TEFAP Alliance Blog

Foodlinks America - May 11, 2007

In this issue:

• Appropriations, Farm Bill Progress Await Budget Outcome
• Legislative Proposal Offered to Advance TEFAP
• Proposed Legislation
• Food Stamp Facts
• School Food News & Notes
• More on the Food Versus Fuel Debate
• Reports from the Field
• 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.

Appropriations, Farm Bill Progress Await Budget Outcome

Funding levels for nutrition assistance in fiscal year 2008 and beyond could become clearer soon, as Congress nears its self-imposed May 15 deadline for completion of a budget resolution. Conferees for both the House and Senate are expected to be named shortly to work out a fiscal 2008 budget setting spending parameters for government programs and services. The budget resolution is also the vehicle that contains the so-called “reserve” fund of $15 billion (Senate) and $20 billion (House) above the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline for agriculture programs under the Farm Bill.

But unless Agriculture Committee lawmakers receive an unlikely waiver from the Pay/Go rules in effect this year, offsets in current programs or revenue enhancements will have to be found to support new initiatives. A number of proposals, costing billions of dollars, have been introduced in Congress to bolster food stamps, commodity distribution, and community food security programs (see “Proposed Legislation” for the most recent entries). But they will need budget authority and funding methods to gain traction.

Legislative Proposal Offered to Advance TEFAP

House Resolution (H.R.) 2129, introduced on May 3, 2007 by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), offers the most direct opportunity yet to improve future funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). McGovern and Emerson are two well-recognized Congressional leaders on anti-hunger issues and serve as co-chairs of the board of directors of the Congressional Hunger Center, exemplifying that organization’s bi-partisan approach to ending hunger.

H.R. 2129 would provide a direct appropriation of $250 million for mandatory TEFAP food purchases in fiscal year 2008, up from the current $140 million. The legislation also has a built-in escalator to meet the growing TEFAP need for food, raising each year’s funding total by the percentage by which the Food Stamp Program’s Thrifty Food Plan is adjusted annually. In addition, H.R. 2129 would increase the annual ceiling for TEFAP storage and distribution funds from $60 million to $100 million.

Although the TEFAP Alliance still endorses higher amounts of funding ($500 million annually for food purchases and $175 million for storage and distribution), H.R. 2129 represents a significant advancement of the program and the Alliance calls upon its newsletter readership to support this important legislation.

Proposed Legislation

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

House Resolution (H.R.) 2129: Introduced by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), the Feeding America’s Families Act would make substantial improvements in the Food Stamp Program by: raising benefits in four steps to 103 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP); increase the standard deduction and index it for inflation; raise the minimum benefit from $10 a month to 20 percent of the TFP for a one-person household; increase resource limits from the current $2,000 per household and $3,000 for a household with an elderly person to $3,700 and $5,500, respectively; augment income exclusions for retirement and education expenses; simplify work, eligibility, and reporting requirements; and provide increased funding for outreach grants. The bill would also increase support for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) to $250 million for food purchases in fiscal year 2008 and index the amount for inflation thereafter, and provide $100 million annually for TEFAP storage and distribution expenses, in addition to establishing a program of Community Food Assistance and Food Bank Infrastructure Grants and a Food for the Hungry Transportation Grants Program.

Senate (S.) 1094: Introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow and one co-sponsor, the Creating Research Extension and Teaching Excellence for the 21st Century Act or “CREATE 21 Act,” would reauthorize and provide additional funding for essential agricultural research, extension, and education programs and establish the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture as an independent agency.

S. 1132: Introduced by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ted Stevens (R-AK), this bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow Indian Tribes to receive charitable contributions of apparently wholesome food.

S. 1172: Introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and 14 bipartisan co-sponsors, the Hunger Free Communities Act would follow-up on the U.S. pledge at the 1996 World Food Summit to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by 2015 and set goals of reducing domestic hunger and food insecurity by 2010 to two and six percent, respectively, through the issuance of hunger reports and an appropriation of $50 million a year for the implementation of collaborative, infrastructure, and training and technical assistance grants. This a companion bill to H.R. 1938.

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

Participation dips in January: Nationwide food stamp participation declined slightly in January 2007, the latest month for which statistics are available. There were 23,589 fewer people receiving benefits that month than in December 2006. Nonetheless, overall participation remained high, with 26,364,153 people in the program in January, more than 7.4 million above the January 2002 level.

Oregon Governor tests food stamp diet: Governor Ted Kulongoski, an Oregon Democrat, is probably the highest-ranking elected official yet to accept the “food stamp challenge” and eat for a week on food stamp benefits. Kulongoski and his wife Mary Obrest limited their food spending to $21 a week each – the average food stamp benefit in Oregon – for the last week of April 2007. The Oregon Food Bank challenged the Governor to try living within the restricted diet and Kulongoski, who has highlighted hunger issues since his election in 2002, accepted.

