TEFAP Alliance Blog

Foodlinks America - October 27, 2006

In this issue:

· Bonus Commodities Disappearing
· Eat Your Veggies to Stay Mentally Alert
· Food Stamp Facts
· Obesity Round-Up
· Community Food Projects Profile: Berkeley Revolutionizes School Food
· Small Bites

Foodlinks America is published 24 times a year by California Emergency Foodlink in Sacramento, CA and distributed by Weinberg & Vauthier Consulting, 6412 CR 116, Burnet, TX 78611; Zy Weinberg and Barbara Vauthier, Editors; email: bvauthier@281.com.

Foodlinks America is not copyrighted, so the information can be freely shared with colleagues and friends, though attribution for reprinted articles is appreciated. For archived issues of Foodlinks America, go to: www.tefapalliance.org. To request a free subscription to the newsletter or to submit story ideas, contact Barbara Vauthier at: bvauthier@281.com.

REMINDER: To assure that you continue to receive Foodlinks America without interruption, add bvauthier@281.com to the white list for your spam filter.

Bonus Commodities Disappearing

Editor’s Note: An article in our last issue described the emergency food system in crisis due to declining food supplies and noted one reason for the decrease is fewer bonus commodities, as discussed below.

Government-purchased foods that have bolstered the nation’s emergency food system in recent years and helped feed millions of hungry Americans are rapidly declining due to improved markets in the U.S. and abroad. The quantity of “bonus” commodities purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 2006, which just ended, amounted to only 18 percent of the total provided five years ago.

Many of the bonus items are bought using “Section 32” funds. Section 32 refers to a provision of a 1935 law that designates 30 percent of annual customs receipts for the support of agricultural programs. Section 32 funds may be used to increase domestic consumption of farm products by diverting surpluses from normal channels for use by low-income groups. These funds may also be used for disaster relief and last year helped provide emergency food to hurricane victims as well as aid to producers affected by the violent weather.

Bonus purchases, for both price support purposes and surplus removal, are coordinated by three agencies within USDA. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers price support programs for dairy and grain products. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) oversees marketing programs for fruits and vegetables, meat, poultry, fish, and eggs. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) accepts the commodities purchased by FSA and AMS and distributes them under nutrition assistance programs through both schools and emergency feeding outlets.

Although organizations getting food through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) have been drastically affected by the decreased amount of bonus, schools are fairly well insulated from the vagaries of the bonus situation. Federal law requires that 12 percent of the support USDA provides for the reimbursement of school meals must be in commodities, so even if bonus foods do not add substantially to the total, USDA is obligated to buy other products to reach the 12 percent level.

In the past, USDA has bought bonus chicken, beef, pork, apples, peaches, and huge amounts of non-fat dry milk. However, the only bonus items offered in fiscal year 2006 were canned sweet potatoes, grape juice, dried cherries, dry beans, and fig pieces.

“Bonus stuff is based on surplus removal and market conditions and markets are stronger,” said Rex Barnes, an Associate Deputy Administrator in AMS. “Farmers are doing rather well and they’re not coming to USDA to ask us to buy bonuses,” explained Joe Richardson, a specialist at the Congressional Research Service who tracks domestic food programs.

Additionally, not all bonus purchases are consummated as planned. When a bonus purchase quantity and dollar value are approved, it is the intention that USDA will purchase “up to” the specified amounts. However, market conditions can change through the course of a purchase and product thought to be available might not be by the time of the actual buy. As an example, in 2006 an asparagus bonus buy was approved for up to four million pounds. But adverse weather conditions greatly affected crop yields and the National Asparagus Council submitted a follow-up request asking the amount be reduced to two million pounds.

The outlook for bonus next year looks grim, with few products expected to be available. Several years ago, there was more than a billion pounds of dry milk in storage, but increased exports and stepped up USDA giveaways through TEFAP and another donation initiative depleted all stocks. In 2007, “The forecast for dairy products is zero,” an FSA official told Foodlinks America.

Eat Your Veggies to Stay Mentally Alert

Vegetables may be a fountain of youth. Consuming two or more servings of vegetables a day can slow a person’s mental decline by up to 40 percent compared with a person who consumes few vegetables, according to the results of a six-year study among nearly 4,000 elderly residents in Chicago. Eating lots of fruit, however, did not offer the same mental protection, although fruit consumption does offer other health benefits.

