to think about on topics frequently covered on U.S. Food Policy. If you have been weighing the money and time costs of home cooking for a low-income single parent, you may be interested in some of the site's recipe materials as examples that show the possibilities and limits. If you have been contemplating food industry marketing that implicitly encourages early weaning from breastfeeding, you may like the site's materials for mothers of infants. This poster about "pester power" and food advertising is also interesting.

Foodlinks America reports on unspent commodity funds

2008-04-11T07:10:00.000-07:00

Barbara Vauthier reports in the TEFAP Alliance's blog and newsletter Foodlinks America this week:

While millions of hungry Americans besiege food banks and food pantries across the country with requests for emergency assistance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) returned $81 million in fiscal year 2007 funds to the Treasury that could have been spent to purchase bonus commodities, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The money in question was allocated to Section 32, a permanent appropriation that since 1935 has earmarked the equivalent of 30 percent of annual customs receipts to support agriculture activities and the farm sector, including child nutrition and emergency food programs. By statute, Section 32 funds are to be used only for: (1) encouraging the export of farm products through producer payments or other means; (2) encouraging the domestic consumption of farm products by diverting surpluses from normal channels or increasing their use by low-income groups; and (3) reestablishing farmers’ purchasing power.

Under the second purpose, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases surplus commodities – everything from grapefruit juice to bison meat – for domestic food assistance programs, such as the School Lunch Program, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). These surplus or “bonus” buys have been a mainstay of emergency food providers nationwide for the last decade, although declining supplies in the past four or five years have significantly reduced government foodstuffs provided to the poor.

Instead, USDA policy under President Bush seems to be favoring the third purpose of the law – reestablishing farmers’ purchasing power. Section 32 has been used in recent years for disaster initiatives and other purposes, such as compensating livestock owners for animals lost in the droughts of 2001-2002, helping Florida citrus growers replace trees lost in hurricanes and freezes, and supporting AMS administrative expenses for direct food purchasing, including the establishment of a new computer system.

AMS officials told Foodlinks America that the agency has considerable discretion under Section 32 and is under no obligation to spend the funds just because they are available. They noted that any bonus purchases must be economically and legislatively justified and approved by the Secretary of the Department. Nonetheless, with USDA proactively implementing initiatives such as bartering excess commodities (see Foodlinks America of September 14, 2007 and March 14, 2008) in order to try to pump more product into the emergency food system, it is curious that available funds went unused.

CRS noted that “AMS had a potential ‘carryout,’ or unobligated balance, of $581 million at the end of the [2007 fiscal] year. However, the Section 32 law permits no more than $500 million to be carried into the subsequent fiscal year. So AMS returned the excess, or $81 million, to the U.S. Treasury.”

State commodity distribution agencies were concerned and perplexed by USDA’s failure to utilize all available funds to address growing hunger needs. “Our EFOs [Emergency Feeding Organizations] have seen on average a 20 to 40 percent increase in demand mainly due to high energy costs this winter,” said Randy Mraz, emergency food assistance director for the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources. “Our food supply is at a five-year low. It is unfortunate that the USDA chose not to use available funds to bolster the supplies for the emergency feeding networks,” he added.

CRS reports are not always posted to the internet. If somebody notices a link to this one, please mention it in the comments, and I'll add the link to this post.

Michigan food stamps twice monthly?

2008-04-11T06:20:00.000-07:00

If Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a state bill as expected, Food Stamp Program participants will begin receiving their benefits in two monthly installments.

This policy reform is the latest in a series of steps that make food stamp participation more similar to and consistent with working. The Food Stamp Program was once closely tied to cash assistance, but it has been improved in recent years to make it more accessible also to low-income working families who are not quite poor enough for cash welfare payments. The program was once delivered in special coupons or "stamps", which carried a high-level of stigma, but the benefits are now distributed through electronic updates to debit cards like any other bank card in the grocery score checkout aisle. Finally, the program has always credited the benefits only once monthly like a welfare or social security payment, but the Michigan proposal for twice monthly credits would be more similar to the schedule for direct deposit of a working person's wage or salary.

We pointed out last November that the Michigan proposal may be preempted by the federal government, because the farm bill that passed the Senate would forbid states from pursuing this type of policy innovation. Some people suspect that USDA's Food and Nutrition Service was behind the farm bill language, but a colleague at FNS tells me he doesn't believe that is correct.

The Michigan proposal would apply only to households who receive more than $100 in food stamp benefits monthly. Households that receive smaller benefit amounts would still receive their benefits just once per month.