Kulongoski started the week by spending an hour shopping in a Salem-area grocery store with food stamp recipient Christina Sigman-Davenport. He was advised to forego organic bananas for non-organic ones to stay within budget and instead of his preferred canned Progresso soups at $1.53 each; he bought Cup O’Noodles soups for 33 cents apiece. Ms. Obrest kept a to-the-penny menu of their week-long diet, documenting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and stretching a chicken to make four meals. During the week, the Governor eschewed official meal functions, dinners out, and lunches and dinners normally bought on the job. Kulongoski noted that the diet sapped his energy: “I went to bed earlier,” he said, “because I was tired at the end of the day.”

Although Republican opponents tried to portray Kulongoski’s food stamp diet as a publicity stunt, the Governor appeared genuine in his effort to raise hunger awareness. As he was just elected to a second term, enjoys a state budget surplus of more than $1 billion, and works with a Legislature controlled by fellow Democrats, Kulongoski had nothing to gain politically. “I don’t care what they call it, if this is what it takes to get the word out,” said Kolongoski, who plans to lobby Congress on food stamps. Moreover, he was mindful of the fact that his food spending was only restricted for a week while thousands of others are not so fortunate. Hunger “is an issue every citizen in this state should be aware of,” he said.

Congresspeople taking the challenge: Governor Kulongoski’s week on a food stamp budget has inspired other elected officials to step forward and meet the challenge, including at least two Members of Congress. In an April 26, 2007 letter to their colleagues, Representatives James P. McGovern (D-MA) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) invited their peers to live on a food stamp diet for a week this month. “As Members of Congress, we don’t have to rely on Food Stamps to feed our families,” said the two House anti-hunger leaders. “But that means it is difficult for many of us to imagine what it is like to experience true hunger or to rely on the Food Stamp Program. That is why we are asking you to join us and take the ‘Food Stamp Challenge.’ From May 15 to May 21, we will live on a food stamp budget. We believe we have a moral responsibility to end hunger in America, and our goal is to raise awareness of the difficulties facing food stamp recipients and demonstrate support for the Food Stamp Program’s vital role in providing nutrition assistance to low-income families.”

African Americans and food stamps: The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is important for African Americans in the U.S., with 25 percent of African American households nationwide receiving benefits, according to a briefing paper from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) in Washington, D.C. One in three food stamp households is headed by an African American and more than a third of program benefits – over $10 billion annually – is issued to the nearly nine million African Americans on the program.

African Americans on the FSP tend to be poorer than other households in the program. A typical African American family on food stamps has income at only 56 percent of the poverty line. Food stamps contribute 26 percent of total monthly income for a participating household. However, African Americans eligible for food stamps are more likely to participate than other groups, with an estimated 73 percent accessing benefits, though there are some three million African Americans eligible for the FSP who are not enrolled. For more details, see: http://www.cbpp.org/4-19-07fa-fact1.htm.

Latinos and food stamps: The FSP is also important for Latinos in the U.S., with nearly one in five Latino households (18 percent) nationwide receiving benefits, according to the CBPP. Similarly, one in five food stamp households is headed by a Latino and some 20 percent of program benefits – nearly $6 billion annually – are issued to Latino households. Like African Americans, Latinos in the FSP tend to be poorer than other households in the program. A typical Latino family on food stamps has income at only 58 percent of the poverty line. Food stamps contribute 25 percent of total monthly income for a participating household.

An estimated five million Latinos receive food stamps monthly, but another four million potential eligibles do not participate. The 1996 welfare reform law eliminated food stamp eligibility for most legal immigrant non-citizens, blocking many Latinos from participation for years. While Congress has restored food stamp eligibility to some immigrants – notably children and people with disabilities – many legal immigrants still face overly restrictive requirements before they can access benefits. To learn more, go to: http://www.cbpp.org/4-19-07fa-fact2.htm.

School Food News & Notes

Nutrition standards recommended for foods at school: At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Nutrition Standards issued a report on April 25, 2007 recommending strict guidelines for foods and drinks made available to students in public schools. The 15-member multi-disciplinary committee of science and nutrition experts worked for more than a year to develop comprehensive standards that promote healthy foods.

The IOM suggested that foods and beverages which compete with school nutrition programs, including those sold in vending machines and at school stores, be limited to nutritious fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or non-fat dairy products. The proposals would banish most potato and corn chips, cheese curls, candies, snack cakes, sugary sodas, sports drinks, and punches with minimal fruit juice – foods that have been implicated as causing rising childhood obesity rates.