“People who consumed two or more vegetables a day had a 35 to 40 percent decrease in the decline of thinking ability over six years. That’s equivalent to being five years younger in age,” said Martha Clare Morris of Rush Hospital Medical Centre in Chicago, lead author of the study that appeared in the October 24, 2006 issue of the journal Neurology. The slowdown in cognitive decline turned out to be greatest in the oldest people who ate at least two servings of vegetables daily.

Morris also qualified her results by stating that greatest benefit came from eating high amounts of dark green leafy vegetables like spinach, kale, and collards. More modest benefits came from consumption of carrots, squash, and other yellow vegetables, followed by cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and Brussels sprouts. No significant benefit was measured from consumption of potatoes, legumes, or beans.

The research tracked the dietary habits and mental testing of 3,718 participants 65 or older on the south side of Chicago. Sixty-two percent were African American, 38 percent were non-Hispanic white, and 62 percent were female.

“This study is tremendously important,” said Alberto Ascherio, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, who found similar results over a two-year period in his research. “It’s not easy to capture the correlation between dietary behavior and cognitive function.” For more details, review the study results at:
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/8/1370.

Food Stamp Facts

The ups and downs of participation: In July 2006, the latest month for which official figures are available, nationwide participation in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) stood at 25,987,481 people. That number was down 88,928 people from June, but more than 421,000 above July 2005.

Millions still unserved: Only two-thirds (66 percent) of residents potentially eligible for food stamps in the nation’s 24 largest urban areas received them in 2004, according to a recent analysis, Food Stamp Access in Urban America, from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) in Washington, D.C. Low participation rates left more than $1.9 billion in benefits unclaimed that year, FRAC estimated.

FSP participation ranged from a low of 27 percent in San Diego County, CA to a high of 99 percent in Shelby County (Memphis), TN. Other metropolitan areas in the study included: Las Vegas, NV; Jacksonville, FL; Seattle, WA; Los Angeles, CA; Boston, MA; Houston, TX; Denver, CO; Oakland, CA; Phoenix, AZ; New York, NY; San Antonio, TX; Baltimore, MD; Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL; Miami, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Wichita, KS; Columbus, OH; Louisville, KY; Detroit, MI; Milwaukee, WI; and Indianapolis, IN.
“Too many families in America’s cities are facing a constant struggle against hunger. While there has been an increase in food stamp participation, thanks to strong outreach efforts, there are still millions unaware they could be receiving this help that is basic to their health and well-being,” said FRAC President Jim Weill.
“It’s not only low-income people who lose out when there is underparticipation in the program, but also local communities,” said Ellen Vollinger, FRAC’s Legal Director. “Research shows that each dollar in federal food stamp benefits generates nearly twice that in economic activity.” As a result of low participation, Los Angeles missed out on $463 million, New York City, $430 million; and Houston, $168 million. For more details, see:

http://www.frac.org/Press_Release/10.18.06.html.

Household profiles updated: The largest group of food stamp recipients is poor children, according to demographic information just released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). A summary of Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2005 revealed the following data on the 25.7 million people in 11.2 million households receiving food stamps last year:

- Half of all recipients were children;
- Eight percent were elderly (age 60 and older);
- 40 percent of households had incomes at or below half the poverty line;
- The average household had income at 60 percent of poverty;
- Only 12 percent of households had income above the poverty line;
- The average household had just $137 in resources;
- Over two-thirds (70 percent) had no countable resources; and
- The average household benefit was $209 per month.

To learn more, see: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/FSP/FSPPartHH.htm.

On-line application policies clarified: With more and more states implementing on-line food stamp application systems, USDA is monitoring states to make sure that they comply with federal law in the new high-tech environment. Because households deemed eligible for the FSP receive benefits retroactive to the date of application, it is important that procedures be in place to let households apply on first contact and clearly identify that date.

In a recent policy memorandum, USDA notes that, “A household may file an incomplete application form as long as the form contains the applicant’s name, address, and is signed by a responsible member of the household or the household’s authorized representative. This rule applies to both paper and on-line applications.” But in reviewing states’ on-line procedures, USDA found several states that do not allow a household to file an application on-line with just the minimum information.

In the memo, USDA directs states that are out of compliance to modify their systems and suggests alternatives for how to do so. To review the USDA memorandum, go to:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/06/101606.pdf.

Obesity Round-Up

Spare tires reduce car mileage: Americans are spending more on gas for their cars these days because of the extra weight they are driving around with – on their bodies. Overweight drivers and passengers are burning about one billion additional gallons of fuel per year, a figure that, when recent gas prices are considered, means we’re spending up to $2.2 billion more at the pump each year.

