U.S. Food Policy: An Introduction (Second Edition)

The book Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction, whose second edition has just been released in the Earthscan Food and Agriculture Series (Routledge), prepares readers to make their own distinctive contribution to a lively conversation about our food system.

There is no reason why food policy debate should continue to mirror the current dysfunctional state of our national political debate. We can do better.

The first in a series of related videos asks: Who should study U.S. food policy?

Routledge provides a free sample chapter on the author Q&A page.

The scale of SNAP (food stamp) spending relative to other budget priorities

Multiple social media friends recently shared a fall 2015 chart from an organization called "The Other 98%" (slogans: "kicking corporate asses for the working classes" and "we didn't start the class war, but we're going to end it").

I like the chart's implied message. In my own words: "The United States should seek to advance peace, reduce military spending, pursue economic justice, and support programs that promote food security."

But, the chart badly botches the details, showing SNAP (food stamp) spending as a minuscule portion of federal spending, "somewhere within the tiny orange sliver at the bottom," less than 1% of federal spending, and therefore less than 1/57th as large as the military budget that takes most of the pie.

In a democracy, we don't all need to be budget experts, but I highly recommend that every voter take just the 10 minutes needed to understand some basics about the federal budget. I like the clear "Federal Budget 101" provided by the National Priorities Project. Here are 4 items from that website that help in interpreting the chart above.

1. The total budget was about $3.8 trillion in 2015. Military spending was $598 billion (16% of the total). SNAP spending (part of "everything else") was $74 billion (2% of the total). Therefore, SNAP spending is 1/8th as large as military spending.

2. Federal spending can be divided into "mandatory spending" (65%, including SNAP and many other programs whose annual spending follows rules that were decided when the program was authorized) and "discretionary spending" (29%, including military spending and many other programs whose annual spending is mainly decided by appropriations each year).

3. Military spending is a large part of discretionary spending (which, in turn, is 29% of the total budget). The Other 98%'s chart shows discretionary spending -- as noted in the text underneath the Facebook post above. It agrees closely with the numbers from the National Priorities Project. However, The Other 98% is wrong to say that the small "Food and Agriculture" slice contains SNAP.

4. Social security and medical costs make up a large fraction of mandatory spending (which, in turn, is 65% of the total budget). SNAP ($74 billion) and mandatory farm subsidy programs are both included within the yellow food and agriculture slice ($122.6 billion) of this chart -- not the food and agriculture slice of the preceding discretionary chart.

To summarize, the military budget ($598 billion) is about 8 times as big as the SNAP or food stamp budget ($74 billion). For many readers, there never was any reason for the original Facebook post to indulge in misrepresentation, confusion, or error. These accurate numbers would have been sufficient to motivate the main rhetorical argument: "The United States will be better off if we pursue peace, reduce military spending, promote justice, and ensure enough food for all people in our community."

I hope this time was useful to you in a small way (to understand a quibble with the Facebook post) and a big way (to comprehend the broad outlines of how our government spends our money).

With little progress against poverty, U.S. household food insecurity remains above 14%

The prevalence of household food insecurity in the United States remained above 14% in 2013, according to new data released today by USDA's Economic Research Service.

Here is the abstract to today's report:

An estimated 14.3 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2013, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The change from 14.5 percent in 2012 was not statistically significant.The prevalence of very low food security was essentially unchanged at 5.6 percent.

Household food insecurity means that some household members at some times of the year experienced food-related hardships (the household respondent gave 3 or more "yes" answers to a set of 18 survey questions about experiences of hardship).

The high rate of household food insecurity represents a major disappointment for U.S. anti-poverty policy. Rates of household food insecurity fell during the economic expansion of the 1990s, stagnated in the early 2000s, and rose dramatically during the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Despite hopes for renewed economic growth and reduced unemployment, these remain very difficult times for low-income Americans.

In previous years, the United States solemnly adopted targets for reducing the prevalence of food insecurity from 12% (the level observed in the mid-1990s) to 6%. As my chart (based on USDA data) shows, this effort to improve U.S. food security has failed. Yet, neither Democrats nor Republicans talk much any more about any substantial realistic strategy for poverty reduction -- with serious objectives, quantitative targets, and implementation steps. Though food assistance is of course important, poverty reduction is the most promising approach to improving household food security in the United States.

