TEFAP Alliance Blog

Foodlinks America - March 16, 2007

In this issue:

• Budget Outlines Will Determine Nutrition Priorities
• Proposed Legislation
• Food Stamp Facts
• Obesity Round-Up
• Eligibility Guidelines Updated for WIC
• Resources
• Beyond Emergency Food: Benefit Bank Puts Money in the Pockets of the Poor
• 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@tefapalliance.org.

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@tefapalliance.org.

Budget Outlines Will Determine Nutrition Priorities

The future of domestic nutrition programs hangs in the balance this month as House and Senate Budget Committees begin debate on fiscal year 2008 budget resolutions that will set the parameters for future spending, including funding under the Farm Bill. Floor votes on the budget resolution are expected by the end of the month.

Food program advocates are pressing to make room in the budget for improvements in the Food Stamp Program, which will be renewed and revised as part of the Farm Bill. Commodity distribution programs come under the same legislation. Nutrition interests, however, must compete with farm price support payments and other agricultural priorities in that portion of the budget. And the current high prices for farm crops means less money will be available overall for the Farm Bill, making nutrition program expansions that much more difficult.

Members of Congress, particularly Democrats, have introduced a spate of legislation in recent weeks that would affect food assistance (see “Proposed Legislation” story below), from limiting junk foods that compete with school meals to reduced paperwork for summer feeding programs to extending the tax deduction for charitable food donations.

But all of these proposals could be stymied by the “pay-go” rules adopted by this Congress to curb the debt-increasing, reckless spending of recent years. Under the rules, if Congress wants to provide new expenditures in one program, it must find savings in another or raise taxes. So far, the Democrats have put forth detailed plans for boosting spending on food programs, health, and other priorities, but have not addressed the revenues needed to support them.

Proposed Legislation

Among bills recently introduced in the 110th session of the U.S. Congress are the following:

• House Resolution (H.R.) 1344: Introduced by Representative Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) and three bipartisan co-sponsors, this bill would increase the amount of federal administrative funds for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and index the amount for inflation, authorize a nationwide survey every five years of foods purchased by school food authorities, and fund a free school lunch and breakfast eligibility pilot project.

• H.R. 1363: Introduced by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and nine bipartisan co-sponsors, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act would address the nutrition and health of school children by updating the definition of “food of minimal nutritional value” in the national school lunch and breakfast programs to conform with current nutritional science.

• Senate (S.) 651: Introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and three co-sponsors, the Promoting Lifelong Active Communities Every Day (PLAY Every Day) Act would promote the national recommendation of physical activity to children, families, and communities across the U.S. The legislation would develop a Community Play Index to measure policy, program, and environmental barriers to physical activity and authorize a Model Communities of Play grant program.

• S. 689: Introduced by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act would permanently extend the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory enacted last summer (see Foodlinks America of September 1, 2006).

• S. 770: Introduced by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Food Stamp Vitamin and Mineral Improvement Act would permit households participating in the Food Stamp Program to purchase nutritional supplements providing vitamins and minerals with their benefits.

• S. 771: Introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ten bipartisan co-sponsors, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act would address the nutrition and health of school children by updating the definition of “food of minimal nutritional value” in the national school lunch and breakfast programs to conform with current nutritional science.

• S. 790: Introduced by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and two bipartisan co-sponsors, this legislation would amend the National School Lunch Act to permit operation of the simplified Summer Food Service Program for Children in all states and by all sponsor organizations.

For bill summary and status information, along with the text of legislation, visit: http://thomas.loc.gov and enter the bill number.

Food Stamp Facts

• Benefits buy less: The purchasing power of food stamps is being seriously eroded by actions taken more than a decade ago, according to “Families’ Food Stamp Benefits Purchase Less Food Each Year,” an analysis released on March 6, 2007 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in Washington, D.C. The average food stamp benefit nationwide in 2007 is only $1.05 per person per meal. Reduced buying power is directly attributable to the legacy of provisions in the 1996 welfare reform law, which cut Food Stamp Program spending by $28 billion over a six-year period, said CBPP. This year, families are getting about $35 per month less in benefits than they would have if the 1996 cuts had not been made.