According to the Associated Press, the Michigan Department of Human Services neither opposed nor endorsed the proposal, but it did request a survey to collect input from food stamp participants themselves. Thirty-five percent of participants thought twice monthly delivery was a good idea, and 59% thought it was not. The Michigan grocery lobby, which supports the twice monthly delivery in part because it could reduce checkout-line inconveniences, pointed out that the survey might have been more informative if it were tabulated separately for participants with more or less than $100 in benefits per month. It seems likely that the people with larger benefits, who would be the only ones affected by the proposed change, would be the same ones most likely to support the change.

Even though the advance survey doesn't settle the question, asking the participants themselves is the right attitude. Even beyond this advance survey, the twice-monthly policy should be assessed to see if it causes participants any shopping inconvenience and to see if it delivers the expected benefits. These benefits could include lower risk of food insecurity at the end of the month and perhaps higher purchases of perishables such as milk and fresh fruits and vegetables.

A final point I always emphasize on this issue: the twice-monthly benefit delivery is not more paternalistic than the current policy. Twice-monthly benefit delivery does not constrain shopping schedules any more than once-monthly delivery does. If you receive your benefits once monthly, but you prefer to do major grocery shopping more than once monthly (as most non-participant families do), you could undertake the mild inconvenience of saving half your benefits for use later in the food stamp month. Conversely, if you receive your benefits twice monthly, but you prefer to do major grocery shopping only once monthly (as some participant families currently do), you could undertake the mild inconvenience of waiting to conduct the big shopping trip until the second payment is credited. You'd only have to wait one time ever. After that, you could shop once monthly as you always did.

Will global food prices keep us healthy?

2008-04-04T09:07:00.000-07:00

Nothing makes a geeky food policy student like me more excited than seeing the NYTimes writing about cross-price elasticities of demand, except that they didn't actually use the technical term for it. The cross price elasticity of demand, or the change in demand for one food when the price of another changes, is a formula for calculating the response consumers will have to changing food prices. For example, suppose the price of corn syrup goes up 1 percent, so people buy less corn syrup and more of other stuff-- the cross-price elasticity for fruit would show the percentage increase in fruit spending in response to the higher corn syrup price.

In light of the recent surge in global prices of food, especially grains and meat, Wednesday's NYTimes article is about the light that some healthy and local food advocates see at the end of the global food "crisis" tunnel. So their theory goes: If the price of products produced with large quantities of corn, like corn syrup and grain-fed meat increase drastically--which is already beginning to happen--then people will switch to eating more fruits and vegetables and more locally grown food that doesn't require as much fossil fuel to transport it to the grocery store.

While this phenomenon may be true for some, it may take more than rising prices for consumers to change their behavior. One of the factors affecting this response is the degree to which food A, fruit for example--is a complement or a substitute for food B, corn syrup in this example. One can use cross elasticities to show how much the price of corn syrup would have to go up in order for consumers to "demand" more fruit.

Of course the response also depends on how much prices continue to rise, whether fruit and vegetable prices continue to rise less than those of other foods, and if farmers change their production decisions for the coming year. But I wonder if substitution to healthier or more sustainable foods will actually happen on a large scale, or if we, and our food companies, will just figure out shortcuts to our favorite processed flavors. We also should remember what a small percentage the price of corn represents in the price of corn flakes- in other words, most of the cost of processed foods is for value-added in production, marketing and distribution, not the raw ingredients themselves.

And on a related topic, is HFCS "natural"?

2008-04-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official sent the corn refiners lobby into a tizzy today, by stating the obvious. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), whatever merits or demerits it may have, should not be marketed as "natural."

Lorraine Heller at FoodNavigator-USA.com reports today that her publication wrote FDA to ask whether high-fructose corn syrup could be labeled "natural." Here is Heller's account of the response from Geraldine June at the FDA:

"The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term 'natural'," said Geraldine June.

"Moreover, the corn starch hydrolysate, which is the substrate used in the production of HFCS, may be obtained through the use of safe and suitable acids or enzymes. Depending on the type of acid(s) used to obtain the corn starch hydrolysate, this substrate itself may not fit within the description of 'natural' and, therefore, HCFS produced from such corn starch hydrolysate would not qualify for a 'natural' labeling term," she concluded.

The corn refiners association leaped into action and released a press statement (.pdf), also dated today:

A comment today by a single Food & Drug Administration employee regarding whether High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is “natural” was mistakenly portrayed by an online news outlet as the official position of the agency, but actually reflects only the personal view of that one employee who was responding to a reporter’s question.