New edition of Breadlines Knee-Deep in Wheat by Janet Poppendieck

Breadlines Knee-Deep in Wheat is a classic in the history of U.S. food policy, written by sociologist  Janet Poppendieck, focused on the connections between agricultural crisis and food programs for the poor in the Great Depression.

The new edition from the University of California Press, published this month, includes a foreword by Marion Nestle and a delightful new epilogue bringing the story up to date from the book's original publication in the 1980s to the present. And by "the present," I mean the book includes material as recent as the key January 2014 compromise over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provisions new Farm Bill. (In terms of the publishing mechanics, how is this even possible?).

I read the new manuscript last year at the request of the publisher (and recommended republication):

The book is well-written and detailed, making bureaucratic correspondence come alive as lively argument. It has an authoritative and believable voice, while still carrying passion for the plight of the poor and hungry. I knew this already from reading Poppendieck’s more recent books on the emergency food system and on school meals reform. The pig slaughter story will stick in my head permanently now. The use of archival material adds novelty, but the book serves well even digesting and interpreting known topics.

Immediately today I will add this book to my U.S. food policy syllabus and place an order request to my university library.

Bread for the World publishes 2014 Hunger Report

The faith-based anti-hunger advocacy organization Bread for the World today released its 2014 report on Ending Hunger in America.  This organization stands out for its economically sensible poverty-centered approach to thinking about the problem of hunger. 

It is right for such an organization to press for greater generosity in federal nutrition assistance programs (as Step #3 out of 4 steps).  But it also seems wise for Bread for the World to give jobs and education their proper place (as Steps #1 and #2). 

The #1 plank has the tag-line: "The best defense against hunger is a good job."

USDA Under Secretary Kevin Concannon speaks at the Friedman School

Kevin W. Concannon, USDA Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services spoke this month at the Friedman School's weekly Wednesday seminar.  He gave a broad overview of USDA's nutrition assistance programs and nutrition education initiatives.

Kevin W. Concannon has served as President Obama's and Secretary Vilsack's Under Secretary for FNS since July 2009.

He oversees the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) which serves 1 in 4 Americans, and has lead responsibilities for promoting healthful diet through the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

Working in partnership with State and local organizations, FNS oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program; child nutrition programs including National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Summer Food Service Programs; The Child and Adult Care Food Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Commodity Supplemental Food Program; Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; The Emergency Food Assistance Program; and other nutrition programs.

A video of the presentation and discussion is available from iTunes.

IOM report considers time constraints as part of assessing SNAP benefit adequacy

The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies, today released a consensus report on the adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

The committee that prepared the report was led by Julie Caswell of UMASS Amherst.  Members included Mary Muth, Philip Gleason, Jim Ziliak, Barbara Laraia, Diane Schanzenbach, and others.  The committee had invited me to Washington for a workshop in spring 2012 to give a presentation (.pdf) about the economics of the SNAP benefit formula, the procedure that the federal government uses to assign a benefit amount to each participant household based on its income and other characteristics.

In one notable conclusion of today's report, the committee suggested that the federal government should account for the difficulty low-income families face in finding sufficient time to cook at home.  The implication is that the government could consider increasing SNAP benefits to provide low-income households with sufficient resources to purchase more convenient and easy-to-prepare foods:

Time—USDA-FNS should recognize the cost-time trade-offs involved in procuring and preparing a nutritious diet. The dollar value of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), with its strong reliance on preparation of meals from basic ingredients, does not account for time constraints faced by most households at all income levels, particularly those with a single working head of household, which necessitate purchasing value-added or prepared foods with a higher cost. USDA-FNS should examine the impact of accounting for cost-time trade-offs, for example, by:

• applying a time adjustment multiplier to the cost of the TFP or reviewing options for adjustments to the current cost of the plan, and

• adjusting the earned income deduction to reflect more accurately time pressures for participants who are working. 

One question is whether encouraging greater food spending on convenient foods would have any health or environmental consequences.  For example, convenience foods tend on average to have more sodium and more packaging than their traditional counterparts.

