Coalition news

The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a new website and blog. One recent post covers the Presidential Transition Team Project, for which (Friedman School alum) Aimee Witteman is the contact person.

The Community Food Security Coalition's recent electronic newsletter announces the group's fall 2008 election results. The returning board members include the Congressional Hunger Center's Ed Cooney (a Friedman School overseer) and the coalition's president Molly Anderson (adjunct faculty and founder of the Agriculture, Food, and Environment program at the Friedman School), and new members include Laura Irizarry (another alum). As you probably know, the coalition's vibrant listserv is a leading source of information in community food security.

Fair prices for tomato pickers

In May, we linked to the Miami Herald's coverage of the struggle between Florida tomato pickers, Burger King, and a dirty tricks company hired by the fast food giant. Earlier this month, the Green Fork's Leslie Hatfield provided an update on recent developments in an article and accompanying video for the Huffington Post.

For Burger King, the Goldman Sachs-owned chain that signed with CIW [the Coalition of Immokalee Workers] last May at the US capitol building (but only after months of protests, a blog scandal and allegedly spying on CIW's partner group, the Student/Farmworker Alliance) the penny-a-pound increase amounts to an estimated $250,000 dollars per year. To put that in perspective, Eric Schlosser's November 07 op-ed "Penny Foolish" pointed out that "[i]n 2006, the bonuses of the top 12 Goldman Sachs executives exceeded $200 million - more than twice as much money as all of the roughly 10,000 tomato pickers in southern Florida earned that year."

More recently, organic grocery chain Whole Foods came to an agreement with CIW. That Whole Foods was beat to the table by such cheap, decidedly un-organic eateries as Taco Bell, McDonalds and Burger King may seem ironic to those who snidely call the chain "Whole Paycheck" and may expect that those relatively high prices might translate not only to the food being organic, but also fair. This is, in part, why we're seeing from food advocates a shift away from "organic," a label that has not only been co-opted by huge corporations, but also speaks only to a food's impact on personal health (and to a much lesser extent, ecological health, but only in its initial production and not, say, its shipping) toward the more inclusive term, "sustainable," which is also being co-opted by industry but at least, in theory, speaks to other aspects of food production, including labor.

Now, CIW is after Chipotle, the growing chain that has built a reputation for social responsibility in the organic and local food arenas, and whose "Food with Integrity" campaign stands to take a major hit in the credibility department if they don't sit down with the Coalition. But that could prove difficult for Chipotle, which released a statement last month (before things got really crazy, even) warning share holders that the weak economy, coupled with rising food costs, would likely amount to lower profits than last year's.

No one knows what the future holds, but as our economic system hovers over the proverbial "rock bottom," it seems like a good time to revisit our policies, both national and personal, when it comes to the money we spend. What is the value of a tomato, and why? What (from fertilizers and pesticides to labor to transport) went into it, and does its price reflect those inputs? Or has a market driven by speculation and subsidies installed a false cap on that price, creating a decidedly unsustainable system that benefits CEOs over citizens, puts the squeeze on smaller businesses and leaves the laborers to pick up the slack?

Food assistance in the new stimulus plan?

The lead article in the most recent Foodlinks America newsletter says that food assistance benefits might be included in a new round of economic stimulus.

Another Stimulus Plan Under Consideration

Congressional leaders are contemplating a new and bigger stimulus package to help pull the U.S. out of its economic doldrums. Regardless of the Presidential vote outcome, Democrats in the House and Senate are expected to return to Washington, D.C. for a post-election, lame-duck session to try to jump-start the sagging economy.

The new economic stimulus plan will likely contain provisions to directly aid low-income Americans. “We have to prop up consumption,” said Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), chair of the House Financial Services Committee. Two likely elements of any bill would be an extension of unemployment insurance benefits and a temporary increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamp benefits. Both actions would channel money to people who would probably spend the money in the slumping retail sector, spend it all, and do so almost immediately.

The $107 billion stimulus measure passed in February 2008 provided tax rebates to most households but did little to influence the economy. The House passed a $60 billion stimulus bill in September that would have boosted SNAP benefits to 105 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan, but it failed in the Senate. A companion Senate measure was proposed that increased SNAP/food stamp benefits 10 percent, added $450 million for the WIC Program, $50 million for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), $30 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and $60 million for elderly nutrition, but it was never brought up for a vote.

A new package “may have to be larger … in light of the events that have transpired since we had our legislative action on the floor,” stated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Consequently, lawmakers are beginning to discuss a $300 billion deal to help forestall any further economic collapse.

Presidential candidate Barrack Obama has been huddling with congressional Democrats fashioning the plan. “We should extend expiring unemployment benefits to those Americans who’ve lost their jobs and can’t find new ones,” he said. Obama’s policy staff also backs money for road and bridge construction as a relatively easy way to create jobs, address infrastructure needs, and pump funds into the economy. The Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, though not completely rejecting Democratic proposals, prefers making expiring tax cuts permanent and lowering corporate taxes instead.