Sheldon Jacobson, a computer science professor at the University of Illinois, made the calculations based on a model that compared gasoline consumption and weight gain among Americans between 1960 and 2003. Both men and women were about 24 pounds heavier, according to the study, published in the October-December 2006 issue of the Engineering Economist.

“We came to the realization that our hunger for food and our hunger for oil are not independent,” said Jacobson. “If people decide as a nation to get healthier and lose weight and be fitter, not only will we have a healthier country, but we’re actually going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil very covertly, simply because we’re going to be using less,” he added. “What we have here is a socioeconomic implication of obesity.”

Obesity U: Freshman and sophomores are likely to add pounds when they go off to school, according to two of the largest and longest studies ever conducted on weight gain among college students. “Over the year, we found that males gained 5.6 pounds and female gained 3.6 pounds, with the large majority of that weight gained in the first semester,” said Elizabeth Lloyd-Richardson, a Brown University researcher involved in both studies, one done at a private school in the Northeast and another at a public university in the Midwest. Results were presented at an October 2006 meeting of the Obesity Society.

One-third of the students added 10 pounds or more during the freshman year and one-fifth gained 15 pounds or more. Although the causes of weight gain among college students have not yet been studied, possible explanations include more drinking, more socializing, less physical activity, high-fat dorm foods, stress, and the traditional pizza and beer diet. “Something about the freshman year and the sophomore year is putting these kids at risk,” said Thomas Wadden of the University of Pennsylvania, president of the Obesity Society. “I suspect part of this is they now have access to large amounts of food they can eat freely, without anyone at home saying enough is enough.”

Government speaking out of both sides of its mouth: The federal Dietary Guidelines focus on obesity prevention, recommending increased consumption of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fish, and low-fat dairy products. Meanwhile, other well-known and well-funded federally sponsored consumer communications promote increased consumption of beef, pork, and dairy products, including bacon cheeseburgers, barbecue pork ribs, pizza, and butter.

These latter communications are sponsored by the federal government’s commodity promotion efforts, known as “checkoff” programs. Checkoff programs are established by Congress, approved by a majority of commodity producers, managed jointly by a producer board and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and funded through a tax on the producers. The checkoffs, which collect over $600 million a year in mandatory fees, engage in advertising and marketing for their products. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the checkoff programs as “government speech.”

“Federal Communication about Obesity in the Dietary Guidelines and Checkoff Programs,” is a paper recently published by Parke Wilde of Tufts University in the journal Obesity that explores these inconsistencies. It may be found at: http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/967.

Community Food Projects Profile: Berkeley Revolutionizes School Food
Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a series of articles celebrating the tenth anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Community Food Projects program and featuring some of the more successful projects.

Berkeley, California has long been recognized nationwide for its leadership on social policy, with public and private organizations working together to effect change on vital issues. A citywide initiative to revamp school food policies, supported by a Community Food Projects (CFP) grant, exemplifies this proactive approach.

“Over the past decade, Berkeley has become a paragon of school lunch reform,” Time magazine announced in “Retooling School Lunch,” an article that appeared in its June 12, 2006 issue, featuring Berkeley as one of two school districts in the nation that had revolutionized its cafeteria operations.

“Our goal was always not just to change the food on the plate, but to change the hearts and minds of young people to understand and appreciate where their food comes from,” said Zenobia Barlow, executive director of the Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley, which received a $175,000 CFP grant in 1998 to tackle school food issues, among other goals. The Center, whose mission is “education for sustainable living,” catalyzed a network of organizations and individuals interested in improving the local food system. The network’s goal was to enhance food security for school-age children through a major transformation of the school district’s food service.

A principal objective of the CFP project was to improve access to healthy school meals for children in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), a system with 9,400 students at 15 school sites. In 1999, with facilitation and participation from the Center, BUSD adopted the first district-wide school food policy in the U.S. The policy encouraged purchasing food from sustainable local farms to the greatest extent possible, initiating instructional gardens at every school, and implementing a curriculum that made connections between the cafeteria, the garden, and the classroom. Among the first steps the district took to increase access to meals for low-income children was to expand free meals to include children formerly in the “reduced price” category and to initiate breakfast and after-school snack programs at all schools. The school policy created a Child Nutrition Advisory Committee to monitor and encourage implementation of institutional change.

