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.

The diversity of state experiences with food stamp caseload dynamics

I will be in Los Angeles later this week, to give a paper on the Thrifty Food Plan research at one Saturday session of the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM).

While there, I hope to see first hand some of the food retail hardships in the car-centered city, which have been getting a lot of coverage lately. See, for example, the report "Shopping for a Market" about new food retail entry (by researchers at Occidental), and the report "Designed for Disease" linking food retail to health conditions (by researchers at UCLA). Send any suggestions for places to visit or good food movement people to meet.

Meanwhile, I will be moderating another Saturday session, about how state-level differences in economic conditions and food stamp policies are related to differences in food security, hunger, and other outcomes. Nader Kabbani and I did a study a few years ago, investigating the importance of state-level variations in food stamp policies -- such as the length of the certification period for proving continued eligibility -- which turn out to be surprisingly influential in the Food Stamp Program, despite the program's reputation as a last bastion of national level rules in a sea of federalism.

Here is a fun illustration of the data from Nader's and my study. The basic static pattern in the opening picture is that states with higher unemployment tend to have higher food stamp participation. Hit play to see the dynamics of food stamp caseloads over the course of the 1990s, during a period just before (blue) and after (red) the adoption of welfare reforms. By clicking, you can select particular states to follow over time. Or, by selecting different variables from the triangle symbols, you can look at different variables, such as the certification periods discussed above.

Raisin Brahms and Van Goghgurt

Warning: do not write the anti-advertising agency's Steve Lambert asking for rates on advertising work, unless you are ready to be mocked! From the agency's blog, I enjoyed these public service videos from the Ad Council and the American Council for the Arts, playing off major food brands. Was this done with permission of the food brands?

Vote

Vote today. Vote for the country you want to live in. Vote for peace, justice, economic growth, national security, God's purpose, your investment interests, or good stewardship of the environment you want to leave your children and grandchildren. Name your principles and vote for them today.

The role of folate (an interpretation)

Many readers of this blog have probably been wondering about "the role of folate in epigenetic regulation of colon carcinogenesis."

What? As you check your memory banks for things you have been wondering about, this doesn't sound familiar?

Perhaps it will help if I give an interpretation in plain English: many readers have been wondering "whether too much folate raises the risk of colon cancer." Ah, that sounds more familiar. U.S. Food Policy covered that question last Fall.

See, it all depends on the interpretation.

Consider this video.



That is Friedman School Ph.D. student Lara Park's submission to the 2009 "Dance Your Ph.D." contest, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Apparently, the contest outcome depends in part on the number of YouTube views.

Coalition news

The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a new website and blog. One recent post covers the Presidential Transition Team Project, for which (Friedman School alum) Aimee Witteman is the contact person.

The Community Food Security Coalition's recent electronic newsletter announces the group's fall 2008 election results. The returning board members include the Congressional Hunger Center's Ed Cooney (a Friedman School overseer) and the coalition's president Molly Anderson (adjunct faculty and founder of the Agriculture, Food, and Environment program at the Friedman School), and new members include Laura Irizarry (another alum). As you probably know, the coalition's vibrant listserv is a leading source of information in community food security.

Fair prices for tomato pickers

In May, we linked to the Miami Herald's coverage of the struggle between Florida tomato pickers, Burger King, and a dirty tricks company hired by the fast food giant. Earlier this month, the Green Fork's Leslie Hatfield provided an update on recent developments in an article and accompanying video for the Huffington Post.

For Burger King, the Goldman Sachs-owned chain that signed with CIW [the Coalition of Immokalee Workers] last May at the US capitol building (but only after months of protests, a blog scandal and allegedly spying on CIW's partner group, the Student/Farmworker Alliance) the penny-a-pound increase amounts to an estimated $250,000 dollars per year. To put that in perspective, Eric Schlosser's November 07 op-ed "Penny Foolish" pointed out that "[i]n 2006, the bonuses of the top 12 Goldman Sachs executives exceeded $200 million - more than twice as much money as all of the roughly 10,000 tomato pickers in southern Florida earned that year."

More recently, organic grocery chain Whole Foods came to an agreement with CIW. That Whole Foods was beat to the table by such cheap, decidedly un-organic eateries as Taco Bell, McDonalds and Burger King may seem ironic to those who snidely call the chain "Whole Paycheck" and may expect that those relatively high prices might translate not only to the food being organic, but also fair. This is, in part, why we're seeing from food advocates a shift away from "organic," a label that has not only been co-opted by huge corporations, but also speaks only to a food's impact on personal health (and to a much lesser extent, ecological health, but only in its initial production and not, say, its shipping) toward the more inclusive term, "sustainable," which is also being co-opted by industry but at least, in theory, speaks to other aspects of food production, including labor.

Now, CIW is after Chipotle, the growing chain that has built a reputation for social responsibility in the organic and local food arenas, and whose "Food with Integrity" campaign stands to take a major hit in the credibility department if they don't sit down with the Coalition. But that could prove difficult for Chipotle, which released a statement last month (before things got really crazy, even) warning share holders that the weak economy, coupled with rising food costs, would likely amount to lower profits than last year's.

No one knows what the future holds, but as our economic system hovers over the proverbial "rock bottom," it seems like a good time to revisit our policies, both national and personal, when it comes to the money we spend. What is the value of a tomato, and why? What (from fertilizers and pesticides to labor to transport) went into it, and does its price reflect those inputs? Or has a market driven by speculation and subsidies installed a false cap on that price, creating a decidedly unsustainable system that benefits CEOs over citizens, puts the squeeze on smaller businesses and leaves the laborers to pick up the slack?