Would the farm lobby betray the Food Stamp Program?

Dorothy Rosenbaum of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes today:

Some agricultural commodity groups have suggested that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees meet their $3 billion reconciliation instruction by cutting each program area that the Committees control in proportion to that area’s share of overall Agriculture Committee spending. These groups have circulated documents showing that under this approach, the Food Stamp Program would be reduced by $1.7 billion over five years and bear 57 percent of the cuts in the House, and $2 billion over five years (bearing 67 percent of the cuts) in the Senate. The purpose of this proposal is clear — to shift the majority of the cuts from farm-related programs to food stamps.

This self-serving proposal assumes that the task at hand for the Agriculture Committees is a simple matter of arithmetic that does not entail any setting of priorities. But priorities are inevitably involved. And it should be noted that the proposal these commodity groups are pushing departs sharply from the priorities in the President’s budget. Moreover, the proposal is sharply inconsistent with the position these groups took in 2002, when the Farm Bill was being considered and the Congressional budget made money available for increases in Agriculture Committee programs. These groups did not suggest in 2002 that the increases be distributed proportionately, but rather that the lion’s share go to farm programs.

Rosenbaum's argument is clever in several ways. She shows that the farm lobby implicitly seeks food stamp cuts much deeper than President Bush's compassionately conservative budget calls for -- a potentially telling argument in the Republican Congress. She pins the inconsistency between the farm lobby's view of a fair distribution of budget cuts this year and budget increases in earlier years. And in classic "Getting to Yes" fashion, she proposes a more fair distribution of the cuts, following principles the President has endorsed in the past.

In a radio interview in April, an Illinois radio journalist asked me if the current budget environment would tempt the major commodity lobbies to press for food assistance cuts. I was skeptical. I replied that the farm lobby would do so at its own grave risk, considering that a stable coalition of urban and farm-state legislators has for several decades provided the political muscle behind both the Food Stamp Program and the farm programs.

Partisanship, sugar, and CAFTA

Partisanship, sweetened by heavy donations from the sugar lobby, has led many Democrats in Congress away from free trade principles, according to an article and on-line conversation by the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman today. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed the Senate last week, but is threatened in the House of Representatives. Weisman points out that many Democrats who oppose CAFTA supported the earlier North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- which is a much bigger deal for the U.S. economy.

A sample:

Raleigh, N.C.: Do you find it ironic that American business interests as well as politicians are screaming "unfair" to China not allowing their currency to float and flooding our markets with cheap goods, yet this is the same argument that developing countries make concerning American and European agricultural subsidies? Though I do not support CAFTA, I am not against "free-trade" just as long as it is "fair-trade". I only wish the Democrats would take a stand on this issue based on the merits of the agreement, and not to spite Bush and the Republicans.

Jonathan Weisman: The West's stand on agriculture subsidies undermines every position is takes on trade in goods and services. There is simply no way you can legitimately demand one country lower its export subsidies or currency manipulation while you blatantly protect your farmers. The next round of international trade negotiations, the Doha round, is supposed to get to this point, but given the difficulty is easing sugar barriers the tiniest amount, I'm not holding my breath.

I hope not to lose friends in the public-interest-minded readership of U.S. Food Policy if I put in a good word for well-designed trade agreements. The combination of protectionism and massive subsidies for the U.S. sugar industry makes no sense on economic, environmental, or nutritional grounds. The hard working Central American farmers who would benefit from the agreement count for something with me. And on the U.S. side, I guess I care as much for the winners in these trade agreements (U.S. consumers of Central American produce and industries around the country who export goods and services to Central America) as I do for the losers (for example, U.S. growers of sugar cane, sugar beets, and high-fructose corn syrup).

Weisman's article and interview are worth reading in full. For another sample, here's a funny exchange:

Dale City, Va.: How on earth does the sugar industry have so much politcal power that politicians barely dare touch protective measures that have no rational basis and indeed are harmful to everyone in the country that isn't a sugar producer?

Jonathan Weisman: For a very long time, the sugar industry has understood the tenuousness of its position. Sugar cane is not particularly conducive to the U.S., even in Louisiana and Florida, and sugar beets are a costly way of producing what is basically a very cheap product. So they have protected themselves with political campaign contributions that are by far the most generous in the ag industry. It is no coincidence that Bill Clinton interupted one of his trysts with Monica Lewinsky to take a call from one the the Fanjul brothers, the legendary South Florida sugar barons.

