Corrections and Housekeeping

Corrections

1. I razzed Chico, a discussant in an online forum, for quoting a misleading interpretation of the number of people who are hungry in America. The statistic 38 million correctly refers to the number of Americans who live in households classified by USDA as experiencing, at some time during 12 months, "food insecurity" -- a condition of food-related hardship that is milder than what most people would describe as "hunger." It turned out Chico had read an exaggerated definition of this statistic several posts earlier on U.S. Food Policy, in an otherwise-sensible quotation from the national anti-hunger group, the Food Research and Action Center. My apologies to Chico!

2. In the body of a recent post, I described the State laws that are under threat from recent legislative action in the House as addressing "food safety labeling" issues (by which I meant fairly mild rules that provide consumers with improved food label information about food safety issues, so that the consumer can make an informed decision). While many of the State rules in question have that character, others are more direct food safety regulations (having nothing to do with labeling).

Housekeeping

The comment spam finally got the better of me. I have set the default to include no comments, and will add back the comment feature only on posts that I think may generate especially interesting discussion. This may be all for the best -- readers may be more likely to read and respond to each other's comments if the commenting opportunities are less frequent and more concentrated. I have seen this use of comments work well on other weblogs.

USDA investigates possible case of mad cow disease

Here is Libby Quaid's (AP) reporting via the Chicago Tribune website:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture is investigating a possible case of mad cow disease, the agency's chief veterinarian said Saturday.

A routine test indicated the possible presence of mad cow disease, John Clifford said. The USDA would not say where the animal was from.

The cow did not enter the human or animal food chain, Clifford said.

The department is conducting more detailed tests at its laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and should have results in four to seven days.

"This inconclusive result does not mean we have found a new case of BSE," Clifford said, giving the abbreviation for the disease's formal name, bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Bad, but not quite that bad

U.S. Food Policy has been getting incoming links from an online discussion forum, which included the following quote from Chico (a five-star "God Member" of the forum):

Re: Maddening Transatlantic Confusion
Reply #11 - Yesterday at 20:00:02

With 38 million Americans living in hunger or on the edge of hunger, states, cities, food banks, religious groups and other community-based non-profits are already struggling to meet the needs.

America's Second Harvest reports 25 million Americans receive emergency food

From http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/

Is this true?

I couldn't believe the 38 million figure came from U.S. Food Policy... and it appears it didn't. [3/12/2006: See the humbling correction. It did indeed come from this weblog.] My post on the Second Harvest report cited the estimate of how many Americans receive emergency food. These estimates were initially produced by the reputable consulting firm, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

I thought the 38 million figure might have come from following the link to Second Harvest, but the description in the report there is careful, accurate, and pointed:

Recent government data indicate that at least 13.5 million households in the United States (11.9% of all households) were food insecure in 2004, of which 4.4 million (3.9% of all U.S. households) had experienced hunger at some point in that year. The food insecure households contained an estimated 38 million people, of whom almost 14 million were children. The existence of large numbers of people without secure access to adequate nutritious food represents a serious national concern.

Please let me know if you can find the source of the exaggerated description of the meaning of the 38 million people statistic. If it comes from Second Harvest, I am sure they will be glad to edit it, since it is clear above that they are making such a strong effort to provide accurate statistics, and accurate explanations of the statistics.

USDA to name retailers during food safety recalls

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced on Monday that it is proposing to publicize the names of food retailers whose food products are the subject of a food safety recall. Until now, the agency has published the name of the manufacturer that produced a contaminated food product, but not the name of the groceries where the product was sold.

"We believe that publishing a list of retail establishments that have received products subject to recall will help consumers more easily determine if they purchased recalled product," said USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond.

The proposed rule could improve the effectiveness of the market economy in protecting consumers from foodborne illness and other hazards. Because retailers could suffer economic hardship from food recalls, even if the food safety issue is the fault of a food manufacturer, the retailers may press manufacturers to guarantee the safety of the food. Under this rule, the market incentive to provide a safe product may be strengthened, easing the current strains on government regulatory efforts to ensure safe food.

The text of the proposed rule notes that food manufacturers generally do not want competitors to know their list of clients. Under the proposed system, the manufacturer's retailers would "generally" be identified using USDA records, rather than the manufacturer's own files. The list of retailers would be published on a USDA website. Especially with the qualification "generally," this proposal is likely to make manufacturers nervous and yet further increase their incentive to provide a safe product.

Food manufacturers may oppose this proposed rule. Their voice will be strongly heard in the process of formal comments on the proposal. If you would like your own view to be heard, submit comments on the proposed rule to the FSIS email address: fsis.regulationscomments @ fsis.usda.gov. In the email, refer clearly to the agency name (Food Safety Inspection Service) and to "docket number 04-006P." Comments will be posted to an FSIS website.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer group, hailed USDA's proposed rule as an important advance. CSPI had campaigned for just such a rule in 2004, and had also asked that USDA be given authority to order food safety recalls. Currently, USDA can request voluntary compliance with a recall, and to date no companies have ever refused such a request.