Praise for the IOM position was strong. “For the first time, we have gold standard recommendations for school nutrition from one of America’s most distinguished scientific bodies,” said Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). Harkin, who as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee hopes to embody the IOM guidelines in legislation later this year, noted that the “recommendations offer a tool kit for local, state, and federal policymakers who already know that we need to do more – much more – to promote sound child nutrition and prevent childhood obesity.”

Although the IOM standards are voluntary, pressure is already building to make them mandatory. The School Nutrition Association, with 55,000 members among school food service directors and cafeteria workers, said it is “an ardent supporter of enforceable, uniform, national nutrition standards for foods and beverages outside of the school meal programs, as well as uniform, federal standards for school meals.”

Other nutrition advocates joined the chorus. “We desperately need these standards as the law of the land. We need to get junk food out of schools,” said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. She noted that many school children rely heavily on meals at school: “They eat lunch, one or two snacks, and sometimes even breakfast [there]. What they are fed in school has a huge impact on their diets now and the attitudes about food over their lifetime,” Wootan said. “You don’t want to teach kids nutrition in the classroom and then send them into the hallway with vending machines stocked with candy, chips, and soda.”

For more details, see: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/30181/42502.aspx.

Entrepreneurs in the lunchroom: Healthier meals for school children are a new growth industry, spurred into action even before the release of the IOM report, according to an article in the April 5, 2007 edition of USA Today. From coast to coast, savvy entrepreneurs have targeted middle income parents and their kids with more nutritious lunches sold on-line, at school, and from neighborhood storefronts.

Small companies like Health e-Lunch Kids, Brown Bag Naturals, and Kid Chow are small but have a potential audience of more than 10 million children. They may charge $4.50 to $7.40 for a lunch – nearly three times the cost of a full-price school meal – but they offer fresh fruits and vegetables and organic or natural foods without trans fats, additives, or preservatives. The IOM standards, even if made mandatory for school meals and food sales, will not affect lunches brought from home.

More on the Food Versus Fuel Debate

The growing prospects for ethanol production in America are, in many ways, revitalizing the U.S. farm economy. This year, American farmers are planting the largest corn crop since World War II, switching acreage from soybeans, cotton, and other commodities to corn. The shift is being made to meet the anticipated demand for the corn-based fuel labeled E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline that is supposed to help wean the country off its dependence on oil.

But use of corn for E85 production has some serious downsides that are barely being heard over the pro-ethanol hoopla. The heavy reliance on corn for fuel will diminish the amount available for food products, and consumer prices have already begun to rise for grain-fed meats and other items that rely on corn, particularly the ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup.

The ethanol boom has resulted in increased acreage planted in corn in every state except Massachusetts. For states already facing hot and dry conditions, this is not good news, because corn cannot stand the heat like other crops, such as cotton, and needs significantly more water. It takes an estimated 118 gallons of water to grow a pound of corn and it takes 21 pounds of corn to produce a gallon of ethanol. That translates into nearly 2,500 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol.

And where will consumers purchase that gallon of ethanol? Probably not at the corner gas station. Oil companies, who are reaping huge profits from petroleum-based fuels, generally refuse to sell E85 and if they do, employ tactics that make it difficult for their franchisees to sell it. Oil company contracts often require E85 to be sold at a separate island at the station, away from the main canopy. Gas station owners may also face restrictions on advertising and credit card payments for ethanol-based fuels.

Consequently, E85 is relatively unavailable, except at a handful of gas stations in the Midwest. Though the number of service stations carrying E85 has risen from 600 in January 2006 to about 1,200 now, that is still less than one percent of the 170,000 filling stations in the nation. And while oil can be delivered by pipeline, ethanol must be transported by rail or truck, decreasing distribution efficiency.

Moreover, although automakers promise production of more “flex-fuel” vehicles in the future, right now only about five percent of vehicles on the road can burn ethanol. E85 may cost less per gallon than gasoline, but it decreases vehicle mileage. Though ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline, limiting pollution somewhat, cars get lower mileage on E85 than on regular gasoline, ameliorating savings on that score.

Public policy at the moment favors ethanol, but it seems as though a closer, impartial, and more analytical examination of its attributes is overdue.

Reports from the Field

Emergency food providers are still struggling with the huge decline in bonus commodities that formerly were available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as described in the following two reports.

Pantries and soup kitchens across Iowa have reduced stocks of food to meet their needs, as reported in the April 24, 2007 issue of the Des Moines Register:

Not long ago, soup kitchens like the six sites run by Central Iowa Shelter and Services in the Des Moines area could count on the federal government for a wide variety of foods: milk, cheese, meat, fruit juice, and canned vegetables. Those foods – provided at nominal cost to soup kitchens, food pantries, and feeding programs – came from commodities that the USDA purchases in part to prop up the prices paid to farmers.

But now the farm economy is booming and Central Iowa Shelter and Services got only some ground turkey and green beans in April. “All the stuff we get is used up in three days,” said Doug Van Norden, who buys food for the Des Moines agency. “It used to last longer because we used to get more.”