Last year, under pressure from possible consumer group lawsuits, Cadbury Schweppes agreed not to use the term "all natural" in advertising 7-UP, a carbonated beverage made with HFCS. The Accidental Hedonist has been covering HFCS periodically.

Consider the corn refiners association's own description of the history of HFCS:

Corn syrup technology advanced significantly with the introduction of enzyme-hydrolyzed products. In 1921, crystalline dextrose hydrate was introduced. Then in the mid-1950's, the technology for commercially preparing low conversion products such as maltodextrin and low DE syrups was developed. The purification and crystallization of dextrose meant for the first time that corn based sweeteners could compete in some markets that had been the sole domain of the sugar industry.

The next developments involved enzyme catalyzed isomerization of dextrose to fructose. The first commercial shipment of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) took place in 1967. The fructose content of the syrup was around 15 percent. Further research enabled the industry to develop a higher conversion and the first commercial shipment of HFCS-42 or 42 percent fructose syrup took place a year later. Further refinements in the process were developed in the late 1970's and by the mid 1980's, HFCS became the sweetener of choice for the soft drink industry in the U.S.

This corn refiners association's history makes the industry's scientists look like clever folks, but it's off message for the industry's "natural" claim.

It seems unwise for the corn refiners association to let this debate turn on the question of whether HFCS is "natural." The association should give ground on that point, the better to win other victories another day. If they give up on marketing HFCS "produced from such corn starch hydrolysate" as "natural," there are more honest adjectives that the corn refiners might use to praise their product: "sweet" and "inexpensive." Er, ... "formerly inexpensive."

[Hat tip to an anonymous comment on the preceding post.]

What does "natural" really mean?

2008-03-25T17:24:00.000-07:00

The term "natural" on labels for food products within USDA's jurisdiction has been controversial for many years. Here is CSPI's May 2007 summary (.pdf) of efforts to change the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service's (FSIS) definition of the term “natural” on fresh poultry labels:

Currently, approximately thirty percent of all fresh chicken sold to consumers in the U.S. has been pumped-up (either through injection or vacuum tumbling) with a significant percentage of water, sodium, binding agents like carrageenan (a seaweed extract), and other additives. Yet under current FSIS policy, this pumped-up chicken is being labeled as 100% Natural.

The issue has won recent major media attention, including blog coverage in January, a Washington Post article last fall, and CBS evening news coverage in November.

In part, the issue is in the media because chicken businesses that really do use the term "natural" in a somewhat more restrictive sense have put money into public relations and lobbying, to press USDA for closer oversight. (Sigh. Is this really what progress requires?)

The Truthful Labeling Coalition (see image below), a coalition of some public interest folks and parts of the poultry industry, has been pressing hard on the salt water injections, and also on questions about whether some competitors' poultry is incorrectly labeled "raised without antibiotics." From the fact sheet they sent by email this week:

Under federal law, the USDA is required to ensure that food labels are neither false nor misleading.

Consumers certainly don’t expect poultry labeled “Raised Without Antibiotics” to have been fed or treated with any type of medicine classified as an antibiotic.

In the past year, the USDA has unfortunately made a series of inconsistent and contradictory decisions on fresh poultry labels relating to the use of ionophores – a substance added to chicken feed to help fight disease that both the USDA and FDA consider to be an antibiotic. For example, some poultry companies who use ionophores in chicken feed have mistakenly received approval from USDA for labels bearing the “Raised Without Antibiotics” claim.

The coalition says it doesn't oppose ionophores per se, but it just wants them labeled correctly as antibiotics. The ionophores themselves can be "good or bad," the coalition says.

Industry divisions over food labeling rules are common, and this type of public information campaign in cooperation with public interest groups happens occasionally. But there are risks from the perspective of participating poultry producers, even if they really do produce chickens that are somewhat closer to natural. Within the public's short attention span, it is difficult to tar one's opponents without having some of the feathers stick to one's own skin, so to speak.

Conversations

2008-03-25T06:28:00.000-07:00

There are so many conversations to follow! Here are a handful of blogs where I follow the community comments with interest.