Farmadelphia

This, posted by Sarah Rich on the website inhabit, is beautiful:

Farmadeliphication (fahr'muh'deli'fi'kay'shun), n. 1. The process of turning all of Philadelphia's vacant and abandoned lots into urban farms: The 'Farmadeliphication' of once decrepit buildings into farm structures advances fresh ways of seeing old structures as well as allowing for an organic transformation of history that contributes to the present day fabric. 2. What might happen if the Front Studio team's entry to the Urban Voids competition moves beyond the conceptual stage.

Farmadelphia proposes a break down of the divisions between ecology and the built environment - a pretty standard mission among urban revitalization advocates these days. But Front's vision doesn't merely sprinkle a community garden here and there; they want to Farmadelphify the whole city.

In this scenario, vacant lots around Philadelphia would be converted into agricultural plots, and the abandoned buildings that occupy many of those sites would stay put, only they'd become useful again in the context of the farm. As a community renewal effort, Farmadelphia would bring people together around both the labor and the rewards of having productive crops growing in the neighborhood. The farms would establish employment opportunities and encourage entrepreneurship among citizens who might want to sell their harvest to groceries or restaurants. Of course, this would also increase the availability and affordability of fresh, local produce all over the city - what's better than gathering your own greens at dinner time or picking an apple on the way home?

The subtitle for inhabit is "future-forward design for the world you inhabit."


Thanks to Sarah Rich for permission and Jack from Fork & Bottle for the link suggestion.

Nutrition program consequences in the President's FY 2007 budget

In response to the release of the President's fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget proposal last month, the Food Research and Action Center distills the national anti-hunger group's counter-proposal into several simple themes:

Say No to Budget and Funding Threats to Nutrition Programs

Reject Multi-Year Caps in Key Discretionary Programs. The Administration's proposal to set binding caps on discretionary programs that do not allow for inflation or population growth will shrink programs more each year -- with a 4 percent cut in FY2007 tripling to a 13 percent cut in FY 2011.

Reject Another Round of Budget Reconciliation. It would exacerbate the harm to low-income families made in the FY 2006 Reconciliation Bill. The FY2006 Reconciliation bill cut $39 billion from entitlement programs. Low-income families will be hard pressed to cope with the deep cuts already made in Medicaid, student loans, child support enforcement, child care, foster care, disability assistance and other essential programs.

Don’t Shift Costs to States, Charities and Families. With 38 million Americans living in hunger or on the edge of hunger, states, cities, food banks, religious groups and other community-based non-profits are already struggling to meet the needs. Don’t add to those burdens by federal program cuts.

Meanwhile, the clever folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put several public documents together -- including some documents that the administration apparently released in error -- to paint a clearer picture of the proposed budget's real implications in the out years.

The President’s budget proposes substantial cuts in funding for domestic discretionary programs over the next five years. The budget specifies the funding level for each program in 2007, but the levels for specific programs for years after 2007 — the years in which the overall level of reductions in domestic discretionary programs would grow substantially — are hard to discern from the budget documents the Administration released publicly. This analysis uses Administration materials that were not widely distributed — including a key Office of Management and Budget (OMB) computer run that apparently was released inadvertently — to show the multi-year impact of the proposed cuts on a number of important domestic discretionary programs.

This analysis also examines the effect that the cuts in funding for domestic programs the President has proposed for 2007 through 2011 would have state by state. Many domestic programs have long been operated efficiently through a system of grants-in-aid to state and local governments. Nearly half of the overall reduction in domestic discretionary funding proposed by the President for 2007 would come from such grants-in-aid. Implementing these reductions would force states to reduce the services they provide or increase their own taxes to make up for the federal costs being shifted to them. This analysis shows how proposed cuts in selected programs would affect individual states.

The submission of the President's budget proposal starts the annual cycle of budget debate in Congress. The budget committees must pass a version of the budget that satisfies Congress. For any cuts to "mandatory programs" -- including entitlement programs like food stamps -- the authorizing committees must approve the cuts. For any cuts to "discretionary programs" -- including WIC -- the appropriations committees may be the main locus of debate.

House seeks to preempt state food safety rules

In recent years, the federal government has demonstrated little stomach for serious efforts to improve food safety. So, state governments have taken up the slack and passed a number of policies -- not so much to regulate food safety -- but just to require food companies to inform consumers about food safety hazards [3/12/2006: This introduction to the post does not get the story quite right. See correction].

After all, only informed consumers can steer the market economy down the road toward the public good.

This week, however, the federal government's House of Representatives finally roused itself from its slumber, and decided to take action -- to seek to overturn state-level food safety labeling rules.

See the Associated Press, Reuters, and New York Times.

From the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):

In a nutshell: a bill that effectively wipes out more than 200 food safety and labeling rules in 50 states has suddenly started to move, after having been dormant for ages. There have been no hearings, and hardly any public debate.

The potential consequences, of course, are huge.

People concerned about the bill can contact their lawmakers at NRDC’s action site.