Prices for all sorts of commodities – including milk, meat, and vegetables – are soaring due to a variety of factors, including the bad weather that dampened fruit and vegetable production and the biofuels boom that has boosted livestock prices. That’s good for farmers, but it means that the USDA has sharply curtailed its purchasing of surplus commodities that help feed the nation’s poor.

The USDA buys a certain amount of food every year, based on funding and need, and supplements that with purchases of surplus, or bonus, commodities. Bonus purchases are made at the request of grower groups with the intention of boosting commodity prices. As recently as 2005, bonus purchases exceeded the regularly budgeted buys, which average about $130 million annually. But no more.

During the 2006 budget year, the USDA distributed $67 million in bonus commodities, down from $242 million in 2003. This year the amount could be even lower. During the first half of the 2007 fiscal year that ended March 31, the USDA bought $20 million in fruit and vegetable products, primarily cherries and grapefruit juice, and no dairy products. The only meat the USDA has bought: 351,000 pounds of goose, worth $810,000.

“It’s really based on the agricultural economy and how things are doing,” said Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, which distributes the products. “Things for farmers are looking pretty good.”

The Des Moines-based Food Bank of Iowa, which distributes USDA commodities to Central Iowa Shelter and other programs in 42 counties, received at least 26 different foods in fiscal 2003, including ham, frozen eggs, pork, salmon, chicken, fresh apples, cheese, and dry milk.

During the first six months of fiscal 2007, the food bank has received a dozen commodities, including chicken, tuna, figs, sweet potatoes, peas, and cranberry juice concentrate. The USDA commodities aren’t free to soup kitchens and food pantries – they pay food banks a nominal charge to cover handling and distribution costs – but the government program saves them a lot of money.

Van Norden pays $11 for a case of green beans from the food bank, compared with $40 a case from a commercial supplier. He’s counting more on donations and on food-service companies that let him know when they have discounts. Central Iowa Shelter serves more than 400 people a day at six sites around Des Moines. “We’ve learned to stretch and still be able to give them a healthy meal,” Van Norden said.

The Bethesda Lutheran Food Pantry in Ames also has noticed the drop-off in the amount and variety of foods it gets. “We used to get a lot of fruits and vegetables,” said Darlene Hade, who has purchased food for the pantry. “They were cut way back. We used to get some cheese once in a while. We don’t get it ever.”

And in New Hampshire, the situation is about the same, as Dottie Trask, Office Manager for the Salvation Army in Laconia, reported in an email to Foodlinks America on May 2, 2007:

I received your newsletter information from an employee of the Community Action Program (CAP) for Belknap-Merrimack counties in New Hampshire. I had asked her about the scanty USDA allotments we have been receiving over the past year and she said you would be interested in hearing from me. [Please note Foodlinks America is most interested in hearing from its readers about food and hunger needs in their locality.]

Here at the Laconia, NH Salvation Army corps we provide four meals a week in our soup kitchen, in addition to having a food pantry that is available to the public four days a week. We also have a homeless shelter which houses 30-34 individuals and usually operates at maximum capacity. All of these services are desperately needed in this and the surrounding communities.

However, with the USDA cut-backs we have experienced, we cannot always provide these services. Last month we had to close our food pantry for almost two weeks, due to lack of food (other than canned corn!). We refer people to the other local food pantries, but apparently, we are all pretty much in the same boat - including the CAP office here in Laconia. I asked an employee at the CAP Belknap-Merrimack office if the distributions will be increasing any time in the near future and she didn’t have any definitive information. What, if anything, can we do?

[For ways to support increases in TEFAP, visit www.tefapalliance.org and click on the “Take Action” button!]

Small Bites

In honor of Mother’s Day, Foodlinks America looks at the true value of motherhood acknowledging facts and figures based on a survey of 40,000 moms and found at www.salary.com.

Working mothers are overworked: Working moms log in an average 49-hour mom “work week” beyond their full-time paying jobs.

While “non-working” moms are working at home: A stay-at-home mom works a 92-hour “work week,” and more than half her time spent on the job is overtime.

Moms are underpaid I: The time a stay-at-home mother spends performing 10 typical job functions would yield an annual salary of $138,095, which includes overtime.

Moms are underpaid II: If paid for the tasks performed at home, a working mom would draw $85,939, in addition to her salary earned in the workplace.

Job classifications: The job titles that best matched a mom’s definition of her work are (in order of hours spent per week): housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, CEO and psychologist.

How much is your mom’s paycheck: Visit www.salary.com and its Mom Salary Wizard to find out how much your mom is worth.

mvauthier :: May.11.2007 :: Foodlinks America :: No Comments »:: Print This Post

Trackback this post | Feed on Comments to this post