Among major popular internet blogs, I like the well-informed conversation at boing boing, where the occasionally skeptical comments provide just the right balance to complement Cory Doctorow's reporting on technology, intellectual property, and privacy issues. Among economics blogs, the audience at marginal revolution clearly appreciates Tyler Cowen's plainspoken yet erudite reading summaries, even while correcting him on occasional howlers such as blaming China for his pessimism about global warming while claiming that "the U.S. has done better on carbon emissions than most of the Kyoto signatories" (the comments judge that claim about the U.S. to be plausible only in the legalistic sense of a small reduction by selected measures from 2002 levels, but not as a broad summary of progress for the nation with the single largest contribution to global warming, both in aggregate and on a per capita basis).

On food policy, I learn much from the comments at ethicurean and what to eat.

I always follow the links from the many fascinating comments here at U.S. Food Policy, which are a key motivation for continuing to keep this blog into its fourth year (!). I have essentially never had to delete a comment for objectionable content (perhaps once), and only occasionally delete comments for spam if they seem cut and paste. Please contact me by email if I ever make an error in this judgment. I never ever delete a comment on grounds of disagreeing with it. I am glad that the Blogger platform retains the title of the deleted comments, so you can see the deletions are rare.

Among U.S. Food Policy comments, you may not know about continuing conversations on older posts. For example, here are the views of Fuddruckers customers about their difficulty in acquiring nutrition facts information from the chain. The customers come here as their forum on this issue, because -- for reasons that are not entirely clear to me -- this 2005 post is the top Google search for "Fuddruckers nutrition." That is only true because Fuddruckers itself has no nutrition facts page in the Google rankings. This is a mass-market issue, in contrast with more esoteric topics also covered here, so this single search brings in a large readership. You have to wonder why Fuddruckers, which knows the nutrition facts for its products, would prefer this grief to simply sharing the facts with its customers.

Recent comments here led me to other interesting blogs. After she encouraged us all to garden more, I read Whirlwind Woman this morning with admiration. Courage, Whirlwind Woman! I think I started reading Janet at foodperson and bix at fanatic cook after seeing their comments here. Bix's paraphrase of NPR coverage about the impact of daylight savings on cows will make you smile.

At some point, I hope we can take on some type of community writing or information gathering project. Shall we pick a comparatively obscure U.S. food policy cause to follow together? Or choose a question that would benefit from a little decentralized digging that a single journalist couldn't feasibly undertake? Let's think about this.

Common sense about children's media

2008-03-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

Should the government sharply regulate marketing to children? Or should parents fend for themselves as they seek to transmit their values to their kids?

Your answer may depend in part on how much power you believe parents really have to assess media and put their priorities into practice. Advocates for a strong public policy response tend to believe the media and advertisers are too powerful and ubiquitous for parents to overcome. On the other hand, dogged parents have found for years that the media powers can be beaten. One approach is to avoid commercial television entirely, and to limit even children's videos to rare occasions. This approach may be easier, more fun, and, if you start young, less controversial with the children than you might think (at least through age 7, it seems). However, I can see clearly it is not for everybody.

As an intermediate approach, I have been reading with interest about efforts to give parents stronger tools for assessing children's media and exerting influence over the kids' media consumption. Because we don't have cable, I don't really understand technologies like TiVo, but I gather parents are gaining somewhat more ability to limit advertisements and to regulate channel choices.

On the media assessment side, I see the commonsense media site offers movie and book reviews with a nice clean layout and active community input from adults and kids. For food policy interest, I enjoyed the site's resources on obesity, commercialism, and other topics.

I gather that conservative parents have long had resources for media information that reflect their views on sex, drugs, and foul language. In contrast, the commonsense media reviews have a broader focus on social behavior and commercialism as well as violence, sex, and information about drug use. Even the coverage of the latter topics treats discussion of them as issues of child readiness and parental judgments about age appropriateness, not as taboos for everybody.

[A digression on the origins of this post. I came across the commonsense media site this evening while looking for a review of the The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane, by Kate DiCamillo, which my kids and I were reading on vacation. Edward Tulane is a china toy rabbit, aware but unable to move or speak as he journeys from each owner to the next increasingly tragic owner. In tonight's reading, the beautiful story took a particularly poignant turn, and I felt obliged to read the rest of the novel myself before taking it up again with the kids tomorrow evening. I wondered what other parents thought. The commonsense media review correctly gave the book a top score of five stars and suggested 7+ years for an appropriate children's age. But, I was surprised that the review didn't mention the novel's Christian themes. I found the novel theologically more mature than C.S. Lewis' Narnia allegory, in which the Christ-like Lion fixes everything so that the child heroes become warrior monarchs. Edward Tulane is more true to the sadness in the original religious story (it turns out to be ironic that we were reading this on Easter). With a further web search, Edward Tulane's allegorical elements seem to be a matter of some discussion on other sites. For better or worse, with no mention of these elements, the commonsense media review seems quite vigorously secular!]