Congressional action in 1996 reduced the maximum benefit from 103 percent of the cost of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) to 100 percent. Because calculation of the TFP lags behind actual prices, it is now virtually impossible for a food stamp household to buy even a minimally adequate diet.

The 1996 law also froze the standard deduction at $134 for most families. “The standard deduction represents a portion of household income that is not available to purchase food because it must be used for other necessities,” the Center explained. “Prior to 1996, the standard deduction was indexed each year to account for inflation, in recognition of the fact that basic living expenses rise with inflation.” Households with high shelter costs face a double whammy, “because the formula for calculating the shelter deduction magnifies the effect of the standard deduction cut.”

“More than ten years after enactment of the 1996 law, the cuts in food stamp benefits contained in that law continue to deepen with each passing year and to affect most food stamp households, including most of the working poor and the elderly poor. Each year, food stamp households are able to purchase less food than the year before,” the CBPP concluded. The remedy, the Center believes, can be found in the legislative arena. “In the 2007 Farm Bill, Congress has the opportunity to take action to address this matter and to improve the adequacy of food stamp benefits for the nation’s neediest families.” To learn more, go to: http://www.cbpp.org/3-6-07fa.htm.

• Ready to defend choice: A perennial argument for reducing food stamp costs and improving personal health is to limit the types of foods that food stamp participants can buy. Anticipating debate on this subject during reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program under the Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released an 11-page document titled “Implications of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp Benefits,” that explains why this is a bad idea and noting that “there are serious problems with the rationale, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of this proposal.”
USDA notes that:

- “No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.” Over 300,000 food products on the market would have to be evaluated.

- “Implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and cost.” Responsibility for enforcing compliance would rest with check-out clerks at 160,000 food stamp-authorized stores nationwide.

- “Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp recipients.” Many food stamp participants use their own money in addition to government benefits, and such purchases could not be limited.

- “No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor dietary quality or obesity.” Studies have shown that food stamp users are no more likely than higher income consumers to make poor food choices.

For a more complete discussion of the issue, see:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/FSP/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf.

• Medicine that works: The Food Stamp Program is a vital resource in improving the health of children. Over half of all food stamp recipients are children. Nearly 80 percent of benefits nationwide go to households with children, increasing their buying power by about $300 per month. A House Agriculture subcommittee, chaired by Representative Joe Baca (D-CA), explored this matter in depth in a March 13, 2007 hearing on the impact of food stamps on children’s health.

“As the father of two young children, I know how hard nutritional education can be,” said Jo Bonner of Alabama, the subcommittee’s top Republican, in his opening statement. “Providing increased fruit and vegetable options in the food assistance programs can help improve the quality of many Americans’ diets, which is why we must work to improve the nutrition aspect of the Food Stamp Program as we move forward in the 2007 Farm Bill process,” he said.

The subcommittee also heard from Dr. Mariana Chilton of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, who claimed, “Food stamps is a medicine that works. Our research shows that children whose families received food stamps were 26 percent less likely to be food insecure. Our research has also shown that food stamps buffer young children from health problems.” She cited a recent study that found greater improvement in reading and math test scores among children from families that had begun receiving food stamps versus those leaving the program. Dr. Chilton called for higher food stamp benefits: “Food stamps are an effective medicine. But most of the time, our research shows that the dose of medicine is too low.”

Witness testimony from the hearing may be viewed at: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html.

• Combat pay won’t count: In 2005, Congress passed a law excluding from consideration as income in the Food Stamp Program additional pay received by military personnel as a result of deployment in a combat zone. The recently-passed fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill extended this provision. Consequently, low-income military families will not be penalized because their members in the service are fighting overseas. For details, see: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Memo/07/030107.pdf.