Clearly, an increased benefit to allow for convenience foods would be a special boon for highly time-constrained households -- think for example of the dreadfully tight time budget for a low-income working single parent.  Yet, many other low-income SNAP participants are retired, or live in households that include a non-working adult.

Some low-income households are able to -- and even want to -- cook at home.  For these households, it might be counter-productive to increase the maximum benefit to a level based on the price of expensive convenience foods, while simultaneously forbidding the households to economize on food and use the savings for non-food needs such as housing and transportation.

While you're thinking this over, I thought it would be helpful to conclude with some real data from the American Time Use Survey for 2011.  Most of the leisure time segment at all education levels is for television and other screen-time recreation. Source: American Time Use Survey. Note: the amount of work time appears smaller than you may expect, because the data include both weekdays and weekends, averaged for working and non-working persons aged 15 and older.

SNAP benefits surpass 10% of all grocery spending

In 2010, for the first time, SNAP benefits appear to have surpassed 10% of all grocery spending.

This seems to me like a significant threshold.  The program formerly known as food stamps is not just an important part of the safety net.  It plays a big role in the U.S. retail economy more generally.  It should be a national priority to seek economic growth of the sort that reaches all the way to the low-wage labor market.  The last time we had that type of poverty-reducing economic growth for a sustained period was the late 1990s.

I provide more detail about recent program trends in "The New Normal: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (gated)," published this week in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics (AJAE).  The paper came out of a lively conference session, organized by Benjamin Senauer and including papers by himself and Mark Rosegrant, Mike Boehlje, Brent Gloy, Jason Henderson, and Tim Beatty.

This figure compares administrative data on SNAP benefits to USDA's two data series on aggregate food spending.  Depending on the measure of food spending used, SNAP now represents 10% to 17% of the food retail economy.

Figure 4.

Total SNAP benefits, as a percentage of food at-home sales in food stores and in total, 1981–2010

Author's computation based on USDA/FNS annual SNAP data (converted from fiscal year to calendar year by interpolation) and USDA/ERS annual national food spending data by calendar year.

House bill would cut food assistance programs, protect farm subsidies

According to the Associated Press summary, the appropriations bill passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives would cut WIC and international food aid, while protecting most farm subsidies.

The AP report said the bill:

• Directs the Agriculture Department to rewrite rules it issued in January meant to make school meals healthier. Republicans say the new rules, the first major overhaul of school lunches in 15 years, are too costly.
• Forces USDA to report to Congress every time officials travel to promote the department’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, which supports locally grown food, and discourages the department from giving research grants to support local food systems. Large agribusiness has been critical of the department’s focus on these smaller food producers [note: see earlier post for context].
• Prevents USDA from moving forward with new rules that would make it easier for smaller farmers and ranchers to sue large livestock companies on antitrust grounds. The proposed rules are meant to address the growing concentration of corporate power in agriculture.
• Delays for more than a year new rules for reporting trades in derivatives, the complex financial instruments blamed for helping precipitate the 2008 financial crisis. A Republican amendment adopted Thursday would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which funded in the bill, to first have other rules in place to facilitate its collection of derivatives market data.
• Prevents the FDA from approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption, a decision set for later this year.
• Questions the scope of Obama administration initiatives to put calories on menus and limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

The tart AP article was mentioned in our comments section recently, and was covered by Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution under the rueful headline, "Not from the Onion."

Odd food stamp policy story

The income cutoffs and benefit formula for the SNAP (food stamp) program are not as crazy as you sometimes read.

The AP's Matt Apuzzo today tells the sad story of Georgia resident Mark Milota, whose $25 increase in monthly unemployment benefits put him over the income cutoff for the SNAP program (food stamp benefits).

The Georgia Department of Human Resources explained in a letter to him last month that, because of the stimulus, he was ineligible for food stamps. He now makes $1,538 a month — $21 too much for a family of two to qualify.

"We have to pay him that $25 a week," said Brenda Brown, assistant commissioner at the Georgia Department of Labor. "And he doesn't have the option not to accept it."

Milota said he was told that, without the stimulus money, he would have received about $300 a month in food stamps.