BUSD then looked at food quality and freshness. The district altered its food procurement practices to emphasize locally grown, organic produce, with the goal of purchasing half of its food from local sources by the end of the three-year project. In the first year, BUSD started salad bars on seven campuses, began serving organic fruit at breakfast and lunch in all schools, provided organic snacks for all after-school programs, and offered vegetarian options for lunch. In year two, BUSD reported that 90 percent of its suppliers were located in the Bay Area and one-third of the produce purchased was organic. By the end of year three, purchases of local and organic foods had grown to 44 percent of the district’s total food spending.

In contrast to national trends of school kitchen consolidation and outsourcing of meals, BUSD began renovating and building school kitchens to bring the preparation of food closer to the students. In early 2000, the BUSD Board voted unanimously to propose a $116 million bond issue to include $7 million for construction of three new kitchens and the renovation of 12 others. Berkeley voters approved the bond in November 2000 by a margin of 83 percent. Shortly thereafter, the Center for Ecoliteracy received a $300,000 grant from the California Endowment Foundation to help BUSD devise a new business plan for its food service operations. This project later expanded and evolved into “Rethinking School Lunch,” an online guide and planning framework for food service and curriculum innovation in medium-sized school districts.

To increase student knowledge of food system issues, the Center held curriculum development institutes for five schools, and helped plan an environmental studies program that began offering seven courses at Berkeley High School. The Center also hired a nutritionist with funds from a state grant, so that the Center and BUSD could develop a hands-on food education curriculum to be integrated into classroom subjects. BUSD established school gardens at 14 of its 15 campuses to provide direct experience and food-related education for students and provide greens for school salad bars.

“The Child Nutrition Advisory Committee closely monitored implementation of policy changes to make sure there was no backsliding, and that the district operated in a way that was consistent with the policy ideals,” according to Ms. Barlow. The CFP grant not only succeeded in boosting food security initiatives in the school district, but in the city as a whole. “It’s been a long haul,” Ms. Barlow told Foodlinks America. “It’s taken 10 years to make these internal changes, but by taking a whole-systems approach, the goals of the project have become part of civic life.” In addition to working with the district to enact a school food policy, the Food Systems Project initiated a community policy process through the Berkeley Food Systems Council, which drafted food and nutrition policy recommendations that were adopted by the City Council.

The CFP project has fostered change beyond the local school district as well. The Rethinking School Lunch project has produced several publications, most of which are available on the Center’s website at: www.ecoliteracy.org. They include the Rethinking School Lunch Guide, a popular online resource that has aided thousands of school food advocates.

The BUSD food policy helped to inspire a federal mandate that every school district in the nation implement a wellness policy this year. The Center for Ecoliteracy produced a Model Wellness Policy Guide that many districts utilized in drafting their wellness policies. As part of the Rethinking School Lunch online resources, a series of monthly “bite-sized” essays by leading educators, writers, or food activists, “Thinking outside the Lunchbox,” is included in the Center’s newsletter and posted on its website. Most recently, the Center produced another online resource, a visual guide to an integrated curriculum, called “Linking Food, Culture, Health and the Environment.”

The changes at BUSD have been institutionalized and remain in place. As Time magazine reported in describing the Berkeley school food revolution:

“It’s lunch hour on a luminous spring day at Berkeley High School’s open campus – the perfect time to stroll to Extreme Pizza on nearby Shattuck Avenue, grab a Coke, order some pizza heaped with sausage and sit in the California sun. But in Berkeley High’s lunchroom, lines of students are waiting patiently for – get this – cafeteria food. The longest line – now get this – is for salad.” Commented Ann Cooper, a renowned chef who is now BUSD’s director of nutrition services, “We had to have four people making salads, and there was no one waiting for pizza! This happened organically. I couldn’t take their pizza from them, but now they’re doing it themselves.”

Small Bites

Choice vegetables: Potatoes, corn, and peas make up 40 percent of the vegetables Americans consume.

Not feeling their oats: Production of oats in the U.S. has reached its lowest level since the government began tracking it in 1866. Increasingly, cropland is being converted to corn and other crops that make more money. Imports from Canada and Europe are filling the gap.

An ounce of prevention: Only four percent of U.S. health care spending goes for prevention.

And pounds for care: Taking care of the sick uses 96 percent of health care costs in the U.S.

Food spending going fast: Forty percent of an average U.S. family’s food budget is spent on fast food.

And is eaten while going fast: An estimated 78 percent of all fast food diners use the drive-through.

mvauthier :: Oct.27.2006 :: Foodlinks America :: No Comments »:: Print This Post

Feed on Comments to this post