Foodlinks America - January 18, 2008
Foodlinks America - January 18, 2008
In this issue:
• Farm Bill Negotiations Face New Deadline
• Hunger Continues to Grow in U.S. Cities
• New Energy Bill Inflames Food Versus Fuel Debate
• TEFAP Tidbits
• Obesity Round-Up
• 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.
Farm Bill Negotiations Face New Deadline
Congress has set March 15, 2008 as its deadline for the development of new federal policies governing agriculture and nutrition under the Farm Bill. Provisions of the current (2002) Farm Bill were extended until that date by the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act that Congress passed before it adjourned last month. Congressional deliberations on the Farm Bill, which have been in progress for more than a year, are at the crucial conference stage, in which provisions of the bill passed by the House of Representatives in July 2007 are being reconciled with elements of the Senate bill passed last December.
Both bills make substantial improvements and investments in the nutrition section of the Farm Bill, which covers the Food Stamp Program, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program that has been implemented in selected schools over the past few years.
But the most important difference between the two bills is that program changes in the House bill would become permanent, while under the Senate bill, all major benefit improvements would expire in 2012 and, unless extended, would revert to current law. This distinction is particularly crucial for food stamp provisions, such as raising the asset limits and the minimum benefit level, two program areas that have not been updated for 30 years.
Two major obstacles remain to finalizing the Farm Bill in the coming weeks – a limited Congressional schedule and a potential veto by President Bush. According to House Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-MN), “We have agreed to the target date for finishing reconciliation by February 1.†However, even if there is agreement on a final version of the bill, getting it to the floor of the House and the Senate by March 15 appears problematic.
House members, who under Democratic leadership met almost every weekday throughout 2007 (as opposed to the Tuesday-to-Thursday schedule under the Republicans in 2006), have rebelled, telling their leadership that they are not getting sufficient time at home in their districts to address constituent concerns. Because 2008 is an election year, Representatives are particularly eager to spend less time in Washington and more time on the campaign trail. Consequently, the House plans to be in session only 105 days in 2008 compared to 152 days last year. Although the House reconvened on January 15 following the year-end holiday, the Senate will not be back in session until January 22.
The Bush Administration expressed dissatisfaction with both the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill and issued veto threats after their respective passages, because they fail to restrict crop subsidy payments and they increase taxes to pay for program expansions. However, Peterson, who has met with U.S. Department of Agriculture officials half a dozen times since the holiday break, is confident that some acceptable middle ground can be negotiated. “It just comes down to figuring out a way to fund things like nutrition that the President will support. I think we will get that worked out,†he said.
Hunger Continues to Grow in U.S. Cities
The number of hungry and homeless people in American cities rose dramatically once again in 2007, according to the 21st annual Hunger and Homelessness Survey released on December 17, 2007 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM). The 23-city survey identified the major causes of hunger in cities as poverty, unemployment, and high housing costs. In 2007, these factors were exacerbated by the recent increase in home foreclosures, the increased cost of living in general, and food price inflation.
Requests for emergency food increased in four of every five cities, growing at an average of 10 percent. Detroit recorded a 35 percent increase in requests for food. Every one of the 23 cities, except Salt Lake, reported that food pantries had to turn away people or limit the amount of food distributed.
Los Angeles officials noted that over 30 percent of their food pantries had to turn clients away; pantries that did not turn people away provided less food. Shortages of government food contributed to the problem in Southern California. “In 2002, a food pantry would provide an average of eight to ten different USDA commodities per distribution,†said a Los Angeles spokesperson. “This holiday season, food pantries are providing three USDA commodities. Food pantries are tasked to serve more clients with the same amount of resources they had six years ago, and 21 percent of overall demand for emergency food assistance goes unmet.â€
USCM officials also commented that another major factor in the hunger equation is that food stamp benefits are not keeping up with the increasing cost of food. Nineteen of the 23 cities expect demand for food assistance to increase again in 2008.