Obesity Round-Up

• Fattening up when school is out: A new study due out next month finds that school children in the U.S. are more likely to gain weight during the summer and other times when school is not in session because they lose the normal order of their daily regime. Ohio State University (OSU) researchers analyzed body mass index (BMI) scores for over 5,300 students in nearly one thousand schools throughout the year and found that the scores increased three times faster during vacations. The findings are discussed in an article that will appear in the April 2007 issue of The American Journal of Public Health.

Schools help students control weight by providing structured eating patterns, limited access to junk foods and caloric beverages, basic education on what constitutes a balanced diet, and sufficient exercise. “The results don’t mean that schools can’t do a better job,” noted OSU sociologist Paul von Hipple. “Schools can insure that they have healthier choices available in vending machines and continue to improve the nutrition values of lunches, but we shouldn’t be surprised if these changes have a relatively small impact on childhood obesity. The major part of the problem is outside school,” he added.

• Eating more in a large group: Previous studies have found that, in both animals and adults, food consumption increases as the size of the group increases. It appears that the same holds true for children. University of Michigan researchers reviewed the behavior of 54 children snacking in groups of three and nine. They found that children consumed 30 percent more food when eating in a group of nine than when eating in a group of three during longer snacks.

Results, published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in February 2007, concluded that, “Social facilitation of food consumption operates in preschool-aged children” and that “group size effect merits consideration in creating eating behavior interventions.” For more details, see: http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/…. relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT.

• Not weighting for puberty: Childhood obesity appears to cause girls to reach puberty at an earlier age, according to results from a new University of Michigan study published in the March 2007 issue of the journal Pediatrics. Of more than 350 girls followed by researchers, those who were heavier at age three and gained weight during the next three years reached puberty (defined by breast development) by age nine.

“Our finding that increased body fatness is associated with the earlier onset of puberty provides additional evidence that growing rates of obesity among children in this country may be contributing to the trend of early maturation in girls,” said lead researcher Dr. Joyce Lee. “Previous studies had found that girls who have earlier puberty tend to have higher body mass index, but it was unclear whether puberty led to the weight gain or weight gain led to the earlier onset of puberty. Our study offers evidence that it is the latter,” Lee noted. To learn more, go to: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/119/3/E624.

Eligibility Guidelines Updated for WIC

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published updated income eligibility guidelines for participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC Program). The revised guidelines, updated for inflation, will be in effect from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. The new eligibility levels were provided in a notice in the March 13, 2007 Federal Register and may be viewed at:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-1146.pdf.

Resources

Below is information on three new publications that may be of interest to the Foodlinks America readership:

“Going Local: Paths to Success for Farm to School Programs,” from Occidental College and the Community Food Security Coalition (CSFC), includes case studies from eight states on the different ways in which farm to school projects can operate successfully. The 28-page report may be downloaded free at: http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/publications/goinglocal.pdf. Hard copies may also be requested from: cfj@oxy.edu.

“Healthy Food, Healthy Communities: A Decade of Community Food Projects,” is a 28-page report published by the CFSC that describes the first 10 years of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Community Food Projects (CFP) program, including several CFP projects that have been highlighted in this newsletter in recent months. Access the report at: http://www.foodsecurity.org/CFPdecadereport.pdf.

Another resource available from the CFSC is the new “Federal Policy Advocacy Handbook,” a 24-page document that provides the basics of the federal policy cycle, including program authorization, appropriations, and implementation, and guidance on how to effectively participate in the federal policy process. The Handbook is available free at: http://www.foodsecurity.org/FedPolicy2007_fnl.pdf.

Beyond Emergency Food: Benefit Bank Puts Money in the Pockets of the Poor

A new, community-based, online response to poverty – The Benefit Bank (TBB) – can process federal and state tax returns and screen potential eligibles for programs that benefit low-income people. Initiated in 1992 by the Philadelphia-based Solutions for Progress, Inc., a public policy consulting firm working for social change, TBB is a web-based tool (with no software required) designed to help individuals and families overcome poverty and build social capital by gaining access to tax credits and public benefit programs.