State House rally March 24 on school nutrition in Massachusetts

2008-03-18T08:41:00.001-07:00

From the Massachusetts Public Health Association (MPHA) this week, an announcement about a rally at the State House on March 24:

With your help, MPHA is delivering hundreds of postcards to Beacon Hill, publishing letters in newspapers across the state, and generating new support for healthy school nutrition. But we must keep the momentum going!

Join us today and on March 24 in sending a message to our legislators: Children should learn healthy eating habits in school. Rising rates of diabetes, asthma, and other health problems associated with being obese and overweight demand nothing less.

The School Nutrition Bill establishes healthy standards for snacks and beverages sold in Massachusetts schools. The bill is in the House Ways and Means Committee, having already been approved by the Public Health and Health Care Financing Committees.

Take action to advance the bill to a vote by the House of Representatives!

* Email your state representative.

* Submit a letter to the editor.

* Endorse the bill.

* Join us at a State House rally! On Monday, March 24, Representative Peter Koutoujian, MPHA, and supporters from across the Commonwealth will holding a rally for the School Nutrition Bill. The rally will be from 9:00 to 11:00 am at Nurses Hall in the State House.

Thank you for your ongoing support and involvement.

Eric Weltman
Deputy Director, Advocacy and Policy
Massachusetts Public Health Association

Are prices rising faster for fruits and vegetables than for other foods?

2008-03-13T12:13:00.000-07:00

Everybody is concerned about food prices lately.

Some worry about food price inflation. Others worry about a looming recession, bringing deflation.

In nutrition circles, one focus of concern is that prices might be rising faster for fruits and vegetables than for other food categories, contributing to less healthy diets.

A fascinating report this week from Fred Kuchler and Hayden Stewart at USDA's Economic Research Service includes this chart for major Consumer Price Index (CPI) categories over the past 27 years. It shows more rapid price inflation for fresh fruits and vegetables than for cakes and cookies.

Regarding this figure, Kuchler and Stewart write:

The line plots clearly show that, compared with all other goods purchased, Americans are paying relatively more for fresh fruits and vegetables now than they did 27 years ago.

But here things begin to get a bit more complicated. Kuchler and Stewart don't really believe the top line in the figure above represents price inflation for fruits and vegetables very well. They argue that this trend overstates the real level of price inflation by failing to correctly account for quality changes.

To evaluate this concern, I think it is important to emphasize that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not make the error of simply ignoring quality changes. BLS understands very well that the price of traditional fresh carrots in 1981 cannot be compared to the price of bagged mini carrots in 2001. Instead, BLS carefully looks at price changes for fixed products from one period to the next. For example, BLS looks at how the price of traditional fresh carrots changed from 1981 to 1982 and how the price of bagged mini carrots changed from 2001 to 2002. The agency links together such price changes from one year to the next to get a sense of price trends over the years. The price changes represent consumer spending patterns in a particular time period, so traditional carrots were given comparatively more weight in estimating price changes in the early 1980s and bagged mini carrots were given comparatively more weight in estimating price changes in the 2000s.

Nevertheless, Kuchler and Stewart believe the BLS approach may miss some of the consumer benefit that arises when a traditional product is replaced by a new product that is closely similar -- such as when old fashioned carrots are replaced by bagged mini carrots. For this reason, the authors prefer to look at price changes for particular selected foods. They believe the trends for these foods show little evidence of more rapid price inflation for fruits and vegetables.

Still, even the analysis of specific foods contains some examples of real price increases. Here is the price trend for broccoli:

I doubt that quality improvements in broccoli are responsible for all of this price trend.

The bottom line: The main BLS price indices show particularly rapid price inflation for fruits and vegetables. Though the BLS method is imperfect, it is difficult to find a better summary of price changes over time for a representative sample of foods.

San Francisco approves restaurant nutrition labeling

2008-03-13T06:23:00.000-07:00

An email correspondent writes:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the city’s Board of Supervisors has approved unanimously a new regulation requiring chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menu boards. According to the story, “Diners in San Francisco will start seeing the labels in about six months. The law requires nutrition information - including calories, fat, carbohydrates and sodium - to be posted on menus or, for restaurants that do not have menus, on prominently displayed posters. Restaurants with menu boards would be required to list the calories per item on the board; other nutrition information could be listed on the posters.”