“Although 87 percent of our nation’s wealth is generated in our nation’s cities, hunger and homelessness persists in most of our country’s cities and urban centers,†said USMC president Douglas Palmer of Trenton, NJ. “At a time when the nation is focused on the presidential campaign, we must ensure that the needs of those most in need in America are at the top of the candidates’ policy agendas.â€
Cities surveyed in 2007 were: Boston, MA, Charleston, SC, Charlotte, NC, Chicago, IL, Cleveland, OH, Denver, CO, Des Moines, IA, Detroit, MI, Kansas City, MO, Los Angeles, CA, Louisville, KY, Miami, FL, Nashville, TN, Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Portland, OR, Providence, RI, Salt Lake City, UT, San Francisco, CA, Santa Monica, CA, Seattle, WA, St. Paul, MN, and Trenton, NJ. For more details, see the USCM survey results at: http://usmayors.org/HHSurvey2007/hhsurvey07.pdf.
New Energy Bill Inflames Food Versus Fuel Debate
Federal legislation passed last month significantly increased the mandate for the production of “agrofuels†– gasoline and other fuel products made from field crops. Congress set a new goal for corn-based ethanol of 15 billion gallons by the year 2015, with a requirement of 36 billion gallons for all fuels made from renewable sources by 2022. Production at those levels is projected to help the U.S. replace up to half the gasoline that is now refined from diminishing and increasingly costly supplies of oil.
However, as skeptics point out, the technology is at its early stages at best, the economics are uncertain, and the potential for unintended consequences is high. Already the conversion of a growing percentage of America’s cropland to corn production has driven up the cost of both producing and transporting fruits, vegetables, soy products, and other comestibles. “This is like a runaway train,†commented Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. “It’s great news for corn farmers, but terrible news for consumers.†Consumer food prices increased over five percent last year, including a 14 percent spike in dairy items.
The U.S. emphasis on corn ethanol also has major implications for the environment and global warming. Corn, which requires huge amounts of water and carbon-based energy to produce, is one of the least efficient products for agrofuels. Other biomass sources such as sugarcane, switchgrass, and even trees, can be developed that would require fewer inputs. A panel of expert scientists from the National Research Council issued a report in October 2007 warning that increased production of corn ethanol could harm water quality and cause regional water shortages in addition to contributing to soil erosion, runoff, and a decline in soil fertility.
Advocates for the poor and needy are also beginning to sound the alarm. In Fueling Disaster: A Community Food Security Perspective on Agrofuels, the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) claims that “massive expansion of agrofuel production is the latest in a progression towards industrial agriculture and corporate consolidation of the world’s land, food, and water resources.†With 20 percent of the world’s population food insecure, agrofuel production may seriously impinge on the ability of communities to feed themselves.
The CFSC report examines agrofuel production in terms of food security and the right to food, agricultural worker’s rights, community economic development, and the environment. In short, the CFSC concludes that “fuel is not a priority over food.†To access the report, go to: http://foodsecurity.org/Fueling_Disaster.pdf.
TEFAP Tidbits
Distribution funds cut: The omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, passed by Congress in December 2007, contained a 0.07 percent across the board rescission in spending for all domestic discretionary programs. As a result, storage and distribution funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) was pared down from $50 million to $49,650,000. The reduction will add an extra challenge to states, food banks, and local TEFAP agencies, which will need every penny they can find to distribute a potential 78 percent increase in the amount of food provided to the program this year under the pending Farm Bill.
The legislation does continue to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to transfer up to $10 million a year from food purchases to storage and distribution costs. However, that authority leaves states and their TEFAP networks between a rock and a hard place – whether to sacrifice precious commodity funds during a nationwide food shortage for increasingly costly transportation expenses afflicted by rising gasoline prices – to distribute what food is available.
How big a decline in food? The answer next month: USDA officials inform Foodlinks America that it will be early February before fiscal year 2007 totals on the amount of entitlement and bonus foods distributed under TEFAP will be made public. The ongoing scarcity of surplus or bonus commodities last year portends a continuation of a pattern that has reduced the amount of food by up to 80 percent over the past four years.
Two new purchases planned: USDA did recently announce that it will attempt to make two additional purchases of bonus items – 8.1 million pounds of red tart cherry products and half a million pounds of canned plums – small amounts that will not go far in relieving local food shortages. The products, if purchase deals are consummated, will be donated to child nutrition programs as well as domestic food assistance programs, including TEFAP.