Although President Bush had previously threatened to veto any new stimulus bill, Administration opposition is softening as the economy continues to sour. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke agreed on October 20, 2008 that, “consideration of a ‘well-targeted’ fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture seems appropriate."

Other articles in the newsletter from TEFAP Alliance cover the new WIC vouchers, school food priorities, and farm-to-school programs.

ACRE program in the 2008 Farm Bill

Some pretty good writers are trying their best to explain the new revenue-based ACRE farm program option in the 2008 Farm Bill.

But it's not working. This material just does not seem to cross the barrier between the outside air and the interior of my skull.

I feel like one of the king's subjects in the children's fable about the king's new suit, which is supposedly invisible to foolish people. People refuse to admit that the king looks naked, for fear that others will think them a fool. I wonder if the same thing is happening with the ACRE program. Will people think me foolish, if I just admit that I cannot understand this program?

Here is the explanation by Zulauf and colleagues in the new version of Choices Magazine from the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA):

The direct payment program pays farmers a fixed dollar amount per historical base acre. This dollar amount does not change with market prices or with production on the farm. Like direct payments, counter–cyclical payments are based on historical production. In contrast, marketing loan payments are based on current production. Both the counter–cyclical and marketing loan programs are price–based programs. Congress specifies the marketing loan rates and counter–cyclical target prices in the Farm Bill. These fixed support rates essentially establish a floor or lower bound on the per unit value of the crop, as payments are triggered when market price drops below them. The creation of a floor reflects the policy objective of traditional price support programs, which is to assist farmers with managing the systemic risk of chronically low market prices that extend over a long period of years. A systemic risk is a risk beyond the control of an individual producer. The combination of direct payment, counter–cyclical, and marketing loan programs will be referred to in this article by the acronym DCP+ML.

In contrast, ACRE’s policy objective is to assist farmers with managing the systemic risk of a decline in revenue of a crop over a short period of years. Revenue is defined as U.S. price times state yield. ACRE’s policy objective is implemented by establishing the following revenue guarantee for each state and crop combination (crops are barley, corn, upland cotton, oats, peanuts, pulse crops, rice, sorghum, soybeans and other oilseeds, and wheat):

(90%) x (2–year moving average of U.S. crop year cash price) x (5–year Olympic moving average [excludes high and low values] of state yield per planted acre)

A state revenue payment is triggered for a given crop and year when actual state revenue (state yield per planted acre times U.S. crop year price) is less than the state’s ACRE revenue guarantee. This difference is the state’s ACRE payment rate. For any crop in any year, the payment rate cannot exceed 25% of the crop’s state revenue guarantee.

ACRE’s state revenue guarantee cannot increase or decrease more than 10% from the prior year’s guarantee. Over time, the guarantee will follow prices and yields up and down. Thus, ACRE’s revenue guarantee is not a floor, implying that ACRE will not provide protection against chronically low prices.

Receipt of an ACRE payment also requires that a farm’s revenue for the crop and year be less than its benchmark revenue for the crop. The latter equals (1) the product of the farm’s 5–year Olympic average yield per planted acre times the 2–year U.S. average price, plus (2) the farm’s insurance premium if the farmer bought insurance for the crop.

The ACRE revenue protection payment is made on acres planted to eligible crops, but total planted acres covered by ACRE are capped at the farm’s total base acres. Total payment a farm receives from ACRE is the sum of (1) 80% of the farm’s current direct payment, (2) ACRE revenue protection payments, and (3) marketing loan payments at a 30% lower loan rate.

This discussion focuses on ACRE’s basic features. Additional details on ACRE are contained in the appendix.

Hmm, that's clear as ... mud. But perhaps it is just me.

Choices, incidentally, is the agricultural economics profession's outreach publication for lay people. We write even more densely for each other.

Here is Anthony Schutz at the Agricultural Law blog:

Basically, ACRE payments are triggered when state revenue per acre falls below the target revenue for the state—what is called the "ACRE program guarantee." [§ 1105(b)(2)(A)] That trigger is not, however, complete until the farmer has an individual revenue shortfall as well. That shortfall occurs when the farmer's actual revenue falls below the target revenue for that farmer—what is called the "ACRE farm revenue benchmark". [§ 1105(b)(2)(B)]

Both the ACRE program guarantee, and the ACRE farm revenue benchmark are calculated from history. That is, state shortfalls and farmer shortfalls are judged in relation to what revenue could reasonably be expected to be. To calculate what the state and the farmer should expect in terms of revenue, we need a measure of historic yields and historic prices. That, in turn, will give us a per acre revenue number that we can compare to the revenue the state and the farmer actually generated per acre.