The move is aimed at addressing the obesity epidemic, though the Chronicle notes that studies are inconclusive, with some research showing that if people really want to eat calorie-laden burgers and fries, all the signs in the world are unlikely to dissuade them.

The regulations are similar to those passed in New York City.

Here is in an earlier post about restaurant nutrition labeling policy in California.

Second try at home-made maple syrup

2008-03-08T05:42:00.001-08:00

The second try this week worked better. We borrowed an old Coleman camp stove, bought a digital cooking thermometer, let the boiling run for a longer day on multiple burners, and strained the syrup. With these four improvements, we got about five nice jars of amber syrup, enough for one jar each for two neighbor families who contributed sap from their trees, two jars for relatives, and one for ourselves.

On the environmental economics, maple syrup from a large operation in Quebec surely uses fewer resources than the same amount of maple syrup from our backyard.

But food is about community. You wouldn't believe the enthusiasm of the neighbor kids who brought over sap from their trees. Many more kids came by just to look. Even the grownups got caught up in the operation.

The New York Times had a nice article on the maple sugaring scene.

See an earlier post for a description of the first try. We will give this one more go today, with the goals of increasing the quantity still one more notch and letting the boiling temperature reach about a half degree higher for slightly thicker syrup.

Farm Bill nearing a conclusion?

2008-03-07T12:26:00.000-08:00

The FarmPolicy blog today has a roundup of news reports that the Farm Bill may be nearing a conclusion. House and Senate conferees must iron out differences between bills that passed the two houses of Congress in late summer and fall 2007. They must also contend with a veto threat from the administration if the compromise bill includes taxes or other new revenue.

The House and Senate bills both rejected widespread calls for substantial reform of the main row crop subsidies. Under either bill, even very rich farmers will be able to receive in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in subsidies, despite the current year's high farm profits and soaring commodity prices in the midst of the ethanol boom.

The Mulch blog at the Environmental Working Group today links to a press release from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is still trying to get the Senate to pass a $250,000 limit on farm payments. The proposal would save taxpayers $641 million over five years. I was momentarily confused by this press release, because my foggy memory was having trouble recalling whether the Grassley proposal had passed or failed in the Senate last fall. Funny that I should be unclear on that point -- 56 of the 100 Senators had voted for Grassley's proposal, but it still failed to pass under obscure Senate rules.

Here is the interactive map from the Environmental Working Group of newspaper editorials from around the country that called for farm policy reform in the Farm Bill. Sigh.

Update: edited slightly 3/18 to correct the name of the Environmental Working Group.

Boston Public Health Commission to hold March 13 hearing on trans fat

2008-03-07T07:26:00.001-08:00

The Boston Public Health Commission is considering a requirement that restaurants stop using artificial trans fats, such as hydrogenated vegetable oils, because of scientific evidence that they increase risk of heart disease. There would be exceptions for very small quantities of artificial trans fat and for trans fat in packaged foods such as potato chips. Boston's action follows similar bans in New York City and Boston's neighbor Brookline, MA.

In January, the commission gave preliminary approval to a ban on trans fats, but some of the real decisions are still coming up. A public comment period is almost over, so write quickly if you'd like to express your views on trans fats. There will be a public hearing on Thursday, March 13, 2008, from 3 to 4pm, in the Hayes Conference Room, 1010 Massachusetts Avenue. For more information, see the brochure from the Boston Public Health Commission (.pdf).

The Boston Globe in January summarized the scientific case for the commission's proposal:

Scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health conducted much of the landmark research into trans fat, establishing the link between the substance and cardiovascular disease in people. Primate studies have also shown that consuming trans fat can elevate the risk of a condition that is a precursor to diabetes and also pack fat around the belly, where it is believed to be more dangerous than elsewhere. Studies estimate that having as few as 40 calories of trans fat a day can boost the risk of a heart attack by 23 percent. A fast-food meal of chicken nuggets and French fries, if prepared with artificial trans fat, can easily contain more than 100 calories of the substance.

A ban on a particular ingredient is seldom an economist's preferred policy lever, and many progressive food policy advocates prefer to focus on real foods and foodways rather than single ingredients. Still, in the case of trans fat, a ban might be simpler and more efficient than other policy options. In contrast with salt or caloric sweeteners, there is no major economic constituency lined up in favor of trans fats, and no large economic cost to a ban.

The Boston action is just part of what is going on nationally to address trans fats. For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has recently been taking on Burger King, the only one of the major three burger chains without plans to move away from hydrogenated vegetable oil.