Revised allocation formula put in place: A new scheme for divvying up TEFAP storage and distribution funds was officially adopted on December 15, 2007. Announced in October 2007, the revised formula uses more up-to-date sources for poverty and unemployment data, the two factors that drive the allocation of TEFAP funds. USDA plans to use the new formula in making final fiscal year 2008 allocations to states.
Obesity Round-Up
Parental blinders on their own child’s obesity: A survey of 2,000 parents questioned about their children’s health revealed that many overlook overweight problems. Despite increased publicity about childhood obesity, 40 percent of parents with children ages six to 11 reported their sons and daughters were “about the right weight†when they were actually obese. Fewer than 10 percent of parents with obese children said they were “very concerned†about their children’s weight.
The disconnect surfaced among the results of the National Poll on Children’s Health conducted in March 2007 by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan. “If they don’t actually perceive their children to have excess weight, then how can we realistically expect them to make changes?†commented Dr. Matthew Davis, director of the study. For more details, see: http://www.med.umich.edu/mott/research/chearhealthconcernpoll.html.
Lack of sleep = overweight children: Seven-year olds who sleep less than nine hours a night tend to be overweight or obese, according to a study done by the University of Aukland in New Zealand and published in the January 1, 2008 issue of the journal Sleep. Researchers tracked 519 children since birth through periodic health check-ups, developmental assessments, and interviews with their parents.
In addition to weight issues, the study found that short sleep duration was also associated with mood swings, but did not affect I.Q. scores or attention-deficit or hyperactivity behaviors. Children slept less in the summer and more in the winter. “The study is important from the perspective of providing another means of preventing the development of obesity,†noted senior author and child health professor Ed Mitchell. “At least in New Zealand – and it needs to be confirmed in other age groups – this seems to be an important factor. To learn more, visit:
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?citationid=3449.
Are plastics causing obesity?: Although diet and exercise remain the primary and presumed culprits for the American and worldwide obesity epidemics, more insidious forces may be at work – plastics in the environment, according to an article in the January 14, 2008 Boston Globe. A wide variety of animal studies in recent years points to the possibility that prenatal exposure to miniscule amounts of certain chemicals – known as endocrine disrupters – might predispose a body to weight gains during one’s lifetime.
Endocrine disrupters, which imitate natural hormones that regulate the production and capacity of fat cells, are common chemicals found in everything from baby bottles to carpet fibers and toys to agricultural sprays. Studies on animals such as mice and mollusks have confirmed that early exposure to the chemicals affects reproduction and adult weight gain.
“This is a really new area,†said Jerry Heindel, a program administrator for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. “But from multiple labs on multiple levels we are getting preliminary data that all say the same thing: Chemicals can play a role. We know that nutrition and exercise are very, very important, but underlying that could be environmental exposures during development that alter your physiology, including how you respond to food and exercise,” he stated. “There is evidence these chemicals have a multitude of deleterious effects in animals,†added Tufts University professor Ana Soto. “We should be worried.â€
Reports from the Field
[Editor’s Note: Rarely does a food bank step back from its day-to-day mission of feeding the hungry and homeless to investigate why its services are needed. A notable exception is the Second Harvest Food Bank of the Lehigh Valley and Northeast Pennsylvania, based in Allentown, which has periodically examined the causes of hunger in its community. Its latest report, “Continued Hunger in the Valley of Plenty,†was issued in June 2007, and provides a wealth of interesting and insightful information on the housing, health care, child nutrition, federal food program participation, and income and financial circumstances of its customers. What follows are excerpts from the report, which may be viewed at: http://www.caclv.org/pdf/HungerStudyReport.pdf.]
This report examines the challenges faced by people accessing the emergency food assistance network in Lehigh and Northampton Counties. Second Harvest Food Bank of Lehigh Valley and Northeast Pennsylvania, a program of the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley, conducted 350 face-to-face interviews with participants at twelve Lehigh Valley food pantries and three soup kitchens. The average monthly participation for the food pantries during the survey time period was 8,729 individuals and 346 daily meals were served on average at the soup kitchens.
The purpose of the survey was to determine and better understand participants’ need for emergency food assistance. This broad objective can be seen through several specific objectives: to evaluate the housing status of participating families; to determine the need for and use of the health care system by emergency food assistance network participants; to ascertain the availability of food for participants; to determine utilization of federal food and nutrition programs by families; and to evaluate the economic situation of families accessing the emergency food assistance network.