The Consumerist picks up the "government shoots itself in foot" story line. The commenters are outraged and have a great suggestion:

The REAL problem here is that government programs like food stamps have "hard cutoffs". Instead, they should have "graduated reduction". The way this can work is that for every $3 over a certain amount, the program benefit is reduced by $1. If this were applied to Mark Milota's case, then for being over the level by $21, his food stamps would be reduced by only $7.

The funny thing is that this is how the SNAP benefit formula already works. The poorest participants get the maximum benefit. People close to the income cutoff generally get a smaller benefit.

The story about Mr. Milota seems odd. I wonder if Mr. Apuzzo got the details wrong or quoted Mr. Milota overstating the situation.

The income cutoff for a family of two is indeed $1517, so if Mr. Milota started with $1513 monthly, it makes sense that his extra $25 monthly would make him ineligible. But, I have trouble seeing how he could have lost $300 monthly in food stamp benefits in this situation.

The eligibility rules give Mr. Milota a maximum monthly benefit ($367 monthly) minus 30% of his net income after deductions. The deductions, subtracted from his income, include a standard deduction ($144), an excess shelter deduction (probably a couple hundred dollars and at most about $400, I think), and some other deductions that are typically smaller. Unless his is a very unusual case, with much higher deductions than that, he had several hundred dollars in net income. I would be surprised if the $25 in new unemployment benefits caused a net loss for Mr. Milota. If he did have a net loss, I'd be still more surprised if it were $300. It seems more likely that somebody looked up and misunderstood the rules, thinking that Mr. Milota would be eligible for the maximum benefit despite having monthly income substantially greater than the federal poverty standard.

I don't think that yet more complex stimulus package legislation, anticipating every obscure boundary case in food stamp eligibility rules, would have been wise policy making. The "government gone bad" story line seems misplaced here.

Thanks to Jack at Fork & Bottle for pointing me toward this story.

Update (6/23/2009): Corroborating the gist of this post, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that only perhaps 1/3 of 1% of unemployment insurance recipients might have been disadvantaged by the stimulus benefits.

Nutrition in the stimulus

For all the pomp about the circumstances of cuts to spending in the Senate's version of the stimulus bill, the Senate has actually included some better child nutrition provisions than the House.

Either way, there are significant differences in the child nutrition (and other nutrition-related) provisions in the House and Senate bills. FRAC has an overview of the differences between the two versions. As details are being ironed out as we read, call your Representative and Senators and let them know that these are both important to the safety net for the growing number of unemployed Americans, as well as some of the most far-reaching ways that taxpayer dollars can be used- SNAP (formerly food stamps) generates $1.80 for every dollar spent.

Some key differences:

• School Food Service: Senate has $100 million for school food service equipment. This is extremely important to enabling school food service to prepare fresh, healthy meals with local ingredients. Without, they are much more tied to the unhealthy, highly processed (and not to mention gross!) meals produced off-site with low quality ingredients.Keep the Senate version!

• SNAP: House has $20 billion, Senate has $16 billion to increase monthly food stamp allotment. Keep House version!

• WIC: Senate has $380 million to fund growing WIC caseload (as this is not an entitlement program). Keep Senate version!

The House also has a few hundred million dollars more for after school supper programs and senior meal. And the final bill most keep the provision in both versions which suspends 3-month waiting period for jobless adults to enroll in food stamps-- we know that the majority of food insecurity in American households occurs for short periods of time-it is essential as part of the stimulus package to make sure these benefits are available.

Not sure if it's better for folks to contact the Conference Committee members (below) or their own Representatives or Senators:

Who's on the Conference Committee:
The House and Senate have appointed conferees to work out their differences and craft a bill for a final vote in both chambers by the end of the week.

House conferees: Approps. Chair David Obey (D-WI), House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D-NY), Ed and Labor Chair George Miller (D-CA), Transportation and Infrastructure Chair James Oberstar (D-MN).

Senate conferees: Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Appropriations Chair Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Ranking Finance Mbr: Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Approps Mbr: Thad Cochran (R-MS).
cross-posted to The Jew and the Carrot and La Vida Locavore

From Wall Street to Main Street

As Congress moves to bail out some of the largest corporations in order to prop up the economy, Main Street is jumping on the bandwagon to ask for a little help in these hard times. Is this the 'new New Deal?'