In order to get the yield, the statute says we look at the past five years' production average, calculated without the highest and lowest values. We do this for the state in calculating the "ACRE program guarantee" under § 1105(d) and we do it for the individual in calculating the "ACRE farm revenue benchmark" under § 1105(f). Then we find price by looking at the average market price for the preceding two years under § 1105(d)(3), which is incorporated to the farmer's benchmark calculation under § 1105(f)(1)(B). The average market price is determined by looking at the average price received for a given commodity on a national basis during the 12 months occurring after harvest—the marketing year.

Well, Schutz does also say, "I find this statutory text difficult to parse and would welcome a discussion with anyone who cares to parse it with me. " If you'd like to "parse it" with Schutz, as he says, you can find the text of the law here (.pdf). Have fun.

The ACRE program is voluntary, and participation requires farmers to give up a portion of their reliable direct payments. Given the complexity, and the scattered references throughout these explanations to reduced revenue under certain price and production conditions, I am willing to guess that few farmers will adopt the ACRE program.

Like the swindlers who convinced the king they had provided a fine royal suit, because nobody would admit they couldn't see it, perhaps the main contribution of the ACRE program was to provide the illusion of reform and policy development in a Farm Bill that really had little of it.

FNS opposes limitations on foods eligible for food stamps

A student recently pointed out this 2007 document (.pdf) from USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), arguing that the Food Stamp Program -- now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- should not have further restrictions on eligible foods. [Update 10/23/08 4:30 p.m.: sentence corrected to clarify the date of the document].

I really do not know whether the list of eligible foods should be narrowed, but I had some questions about the reasons given in the document. Here is the agency's list of reasons, along with my own observations and questions. To make the discussion concrete, let us ask how well these arguments serve to justify including caloric soda and candy with food stamp eligible foods.

1. No clear standards exist to define foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.

This is a traditional food industry slogan, used when it helps to put off criticism, but entirely ignored whenever it suits a marketing message. What the industry hopes is that nobody will ever call a food "bad" or "not healthy," but that consumers will believe the industry's exaggerated health claims for fad foods. That history does not implicate FNS, of course, but it takes the shine off the argument. Would it really be so difficult to justify defining eligible foods in a way that left out caloric soda and candy?

2. Food restrictions would pose major implementation challenges and increase program complexity and costs.

Currently, there is a code in the retailer's inventory system identifying whether a product is eligible or ineligible for food stamps. Checkout staff must already be trained in subtle distinctions. For example, rotisserie chicken served hot is ineligible, but dressed and ready-to-cook chicken is eligible. In what sense would administration be more difficult if caloric soda and candy were ineligible?

3. Restrictions may not change the nature of participants’ food purchases.

The FNS document discusses the fact that many participants are unconstrained or "inframarginal," because they contribute some of their own income to their food budgets, and hence can use food stamp benefits to free up cash resources to spend as they wish. It would be ineffective in some cases to prohibit soda and candy. But, by this argument, aren't the current restrictions that food stamps must be used only for food already equally ineffective for such consumers?

4. No evidence exists which indicates that food stamp benefits directly contribute to poor food choices and negative dietary outcomes, such as obesity.

FNS writes, "While poverty is associated with obesity in some population groups and Food Stamp Program participation is closely linked with poverty, the independent effect of program participation on obesity is unknown." What priority does FNS give research with strong methodology on this question?

There are additional good reasons for not restricting food stamps to just healthy food. Advocates for low-income Americans are highly worried that additional restrictions would discourage participation by eligible families. Discussion is welcome!

Fast Food Facts update

Ken at Fast Food Facts and the Fast Food News blog has updated the format of his online search output, to look like the familiar nutrition facts panel on packaged food. This allows readers to see the information in a format that many have already learned to absorb fairly quickly.

It is wrongly said, sometimes, that consumers know these nutrition facts well already, but simply lack the willpower to act on the information. I always learn new stuff from a good tool like this.

From a search of Burger King sandwiches, ranked from most to least by calories, here is a Whopper with cheese without mayo.


A regular Whopper with cheese has 800 calories, 18g of saturated fat (90% of the daily value), and 1,450 mg of sodium (60% of the daily value).

If you choose the Chicken TenderCrisp Sandwich for better health, you get more calories and much more salt. Did you know that already?

Things the food industry doesn't want you to know

Adam Voiland offers the list in U.S. News and World Report, along with a wealth of links to the supporting evidence, based in large part on a recent perspective article by Marion Nestle and David Ludwig in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

1. Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids.

2. The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products.

3. Junk food makers donate large sums of money to professional nutrition associations.

4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.

5. Less-processed foods are generally more satiating than their highly processed counterparts.

6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.

7. A health claim on the label doesn't necessarily make a food healthy.

8. Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing.

9. The food industry funds front groups that fight antiobesity public health initiatives.

10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.