Wugsuma?

As suburban/city kids, our kindergartner and his little sister see farm life mainly through charming agricultural festivals and the wonderful tourist farms here in New England. My parents, their "Opa and Oma," who grew up largely in Oklahoma and North Dakota, wrote the children recently by email to check up on their agricultural knowledge. The grandparents asked the kindergartner what farm animals his little sister knows. Here is the kindergartner's response by email.

Dear Oma & Opa,

Thes are the anamose [she] wahts me to writ.

Boomy [Oma and Opa's dog], pig, Shep, Bar,Wugsuma, Zebra,Croc-ad-iole, bug

Love, ...

PS She wus in a crase mud, the hole E-mal,

"Wugsuma?," you may ask. Hey, that's what his sister said, in between bursts of giggles. He warned you that she was in a crazy mood during the whole e-mail.

Federal government advertisements for pork

Our family enjoys meat in moderation, as part of meals that center on grains and fruits and vegetables, but what justifies federal sponsorship of this advertisement?

Like the beef check logo, the oval pork logo indicates that this ad campaign was funded by producer taxes collected under federal authority, and that it was approved by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.

Governance changes at AAEA Foundation

The AAEA Foundation, a non-profit foundation associated with the American Agricultural Economics Association, will see major changes in governance following a vote of the association membership this month.

In the past, the association was governed by an Executive Board (note: official name corrected 05/03/2006), while the foundation was governed by a Foundation Board. Under the new structure, the Foundation Board will end its work, and responsibility will be taken over by a committee that answers to the association's Executive Board.

Before the vote, proponents noted that the change will improve coordination between the foundation and the association.

The motivation for this proposed change is three-fold: (1) The administrative and operating expenses for travel and other support of Foundation Board members currently take between one-tenth and one-sixth of total Foundation funds ($60,000-$72,000) available for expenditure in any given year, an amount we believe is an unacceptable drain from achievement of the Foundation’s goals; (2) The Foundation Board’s semi-annual meeting process, a necessity for a large Board requiring a quorum for decision making, curbs flexibility and prevents timely action on intermittent opportunities; and (3) Because the bulk of Executive Board and Foundation Board decision making, and the AAEA Business Office support of the two boards, are concentrated at the same two meeting times of the year, Board-to-Board communication has not been highly interactive. Since many Foundation programs can complement on-going activities of the Association, such as those that support special programs or travel grants for the annual meetings, coordination with the Executive Board is important.

Opponents of the change expressed concern that the foundation would lose its independence from the professional association.

So the AAEA Board proposal to takeover the Foundation is a bad idea. The loss of the firewall, which would allow the mixing of Foundation activities with day to day membership services, is a no-no in the foundation world. It is not clear what the coordination problem is, so we don’t know if this is anything more than AAEA Board imperialism. And the cost saving may not be much because the Foundation Committee is going have to perform the same functions as the Foundation Board.

The association and the foundation are both tax-exempt non-profit organizations. The foundation will continue to fund "projects to support professional excellence in teaching, economic education, research and communication."

Fresh produce for a million seniors

From the excellent electronic newsletter, Foodlinks America:

A million elderly Americans will be getting free produce this summer, thanks to the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP). Under the program, eligible seniors are given vouchers they can redeem for fresh fruits, vegetables, and herbs at farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and in community supported agriculture (CSA) programs.

The SFMNP reached an estimated one million seniors in 2005, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the program is expected to benefit about the same number again this season. The SFMNP, which currently operates in 46 jurisdictions (38 states, six Indian Tribal Organizations, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) and is funded at $15 million annually, last year increased sales for 14,000 farmers selling at 2,500 farmers’ markets, 2,000 farmstands, and 215 CSAs.

Entitlement funding for the SFMNP was earmarked under the 2002 Farm Bill, exempting the program from annual appropriations battles, but locking funding in place for the five-year life of the legislation. The limitation on funds has left current state and Tribal grantees unable to grow their programs and at least eight states that have expressed interest in initiating an SFMNP are unable to access federal funds.

“I hate it because we turn so many people away,” Cindy Willard, director of the SFMNP for the Osage Tribal Council in Pawhuska, OK, which only gets enough money to serve 1,100 seniors. “We’re already getting lots of calls from elders and within two weeks after the program starts we’ll be turning people away,” she said, as word of the program spreads rapidly. Three principal means of communication among the Tribe are “telephone, telegram, and tell an elder,” Willard explained.