Democratic Senators are working to pass the Reid-Byrd Econ Stimulus Bill. In response to higher unemployment, rising food costs, higher energy costs, State budgets in crisis, and increased dependence on foreign oil, President-Elect Obama has called for a second stimulus bill to jump start the economy and help Americans recover from the recession.

It is well known that the hits on Wall Street take a few months to trickle down to Main Street. The bill focuses on the areas of society that are being hit the hardest:

Unemployment: "The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year, a total of 1.2 million jobs, with almost half of the job losses coming in the last 3 months alone." The bill would extend unemployment benefits by seven weeks in all states.

State Economies: The package includes $37.8 million to help States reduce their share of Medicaid, in order to ease the budget shortfalls affecting local economies.

Auto-Industry Assistance: $25 billion in loans with required long term financial plans.

Tax Relief for New Car Purchasing: to help tax payers afford new cars, while propping up the automobile industry.

High Food Costs: "$445 million for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program (which would allow 600,000 women and children to receive WIC benefits, meet some of the rising demand due to a faltering economy, and allow states to avoid creating waiting lists). $50 million is included for Food Banks, $8 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food program, and $60 million for senior meals programs (18 million more meals)."

High Energy Assistance: In order to help Americans cope with spiraling energy costs, $500 million is included for weatherization programs.

Energy Independence: The stimulus makes major investments in electrifying vehicles with $300 million for advanced battery research, and $1billion for the advanced battery manufacturing loan guarantee program which will authorize over $3.3 billion in loan guarantees. In addition, the stimulus includes $500 million to help local governments improve energy efficiency; $500 million for additional energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development and deployment; and $140 million for electricity transmission improvements.

Caring for the Environment: Over $5 billion is included for environmental clean up, urban and rural clean water systems, and for maintenance of our parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.

Building Infrastructure and Creating Jobs: The stimulus package includes: $13.5 billion for building and repairing highways, bridges, mass transit, airports, and AMTRAK, creating 470,000 jobs.

Housing: The Committee bill includes $700 million for capital funding grants to public housing agencies and $200 million to provide housing agencies with additional funding to alleviate the increased costs of energy.

Improving the Quality of Life for Military Families: $175 million for the construction, replacement, and improvement of military family housing at Army and Air Force installations, and an additional $75 million for the construction of child development centers at Navy installations.

Education and Job Training: $2.5 billion is included for school repairs, $600 million for youth training and dislocated workers, $200 million for the Community Services Block Grant, and $36 million for homeless education.

Health: $1 billion to restore some of the purchasing power of NIH that was lost because of inflation in the past five years and allow NIH to award as many as 2,700 new research project grants that could lead to cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and many other devastating diseases.

Small Businesses: The stimulus provides $615 million to support $22.5 billion in zero-fee loans to small businesses under the 7(a) program and the 504 program. The bill also provides $1 million to support $10 million in new microloans for small businesses and $4 million for critical technical assistance for these “micro” borrowers.

Border Security and Crime Fighting: The bill includes over $1 billion for border security and other homeland security investments.

Science: $675 million for NASA, Department of Energy and Cyber Security.

Disaster Assistance: Relief support for farmers facing crop damage, and community disaster loans.

Consumer Protection: 13.1 million to permit prompt implementation of new authorities enacted in the 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246), $75 million for the FBI for agents to investigate rising claims of mortgage fraud, and $10.5 million for the Treasury Inspector General to conduct critical reviews of bank failures.

Blueprint to End Hunger

In conjunction with Bread for the World, a coalition, called National Anti-Hunger Organizations (NAHO), has released the 2008 Blueprint to End Hunger, outlining the steps needed to fight hunger in America. The blueprint emphasizes a commitment from all sectors of society- government, businesses, nonprofits, and individuals—and specifies the actions needed from each sector.

As the Blueprint makes clear, Americans have the ability and the means to end hunger. The fastest, most direct way to reduce hunger is to strengthen and expand the federal nutrition programs. These programs weave a nutritional safety net and serve as a major bulwark against hunger. By strengthening the programs and improving people’s access to them, the United States could do much more to reduce hunger.