Update: Other webloggers have taken Weisman's piece as their starting point for a conversation about CAFTA. Daniel Drezner speaks up in favor of the agreement, and links to Matthew Yglesias (who raises reasonable concerns about the heavy-handed intellectual property rights provisions in the agreement) and Tyler Cowen (who also worries about how these provisions would affect anti-AIDS drugs for Central Americans, but who gives the agreement a lukewarm endorsement in the end). Drezner also notes Brad DeLong's disagreement with Drezner's post, mainly a difference of opinion about the role of Democrats in opposing the treaty. Nobody pays much attention to Weisman's comments on the role of sugar protectionism.

Paul Krugman on obesity

From Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times yesterday, "Girth of a Nation":

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.

"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."

It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children....

So what can we do?

The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.

Link thanks to the Public Health Advocacy Institute's weblog.

A non-economist muses on a headline: "Grains, Soybeans Advance."

Fancy Robot imagines the article following that headline:

WASHINGTON--In a marriage of convenience, barley, oats and quinoa from across the country joined scores of the nation's soybeans Sunday and marched toward Washington, demanding that the FDA put a stop to the low-carb craze. "Think of your arteries!" shouted a protester who called himself Amarenth. Another named Millet grumbled about his placement alongside the wheat flakes, invoking his superior digestive properties, but marched nonetheless. The grains and soybeans were flanked by rows of cattle, lending security and moral weight to the proceedings.

The link includes the less interesting actual article as well, with Fancy Robot's own editorial comment: "Economics sucks the fun out of everything." Well, as an agricultural economist who reads with interest and sympathy what non-economists think of us, I've heard worse. Here is Wendell Berry's truly profound essay, "What are people for?":

It is apparently easy to say that there are too many farmers, if one is not a farmer. This is not a pronouncement often heard in farm communities. Nor have farmers yet been informed of a dangerous surplus of population in the "agribusiness" professions or among the middlemen of the food system. No agricultural economist has yet perceived that there are too many agricultural economists.

Community Nutrition Institute's CFNP work "winding down"

The Community Nutrition Institute's online periodical CFNP Report includes a helpful menu of news about food assistance appropriations, obesity policy, and helpful advice for grantees and potential grantees of the federal government's small progressive Community Food and Nutrition Program. The latest issue includes a kind word of introduction by Barbara Vauthier about Sheila Foley -- the hard-working organizational talent who has backed up Rodney Leonard's leadership of the small institute for decades, and who was den mother to a series of young food policy advocates (including me in 1990-1992) who passed through the role of editing the institute's late weekly, Nutrition Week. Vauthier's article also includes (in somewhat buried form) the sad news that CNI's work with the Community Food and Nutrition Program may be winding down.

Who is Sheila Foley and how does she know so much about the Community Food and Nutrition Program?

In June 2002, a request for applications was issued by the Office of Community Services (OCS) for a three-year cooperative agreement to “identify the characteristics, practices, and needs” of the network of agencies providing services to low-income people under the Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP). The Community Nutrition Institute (CNI), a Washington D.C.-based non-profit with a 30-year history of involvement with CFNP, answered the call.

Rod Leonard, founder and Executive Director of CNI, knew exactly what his organization could deliver, “Resources, information, technical assistance and networking,” he said; and the Nationwide Initiative was born. By February 2003, a cooperative agreement was in place between CNI and OCS, grant funds began to flow, and services were initiated.

In March 2003, the first issue of the CFNP Report was emailed to 75 people and included articles on the reauthorization of child nutrition programs, produce giveaway pilot projects at schools, implementation of food stamp improvement and expansion provisions, farm-to-school projects, and the annual updating of federal child nutrition income eligibility guidelines. Since that time, Zy Weinberg, principal writer and editor of the newsletter, has provided a wealth of information on food issues and added features such as grantee profiles, the enormously popular “Small Bites,” and the “Obesity Round-Up,” examples of which are included in this issue.

Today, there are more than a thousand subscribers who further distribute the newsletter to additional thousands of readers. Joanne Heidkamp of the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger wrote Sheila, “I just want to let you know how much I appreciate the CFNP Reports you send out. I realized I hadn’t deleted them since summer, because there’s so much useful information.”

