Recall that to mitigate the damage to U.S. agriculture caused by our current tariff disputes, President Trump promised to give affected farmers $12 billion.

The USDA has now set up its Trade Mitigation Programs.  As seems invariably to be the case, these are not simple; they involve three separate programs:

• The Food Purchase and Distribution Program
• The Market Facilitation Program
• The Agricultural Trade Promotion Program

Food Purchase and Distribution Program

The government (taxpayers) will purchase up to $1.2 billion in commodities and then distribute them to food assistance programs.

USDA issued a list.  Here are some selected examples, to which you must add three zeros (amounts are in $1000s):

The big winner here is pork, hit badly by the trade disputes.

The Market Facilitation Program

This one gets a bigger slice—$4.7 billion.

Here, the big winner is soybeans — $3.6 of the $4.7 billion in payments.  Corn producers are lpretty much left out.  I can’t imagine tht they are pleased.

The Agricultural Trade Promotion Program

All I’ve seen about it is that USDA will spend $200 million on foreign market development.

What are we to make of this?

Whether trade groups are for or against this depends on how much of this pie they get.  Overall agricultural losses will be greater than $12 billion, so everyone loses, but some more than others.  The Environmental Working Group has filed a FOIA request for information about how USDA made these decisions.  Can’t wait to see what they get.

Only half of that has been distributed so far.

Let’s hope the lobbying is transparent so we can see who is doing what.

The Documents 

• USDA’s Announcement
• Market Facilitation Program: Final rule
• Market Facilitation Program Payments to Producers
• Agricultural Trade Promotion Program

The proportion of U.S. children living in poverty, says the USDA, is higher than it was before the Great Recession of 2008 and seems to be increasing, particularly in rural areas and the South.

Overall, nearly 20%—one-fifth—of U.S. children were living in poverty, an increase of more than one million children since 2007.

The percentage for rural children is 23.5%.

More than half (56%) of all US counties have high rates of child poverty.

An astonishing 86% of rural counties in the South have high rates.

Mississippi has the highest prevalence of rural child poverty—82% of counties in that state have child poverty rates of 20% or more.

Poverty is not good for health.

We have a lot of work to do.

A group of organizations interested in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030, has issued a report spotlighting the goals (and see my previous post on this topic)

The report highlights the barriers and suggests what to do about them.  Here are a few examples related to food goals:

• SDG 1—The increasing concentration of wealth and economic power as an obstacle to sustainable development—and what to do about it. 
• SGD 2—Policies that strengthen the nexus between food, health, ecology, livelihoods and identities.
• SDG 12—Curbing consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages critical to achieving SDG 12
• SDG 14—Sustainable fishery or blue economy?

I have been trying to track what’s happening in our current tariff war with China.  Politico Morning Agriculture helps a lot, but even so keeping up with the rounds of retaliatory tariff impositions is challenging.

Here is our “second tranche” list of Chinese imports subject to tariffs.

The Chinese are retaliating by imposing tariffs on US agricultural exports.  They publish their lists in Chinese, obviously, meaning that we non-speakers must depend on Google Translate [and see note at end].

• Annex 1: List of 25% tariff items for the United States and Canada . pdf 
• Annex 2: List of 20% tariff items for the United States and Canada . pdf 
• Annex 3: List of 10% tariff items for the United States and Canada . pdf 
• Annex 4: List of 5% tariff items for the United States .pdf

Fortunately, CNN Money has published a partial list in English of US goods hit by Chinese Tariffs

Poultry
— Frozen beef
— Fresh or cold pork
— Dried, smoked or salted pork belly
— Frozen chicken nuggets
— Frozen whole duck

Fruit and vegetables
— Farming potatoes
— Mushrooms
— Truffles
— Apples
— Cherries
— Avocados

Dairy products
— Butter
— Cream
— Yogurt

Fish
— Frozen red salmon
— Frozen mackerel
— Frozen yellowfin tuna

Seafood
— Frozen squid
— Lobster
— Canned shark fin
— Octopus
— Sea urchins

Tobacco
— Tobacco cigarettes
— Tobacco cigars

Pet food
— Canned cat food
— Canned dog food

Beverages
— Whiskey
— Modified ethanol
— Non-frozen orange juice with less than 20% sugar

Its list leaves out baked goods, for example, items of great concern to BakeryAndSnacks.com.

A group called Farmers for Free Trade has launched an advertising campaign, “Tariffs Hurt the Heartland.”

This is a mess and clearly not good for US agriculture.  President Trump, as I noted earlier, has promised $12 billion in relief.  The administration has not said where that money—which in any case will not be nearly enough—is coming from.

Does anyone know where that money will be taken from?  Which budget line?

Note on Google Translate

A reader writes:

Small correction: the annexes you linked in the newsletter should be titled “Annex XX: List of XX% additional tariff items for the United States. pdf ”

Have you wondered why Canada is dragged into this? =)

In Mandarin the character for “additional” is the same as the abbreviated reference to Canada. It’s not surprising that Google Translate failed to catch this.

I am indebted to IEG Agribusiness Intelligence (formerly Food Chemical News) for alerting me to USDA’s latest proposals for GMO labeling—BE (bioengineered) labels, as USDA prefers.

In May, I wrote about the USDA’s initial proposals:

After dealing with 14,000 comments on them, the USDA has revised them and sent the new set to the patent office.

As the National Law Review comments notes,

Interestingly, two of the newly filed symbols include the text, “made with bioengineering,” which was not explicitly contemplated in the proposed rule. Further, the new filing do not utilize the “smiley faces” associated with proposed Alternatives [shown above], which received much attention in the comments to the proposed rule. Whether USDA adopts any of the newly filed symbols remains to be seen….