But the Blueprint goes beyond outlining what is needed from Congress and the President to strengthen these programs. It describes the actions state and local governments can take to make the most effective use of the programs. The Blueprint also illustrates how government, businesses, schools, and nonprofits can work together to connect hungry people with the assistance they need, and explains why it is important for everyone to raise awareness of hunger and advocate for policies to end hunger.

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.

Community food program faces funding hiatus

The complexity of the Farm Bill comes to the fore again in Barbara Vauthier's report this week for Foodlinks America (available also by free email subscription):

A glitch in the legislative language of the 2008 Farm Bill may prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from distributing nearly $5 million in grants to low-income communities to build and improve food systems under the Community Food Projects (CFP) program. USDA officials have notified fiscal year 2008 applicants for CFP funds that the Department does not currently have the authority to make awards.

The CFP is authorized by the food stamp section of the Farm Bill and a food stamp provision of the bill, unrelated to the CFP, was worded in a way that prevents disbursement of fiscal year 2008 CFP funds. More than a hundred applications for $4.6 million in CFP funds are pending until the issue is resolved. The money would support community food, planning, and training and technical assistance projects this year.

“Through our advocacy on the Farm Bill, we are certain that it was the intent of Congress to ensure that there was not an interruption in funding for Community Food Projects,” Andy Fisher, executive director of the Community Food Security Coalition (CSFC) in Portland, OR told Foodlinks America. “Unfortunately the legislative language was not clear in this regard,” he added.

Fisher noted that a technical amendments bill is being prepared in Congress to correct this and other Farm Bill problems. It is not unusual for clean-up legislation to follow the passage of a measure as massive as the Farm Bill, which ran more than 670 pages. An error of even greater magnitude – the inadvertent deletion of a section on international trade – caused the final Farm Bill to be passed by Congress, vetoed by the President, and that veto overridden twice. A corrections bill must pass before the end of September in order for USDA to get its CFP grants out.

Since 1996, the CFP has pumped more than $40 million into low-income communities through 276 grants to non-profit groups in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and one territory. Activists hope to prevent a break in the funding. “CFSC and its partners have been working hard with the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and USDA to ensure that a technical fix passes, to allow that the full $5 million is allocated to deserving community groups this fiscal year,” concluded Fisher.

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

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.

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

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"

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

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.

Should food stamps be included in the stimulus package?

Bob Greenstein from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities yesterday argued "yes."

Changes reportedly made last night in the stimulus package would reduce its effectiveness as stimulus. Although the package includes a reasonably designed tax rebate, the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

Greg Mankiw last week argued "no" at first, ...

Some of the proposals on the table strike me as particularly odd. For example: a temporary increase in food stamp benefits.

In standard macroeconomic theory, the business cycle is symmetric. That is, stimulating an economy that is suffering from insufficient aggregate demand should be the opposite of cooling off an overheated economy to reduce inflationary pressures. Would anyone seriously propose a temporary cut in food stamp benefits in an overheated economy? I don't think so. Food stamps seem the wrong tool to address the business cycle.

... but then seemed to relent, only partially, after reading interesting responses from his readers.

Marty Feldstein may well be right that those on food stamps have a higher-than-average marginal propensity to consume. Nonetheless, I wonder if we really want to target such cyclical measures on the poorest members of society. That is, for any mean level of food stamps, wouldn't the poor be better off with a constant stream of benefits than with a benefit that fluctuates over the business cycle? Using food stamps as a cyclical tool seems to risk destabilizing some families' food consumption in an attempt to stabilize the overall business cycle.

Megan McArdle argued that more food stamps aren't needed because poor people are obese, and food insecurity is not [a problem] "except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address)". (Paul Beard from A Crank's Progress sent me the link). TBogg responds to McArdle's post, so I don't have to waste time with it. I'll defer a more thoughtful post about food assistance and risk of overweight and obesity until a later date. But a quick look in the U.S. Food Policy archives offers some useful facts, which might serve to temper this argument. USDA research suggests the gap in risk of overweight between food stamp participants and nonparticipants is shrinking anyway, at least for some demographic categories, because Americans from all walks of life are increasingly becoming overweight.