The Agricultural Law blog today links to an interesting controversy about the definition of "sustainable agriculture."
Under guidelines from the non-governmental but influential American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Leonardo Academy is gathering stakeholders and experts to discuss standards for this widely used term. The academy, a Wisconsin-based non-profit "think and do tank," described the process in a press release (.pdf) yesterday.
USDA, which prefers a broader definition of the term "sustainable agriculture" than the draft under discussion, has petitioned (.pdf) ANSI to revoke the accreditation for the Leonardo Academy to lead this standard-setting process. The Leonardo Academy has responded (.pdf).
[Update 10/1/2008:] The proposed ANSI standard setting process has generated opposition from some longstanding sustainable agriculture advocates. Kathleen Merrigan at the Friedman School points out a letter that she and a few dozen others sent (.doc) Aug. 19, urging participants to consider a long series of concerns before pursuing the proposed approach. The concerns include potential overlap with the existing organic standards, the adequacy of farmer and farmworker participation in the standard setting, the capacity of any new definition to accomodate changes in sustainable agriculture practices as they develop, and the need for long-term enforcement of any new standard.
This is more material than I have been able to absorb yet, but it seems to offer an interesting mix of policy argument about both substance and process for defining what has until now been a fairly inclusive concept.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Briefing on food prices
I gave a briefing (.pdf) yesterday for House of Representatives staff in DC, on the topic of rising food prices. In the past 12 months, grocery food prices in the United States have risen about 6 to 8 percent (depending on how different types of food are weighted in the overall index).
This is of course much higher than the 3 percent increases that have been typical in the earlier part of this decade, but perhaps not as high as you thought if you have been following the news about raw food commodities. Some prices of raw commodities have doubled in just a couple years, for a variety of reasons, causing great alarm. Short term contributors include weather, low carry-over stocks, and export controls by some producer countries. Long term contributors include world population growth, rising demand for meat and dairy products, competition with biofuels, and rising energy prices.
Because the farm cost is less than 10 percent of the value of the grocery food dollar in the United States, consumer grocery prices are somewhat buffered in this country. Also, we have for a number of years spent a comparatively small fraction of our disposable income on food, on average. The slide below is based on international comparison data for selected countries (not all countries) from the Economic Research Service. It is not surprising that poor countries spend a higher fraction of income on food than the United States does. It is notable, though, that our food spending share at least through 2006 was small even by comparison to some more prosperous industrialized countries.
Other interesting data series from USDA/ERS include the food spending share over time.
The lunchtime seminar was organized by the Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE, an outreach organization for the agricultural economics profession) and the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (a broader umbrella group that publicizes the value of research on these topics). In addition to my presentation with an economic perspective, the lunchtime briefing in an Agriculture Committee meeting room at the Longworth House Office Building included a representative of the American Dietetic Association (ADA), who turned out to provide a great interdisciplinary set of resources for staff questions afterwords. The moderator was Ephraim Leibtag from USDA/ERS, whose work on food prices has been widely followed lately, including this article from Philip Brasher.
In addition to consumer concerns about the overall food price level, bigger concerns for me include the rates of food insecurity and hunger in low-income U.S. populations, and the cost of healthy diets. Both issues have to do with more than just prices.
Meanwhile, for unrelated reasons, it was an exciting day to be on the House side of Capitol Hill. During the lunchtime seminar, I could hear from outside the voices of protesters against the bailout. Later, while I was in a follow-up meeting in the early afternoon with staff from one of the Massachusetts congressional delegations, there was a bustle in the office as the Congressman arrived and briskly rounded up staff for an urgent meeting. Only later in the airport did I hear the big news that the House voted down the financial bailout plan.
Data source: USDA/ERS. Follow link for clearer image.
This is of course much higher than the 3 percent increases that have been typical in the earlier part of this decade, but perhaps not as high as you thought if you have been following the news about raw food commodities. Some prices of raw commodities have doubled in just a couple years, for a variety of reasons, causing great alarm. Short term contributors include weather, low carry-over stocks, and export controls by some producer countries. Long term contributors include world population growth, rising demand for meat and dairy products, competition with biofuels, and rising energy prices.
Because the farm cost is less than 10 percent of the value of the grocery food dollar in the United States, consumer grocery prices are somewhat buffered in this country. Also, we have for a number of years spent a comparatively small fraction of our disposable income on food, on average. The slide below is based on international comparison data for selected countries (not all countries) from the Economic Research Service. It is not surprising that poor countries spend a higher fraction of income on food than the United States does. It is notable, though, that our food spending share at least through 2006 was small even by comparison to some more prosperous industrialized countries.
Other interesting data series from USDA/ERS include the food spending share over time.
The lunchtime seminar was organized by the Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE, an outreach organization for the agricultural economics profession) and the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (a broader umbrella group that publicizes the value of research on these topics). In addition to my presentation with an economic perspective, the lunchtime briefing in an Agriculture Committee meeting room at the Longworth House Office Building included a representative of the American Dietetic Association (ADA), who turned out to provide a great interdisciplinary set of resources for staff questions afterwords. The moderator was Ephraim Leibtag from USDA/ERS, whose work on food prices has been widely followed lately, including this article from Philip Brasher.
In addition to consumer concerns about the overall food price level, bigger concerns for me include the rates of food insecurity and hunger in low-income U.S. populations, and the cost of healthy diets. Both issues have to do with more than just prices.
Meanwhile, for unrelated reasons, it was an exciting day to be on the House side of Capitol Hill. During the lunchtime seminar, I could hear from outside the voices of protesters against the bailout. Later, while I was in a follow-up meeting in the early afternoon with staff from one of the Massachusetts congressional delegations, there was a bustle in the office as the Congressman arrived and briskly rounded up staff for an urgent meeting. Only later in the airport did I hear the big news that the House voted down the financial bailout plan.