In April 2003, CNI’s CFNP web site at http://www.communitynutrition.org/
was initiated with “the most complete information currently available on state formula grantee and sub-grantee activities,” according to website developer, Shacy Rivera. Since that time, the website has been expanded almost continuously and includes archived issues of CFNP Report, a Resource page with funding and information links, a separate Obesity Resource Section, a Nutrition Assistance Question and Answer Forum, and other features.

A “What’s New” section of the website highlights important news, such as the release of the CFNP request for applications (RFA), the current status of CFNP appropriations, and program advice such as when reports are due. CNI tracks web site usage on a monthly basis by the number of actual visitors to the site rather than hits, which may be random in nature. Usage peaked in April this year with 8,440 visitors during the month. Jim Couts of the Appalachian Nutrition Network emailed Shacy, “I just spent time reviewing all the potential sources of funding you list. I hope you know what a wonderful resource you folks provide.”

CNI publicizes the release of the RFA for CFNP discretionary funds each year, including an analysis of the request and tips on how to write a competitive proposal. One-on-one assistance is offered to any eligible applicant who requests it. Technical assistance also includes helping funded grantees with project operations and reporting requirements. This year, CNI staff answered 61 requests for assistance on the RFA and critiqued 11 proposals, mostly for applicants new to the CFNP competition. Dana Harvey of the Environmental Science Institute wrote Zy, “Just wanted to thank you and your staff again for your assistance today – you all really came through.”

CNI also drafted Reports to Congress on the CFNP for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, providing detailed information on every state formula and discretionary project funded during those years. CNI reviewed state plans, discretionary applications, and progress reports for all grantees and sub-grantees throughout the nation, collecting further information directly during site visits to grantees and by interviews conducted on the phone and by email.

In February 2005, CNI hosted the first national CFNP workshop in conjunction with the National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. Representatives of more than 30 grantees from around the nation gathered to discuss how CFNP helps to improve food and nutrition resources for low-income individuals and communities through improved coordination, expansion of child nutrition programs, and innovative solutions to hunger.

CNI’s CFNP Nationwide Initiative is winding down; funding ceases at the end of September. CNI is honored to have worked with and served the active and extensive network that the Community Food and Nutrition Program has developed over the years. For thousands of low-income Americans, CFNP is clearly making a difference.

Who is Sheila Foley? For more than twenty years, Sheila has been CNI’s link to agencies around the U.S. that help low-income people. Sheila is circulation manager for CFNP Report, copy editor, technical advisor, and “friendly voice” of CNI, and over the years she has heard just about all there is to know about CFNP.

Tufts Nutrition magazine on the Dietary Guidelines

The online edition of Tufts Nutrition magazine, posted just recently, includes interviews with several graduates about the new Dietary Guidelines. For example, Amy Barr, M.S., Ed.M., R.D. (G78):

For decades, we have been promoting the concept of balance, variety and moderation (BVM). True, considering the growing problems of global obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease—not just in First World countries, but in developing nations and cultures as well—suddenly, it seems, we’ve realized that the triple concept of BVM has fallen short of achieving better health and nutrition.

Yet could the pendulum be swinging back wildly in the direction of dining denial, self-righteous eating and nutrition nannyism? As a registered dietitian who is proud to say that I’ve been involved in nearly every aspect of the food world from furrow to fork, I was taken aback recently when a colleague suggested that we designate certain products “hazard foods.” The comment followed a discussion by dietitians who claimed that, indeed, there are “bad” foods and “good” foods and that the former should be avoided, period!

The magazine also includes Dean Eileen Kennedy's preview of a possible new fellowship for excellent incoming Ph.D. students.

Berkman presentation on food weblogs

Business weblogging expert Bill Ives led a lively discussion of food weblogs last night at the weekly Thursday weblogging meeting hosted by Harvard's Berkman Center on the Internet and Society. Ives discussed innovative weblog marketing efforts by restaurants, such as Horsefeathers in North Conway, NH. Other food weblogs discussed include VanEats, the Radical Chef, the late Julie/Julia Project, the Tasting Menu, Chez Pim, and Cooking for Engineers. One interesting detour in the conversation covered the sociology of regional barbeque styles in the United States. The weekly Berkman meeting brings together webloggers with a wide variety of interests, from Lisa Williams' local interests to Beth Kanter's weblogs on technology and Cambodia.