The common definition of affordability states that housing costs should not exceed 30% of one’s income. For clarification purposes, housing costs encompass rent, utilities, and heating costs; all bills needed for housing are included in this figure except for cable television and telephone service. Fifty-four percent of the respondents to the survey stated that they spend one-half or more of their monthly income on housing expenses. When housing costs place a strain on the budgets of respondents, many turn to services such as the emergency food assistance network to fill the gaps left by a lack of finances.
In addition to the extreme cost, respondents experience further complications related to housing. Nearly one-fourth (23 percent) of the respondents reported that they have moved at least twice in the previous year. Any person who has moved once knows how disruptive a process it can be. With almost a quarter of the people interviewed for this study moving more than twice, it is obvious that lives were in crisis as people try to survive.
Our health care findings present an interesting paradox. Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of respondents have health insurance, with 68 percent of those with insurance relying on Medicaid. Eighty-six percent of respondents’ children have health insurance. The bad news is the barriers preventing the utilization of the services provided by insurance. More than half (52 percent) of respondents do not have a primary care physician. And 39 percent of respondents without insurance use the emergency room as their primary point of entry into the health care system.
In addition to the inaccessibility of health care, participants face financial burdens as well. For example, 87 percent of respondents with health insurance have outstanding medical bills in excess of $500. This high percentage of unpaid medical bills points to the cost of co-payments, diagnostic tests and other medical treatments that are out of reach for most participants. Having insurance does not necessarily mean that one will have the financial ability to pay for health care. Thirty-seven percent of participants with health insurance have delayed care due to cost. Sadly, 42 percent of respondents with health insurance have taken less medication than prescribed due to cost.
There is good news in the area of child nutrition. Many (86 percent) of respondents’ school-aged children eat breakfast, and 77 percent of these children eat free or reduced breakfast at school. Almost all (96 percent) of respondents’ school-aged children eat lunch, and 90 percent of these children eat free or reduced lunch at school.
It is disconcerting that only 45 percent of respondents use food stamps. The respondents that do not receive food stamps stated that they do not participate in the Food Stamp Program due to various factors, including the belief that they will be ineligible, belief they will receive an insignificant benefit, structural barriers of the program, and resistance to government handouts. Yet, respondents receiving food stamps are still in need of assistance with food. For those receiving food stamps, 86 percent report running out of food stamps before the end of the month. Eighty-six percent of respondents with WIC-eligible children participate in the WIC Program.
Some of the most disturbing figures were found in the area of income and finances. More than half (62 percent) of the respondents do not have a checking account, thereby excluding them from mainstream financial services systems. This exclusion, whether imposed or a choice, means that respondents must seek other costly alternatives. One such alternative is the service of check cashing stores. Forty-one percent of respondents cash checks at check cashing stores, and, as a result, are paying on average, eight percent for that service. Another alternative is payday lending stores, [which] advance money to customers based on an expected check amount and charge astronomical interest rates to do so – up to 800 percent.
And yet, amazingly, 21 percent of respondents reported that their financial situation is “better†or “much better†than the previous year. These respondents inspire hope that people using the emergency food assistance network can successfully navigate the choppy waters created by limited income. Perhaps the most puzzling finding is that despite trying to survive extraordinary circumstances, 67 percent of respondents stated that they are satisfied with their lives. This speaks to the fact the people accessing the emergency food assistance network are either positive thinkers or have limited expectations. If they are positive thinkers, respondents are appreciative of what they have in life and know that things could be worse. If they have limited expectations, respondents may have lower standards so as to cope with having to survive day-to-day.
Small Bites
The cost of looking good: Americans spend more than $50 billion annually on cosmetics and toiletries.
Looking good for whom?: Sixty-five percent of American adults spend more time with their home computer than with their spouse.
The caffeinated majority: More than half – 57 percent – of adults in the U.S. drink coffee every day.
Uncounted calories: Only 11 percent of American adults know the recommended number of calories they should consume daily.
Because who cares?: Two-thirds of U.S. adults consider full-fat ice cream to be “worth the guilt.â€
When the truth can weight: Eighty-five percent of women would rather reveal their age than their weight.
mvauthier :: Jan.18.2008 :: Foodlinks America :: No Comments »:: Print This Post