Data source: USDA/ERS. Follow link for clearer image.
Refresh blog from Supermarket News
I recently started reading the Refresh blog from Supermarket News staff. One recent post summarizes how different supermarkets are participating in various approaches to labeling humane production practices for animal products, based on survey data from the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Another post has some gentle fun with the expansive view of local food taken by a fine internet site in the Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) area, called eatgreendfw, which does however include a link to delivery from Fred's Alaska Seafood. "Last I checked," Jeff Wells writes, "Kenai salmon were not native to north Texas."
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
And while you're voting no...
I rely on the wisdom of others to explain financial markets, including the proposed $700 billion bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. It counts as food policy, in the sense that it counts as everything policy and will dominate the U.S. fiscal situation for years to come, well into the new administration. Let me summarize the wisdom of people I trust on the Paulson plan. Tyler Cowen thinks it's awful. He quotes Matthew Yglesias (who claims to be drunk but seems to be blogging quite lucidly):
Update 1:50 pm: I can't help adding this commentary, from ABC's Jack Tapper.
The plan is bad. But bad policies get enacted all the time. But we’re at a point now where congress is, allegedly, in the hands of progressive leadership. Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone’s going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian.Politico says many economists are skeptical and Greg Mankiw thinks it's awful. Mankiw links to Yves Smith, who hates the plan and thinks you should too. You can see the pattern here.
It’d be one thing for a bunch of conservative politicians to ram a terrible policy through. Then we could say “well, if some progressives win the next election things will be different.” But if this comes through an allegedly progressive congress then the whole enterprise starts looking pretty hollow.
Update 1:50 pm: I can't help adding this commentary, from ABC's Jack Tapper.
As the Bush Administration asks for close to a trillion dollars to prevent a worldwide financial cataclysm, here are some numbers you might find interesting -- courtesy of the ABC News Research Center and ABC News' Barbara Paulson.
In 2007, Wall Street's five biggest firms -- Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley -- paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves.
That's $10 billion more than the $29 billion loan taxpayers are making to J.P. Morgan to save Bear Stearns.
Those 2007 bonuses were paid, even though the shareholders in those firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines -- their worst year since 2002.
Boston GreenFest Sep. 27-28
The Boston GreenFest will have music, food, fun for kids, and interesting talks this Friday and Saturday, Sep. 26-27, from 10 am to 5 pm, at City Hall Plaza. At 11 am Saturday, sociologist and economist Juliet Schor will speak about "Green Economics."
Massachusetts referendum on income tax repeal
This election, there will be a binding referendum on the Massachusetts ballot to end the state income tax. The proposal would eliminate 40% of state revenues, causing havoc in state budgets and public services, from education to policing.
(U.S. Food Policy is nonpartisan, so I re-read the sentence above several times to be sure it is a dispassionate summary of the facts.)
Several public interest groups are leading a campaign to Vote No on what they call this "reckless" referendum. The groups include Stand for Children and the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO), an inspirational and astonishingly diverse multi-faith multi-community organization that U.S. Food Policy has covered previously because of its work on the Massachusetts health care reform.
The groups are collecting pledges from registered MA voters who plan to vote no on the referendum. There is no cost to fill out the form. The Vote No campaign tells me contact information you supply will be used once for a reminder before the election, and not sold or shared with other organizations. The main advantage of giving your name is to inform policy-makers about the level of public concern about the referendum. If you would like to pledge in this way, and are willing to let GBIO get credit for having helped to collect your pledge, follow the link to GBIO's part of the Vote No on Question 1 site.
(U.S. Food Policy is nonpartisan, so I re-read the sentence above several times to be sure it is a dispassionate summary of the facts.)
Several public interest groups are leading a campaign to Vote No on what they call this "reckless" referendum. The groups include Stand for Children and the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO), an inspirational and astonishingly diverse multi-faith multi-community organization that U.S. Food Policy has covered previously because of its work on the Massachusetts health care reform.
The groups are collecting pledges from registered MA voters who plan to vote no on the referendum. There is no cost to fill out the form. The Vote No campaign tells me contact information you supply will be used once for a reminder before the election, and not sold or shared with other organizations. The main advantage of giving your name is to inform policy-makers about the level of public concern about the referendum. If you would like to pledge in this way, and are willing to let GBIO get credit for having helped to collect your pledge, follow the link to GBIO's part of the Vote No on Question 1 site.
Monday, September 22, 2008
AP reports on video showing abuse of pigs
I haven't yet decided to watch the video accompanying this report from the Associated Press. Don't worry, the video does not launch automatically when you follow the link.
WASHINGTON (Sept. 16) - An undercover video shot at an Iowa pig farm shows workers hitting sows with metal rods, slamming piglets on a concrete floor and bragging about jamming rods up into sows' hindquarters.Apparently, nobody is disputing the evidence on the video. An expert who works on animal health issues with the industry denies such practices are widespread.
On the video, obtained by The Associated Press, a supervisor tells an undercover investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that when he gets angry or a sow won't move, "I grab one of these rods and jam it in her (anus)."
The farm, located outside of Bayard, Iowa, about 60 miles west of Des Moines, is a supplier to Hormel Foods of Austin, Minn. PETA wants to use the results of the investigation to pressure Hormel, the maker of Spam and other food products, to demand that its suppliers ensure humane treatment of pigs.
Hormel spokeswoman Julie Henderson Craven on Tuesday called the abuses "completely unacceptable."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)