Billions of dollars in public funds available to the needy go untouched each year because applying for state and federal benefits is confusing, intimidating, time consuming, or embarrassing. In addition, billions in tax credits are also left unclaimed due to a lack of technical knowledge. TBB, the only system available to process tax returns and assess potential eligibility for publicly-sponsored health and social benefits, can bring people closer to stability and self-sufficiency by removing these obstacles.

The economic impact of TBB on clients can be significant. Receipt of tax refunds, coupled with eligibility for food stamps, energy assistance, health care, and other services, can add up to thousands of dollars per year. Moreover, operation of TBB is appropriate for a wide range of community-based, faith-based, social service, health, and other helping organizations.

“If by increasing a family’s access to medical visits and prescription coverage they don’t have to choose between food and medicine … If by helping a senior citizen apply for utility assistance they can avoid having to choose between food and heat … If we can be the link between your agency and a new tool that helps make those things possible … then we are ready to fill that role,” asserts the Ohio Association of Second Harvest Food Banks (OASHF), one of the organizations in seven states and Washington, D.C. currently overseeing TBB programs.

OASHF is sponsoring 12 AmeriCorps*VISTA members and has based one at each of the 12 regional food banks in Ohio to establish TBB sites and train counselors. First-year goals of training 30 counselors from 10 different agencies have already been exceeded, OASHF outreach director Jason Elchert told Foodlinks America.

“We have a detailed, strategic three-year implementation plan for The Ohio Benefit Bank,” said Elchert. However, he noted that in just the first six months, “The team established more than 200 Benefit Bank sites, facilitated more than 60 training sessions, and trained more than 500 counselors from more than 200 non-profit agencies across Ohio.” Among the organizations trained are food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, legal aid programs, and government agencies. New sites and new counselors are being added monthly.

The results are tangible. In only six months in Ohio alone, there has been an infusion of more than $2.5 million in credits and benefits for low- and moderate-income residents, according to Elchert, including over $500,000 in food stamps, $1.3 million in medical benefits, and more than $600,000 in tax refunds. Nationwide, the average TBB supplement is nearly $1,300 per person.

“The primary goal of the AmeriCorps*VISTA team is to engage community and faith-based organizations, public and private partners to become Benefit Bank sites and to take an active role assisting the community in taking a proactive approach to stabilizing Ohioans,” explained Elchert. Completely in line with the mission of OASHF, “This focus area encourages member food banks to, among other things, build agency capacity and increase utilization of federal programs, including the Food Stamp Program,” he noted. “TBB provides food banks and their communities with an additional, effective tool to end hunger.”

For additional information on The Benefit Bank, contact Jason Elchert at 614-221-4336 or Jason@oashf.org,
or visit the national website at: http://www.thebenefitbank.com/.

Small Bites

Household food spending up: Per capita spending on food in the urban U.S. increased from $2,035 in 2003 to $2,207 in 2004.

Household food spending down: Increases in income, however, caused per capita food expenditures as a share of total income to drop from 9.8 percent to 9.5 percent in the same period.

Concentrating on where we buy: In 2005, the 20 largest retailers in America grabbed 61.6 percent of total grocery sales, up from 40.6 percent a decade earlier.

Buying food everywhere: Food sales by non-foodstore retailers amounted to 31.6 percent of the more than $518 billion in retail food sales nationwide in 2005, up from 16 percent in 1995.

Do you carrot all where your food comes from?: Three countries produce almost half of the world’s carrots. The U.S. is third, behind Russia, with both producing about seven percent of world output. China is far in the lead at 34 percent.

Aging carrot consumers: Average per capita carrot consumption in the U.S. was 9.45 pounds in 2005, but people over 65 ate 13.3 pounds per year, nearly 40 percent more than the national average.

mvauthier :: Mar.16.2007 :: Foodlinks America :: No Comments »:: Print This Post

Trackback this post | Feed on Comments to this post