At recent USDA-sponsored Farm Bill forums around the country, SFMNP supporters called for an overall increase in program funding, administrative support over and above the grants for food, and the addition of other items to the program, such as honey, nuts, and eggs.

Revisions to the SFMNP may occur in the near future not only as a result of legislation – if Congress takes up reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year – but also from regulations. Proposed rules for the SFMNP issued by USDA in May 2005 are expected to be finalized this summer. Among the changes proposed is a $50 annual limit on benefits per recipient, a provision that would have a significant effect on CSAs in the program.

The SFMNP has been a tremendous benefit for both seniors and farmers’ markets in Alabama, where the program run, by the state farmers’ market authority, operates in all 67 counties and will serve approximately 62,000 elders this year. “Almost all the seniors I talk to say they would not be shopping at the farmers’ market if it were not for the extra support they get for fruits and vegetables,” said administrator Don Wambles. “It is one of the most enjoyable and most beneficial government programs ever created,” added Ms. Willard.

The issue also contains great articles on recent federal budget developments, prospects for changing the name of the Food Stamp Program, and a nutrition and obesity roundup. Subscriptions to Foodlinks America are free from Barbara Vauthier (link temporarily unavailable).

"Will the Doha Round Do More Harm than Good?"

Tufts' development experts and trade agreement skeptics Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher ask, "Will the Doha Round do more harm than good?."

Among their findings:

For many countries the loss of tariff revenues with liberalization are greater than the projected gains from a Doha agreement. India, for example, would lose nearly $8 billion in annual revenues from manufacturing tariffs, almost four times the projected gains of $2.2 billion. For the developing world as a whole, a projected gain of just $7 billion would be swamped by $63 billion in losses from tariffs on manufactured goods.

Do the authors compare projected net gains from trade to tariff revenue losses?

If so, that would be misleading. It would be like saying, "The oil industry did badly this quarter. Sure, the profits of the three biggest companies were $16 billion (statistic corrected 5/2/2006), but their total costs of production were much higher." The statistics would be correct, but the conclusion would be wrong.

Order and disorder (a haiku?)

If not for the rules
of the game to keep us in line,
we would be lost.

Choices Magazine: special segment on biofuels

For readers interested in U.S. food policy, here are some highlights of the new issue of Choices Magazine, published this week.

A series of articles on "Biofuels: Developing New Energy Sources from Agriculture," offers contributions from James Duffield, Keith Collins, Vernon Eidman, Paul Gallagher, James Fischer, Janine Finnell, Brian Lavoie, Roger Conway, and Marvin Duncan.

As recently as the early 1900s, energy sources around the world were mostly agriculturally derived and industrial products were primarily made from plant matter. Early motor fuels also came from agriculture — Henry Ford used ethanol in his original engine and Rudolf Diesel's engine could run on peanut oil. By 1920, petroleum emerged as the dominant energy source for transportation fuels and industrial products. For over 80 years, the United States and other industrialized countries have relied on petroleum as an economical and dependable source of energy. However, this reliance on petroleum is becoming a major issue as our domestic oil supplies shrink and our dependence on oil imports grows. The papers in this session will look at agriculture's current role as an energy producer and explore opportunities for agriculture as our Nation struggles to secure its energy future.

Dragan Miljkovic questions whether obesity is a public health problem that deserves government intervention, in "Obesity: Health and Food Policy Dilemma."

Even if the motives behind any potential government intervention in this matter may be most noble, it is clear that the entire economy would be greatly affected by these policies. And any government intervention will produce winners and losers with both net social gains and losses being plausible outcomes. For example, current guidelines recommend increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, and whole grains, within the context of a diet whose overall calories have been moderately reduced. While this diet, if implemented on a large scale for a sustained period of time, is likely to benefit producers in these industries, reduced consumption of other foods such as meats, dairy, or sugar, to name a few, would force many producers out of business or greatly reduce their profit margins.

Given the recent interest in buying local, even to the extent of disparaging major organic retailers, Paul Patterson's report on "State-Grown Promotion Programs" is timely.

[E]xperience with state brands suggests that they may be effective in promoting the sale of some products. However, to be of economic benefit to producers, they must effectively differentiate the products, so that higher prices may be earned for these products. Producers will only enjoy an increase in profits when price rises. These price premiums are most likely to be achieved for differentiated, specialty products, whose production or reputation is uniquely tied to a particular state.