Julian Agyeman, Caitlin Matthews, and Hannah Sobel, eds.  Food Trucks, Cultural Identity, and Social Justice.  MIT Press, 2017.

I love books about single food topics and how wonderful to have one about food trucks, seemingly ubiquitous these days.  But who knew they were a subject for research.

This book covers anything you might want to know about this phenomenon–from local regulations, to how safe they are, to the politics of who owns them, where they are allowed to park, their role in community development, and their adherence to the authenticity of ethnic and immigrant cuisines.

The editors asked the various chapter writers to discuss the motivations behind a particular city’s promotion of mobile food vending, and to explain how those motivations relate to broad goals of social justice.

The chapters address these issues from academic perspectives.  The book could have been titled “Food Truck Studies.”  From those perspectives, it’s a treasure.

It’s summer, it’s hot, and I enjoy ice cream, so I was riveted to learn the sad fate of Joey Chestnut who lost the Indiana State Fair’s World Ice Cream Eating Championship because he only consumed 14.5 pints (!) in six minutes (the winner consumed 15.5 pints in that time).

Chestnut, who took second place Sunday, is an 11-time Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest champion. He became well-known locally after dominating the 2014 St. Elmo Shrimps Eating Competition, downing 10.42 pounds of shrimp in eight minutes to set a then-world record. He won it again in 2016 by wolfing down 15 pounds of shrimp. And again in 2017, eating 10 pounds and 6 ounces.

The story in the Indy Star only describes the ice cream as vanilla and gives no information about what kind, so it’s difficult to estimate its calories.  A pint could run from about 400 to 1,000 calories, depending on the fat content, so we are talking here about 6,000 to 15,000 calories—in six minutes.

Meet Major League Eating, an organization that sponsors—and gives schedules for—national eating contests.

Somehow, I missed the ones in Wisconsin and the Nathan’s Hot Dog Contest in Coney Island last Sunday.   Big mistake.   That same Joey Chestnut was the winner, beating his previous records with 74 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes.

The mind boggles.

Thanks!

• To Dianne Jacob for mentioning a book on the topic, the wonderfully titled Horsemen of the Esophagus
• To the New York Times for reviewing it and other books on competitive eating (it turns out, there are quite a few)

The Guardian’s account of the verdict: Monsanto ordered to pay $289m as jury rules weedkiller caused man’s cancer

Dewayne Johnson, a 46-year-old former groundskeeper, won a huge victory in the landmark case on Friday, with the jury determining that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer and that the corporation failed to warn him of the health hazards from exposure. The jury further found that Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression”…Johnson’s case was particularly significant because a judge allowed his team to present scientific arguments. The dispute centered on glyphosate, which is the world’s most widely used herbicide…During the lengthy trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys brought forward internal emails from Monsanto executives that they said demonstrated how the corporation repeatedly ignored experts’ warnings, sought favorable scientific analyses and helped to “ghostwrite” research that encouraged continued usage.

Here’s what this is about:

(1)  The carcinogenicity of Roundup (glyphosate)

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) ruled that glyphosate, the weed killer used with genetically modified crops, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”  Glyphosate’s maker, Monsanto (now merged with Bayer) did not like this decision and went to work casting doubt on the science.  As IARC explains and documents:

Following the classification of glyphosate in March 2015 as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) by the IARC Monographs Programme, IARC has been the target of an unprecedented number of orchestrated actions by stakeholders seeking to undermine its credibility. In the interest of transparency, IARC has documented some of these instances, and our responses can be found on the Agency′s Governance website.

(2) What’s at stake for Monsanto

Glyphosate is used in incomprehensibly huge amounts.  The organic advocate, Charles Benbrook, published statistics on its use in 2016.  Monsanto’s published a rebuttal to Benbrook’s paper, but did not dispute his figures; instead, it argued only glyphosate is safe.  Benbrook’s data show that 250 million pounds of glyphosate were applied to US crops in 2014 (by another source, worldwide use was 825,804,000 kilograms, or more than 1.8 billion pounds that year).

(3) What’s at stake for the plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson

As the San Francisco Chronicle’s account explains:

Johnson was a groundskeeper and pest-control manager for Benicia schools from 2012 until May 2016. His job included spraying glyphosate, in the high-concentration brand called Ranger Pro, from 50-gallon drums 20 to 30 times a year for two to three hours a day.

He testified he wore protective clothing, including a sturdy jacket, goggles and a face mask, but said he couldn’t fully protect his face from wind-blown spray. And twice, he told the jury, he got drenched with the herbicide, once when a spray hose became detached from a truck that was hauling it, and another time when a backpack container he was carrying leaked.

After the first drenching in 2014, he said, he got rashes on his skin that did not respond to treatment. Welts and lesions soon appeared on his legs, arms, face and eyelids. His first cancer diagnoses came soon afterward.

(4)  The evidence for the jury’s decision

Through discovery during the trial, documents came to light exposing Monsanto’s efforts to discredit the science linking glyphosate to cancer.

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) has performed an extraordinary public service by posting the key documents in the case on its website.  There, you can find links to an astonishing number of federal court and discovery documents, exhibits, news reports, and commentary.

Also worth reading: Stacy Malkin’s Secret Documents Expose Monsanto’s War on Cancer Scientists (July 12)

Monsanto was its own ghostwriter for some safety reviews,” Bloomberg reported, and an EPA official reportedly helped Monsanto “kill” another agency’s cancer study. An investigation in Le Monde details Monsanto’s effort “to destroy the United Nations’ cancer agency by any means possible” to save glyphosate.

(5) What this means: Comment from USRTK’s Carey Gillam

Monsanto and its chemical industry allies have spent decades actively working to confuse and deceive consumers, farmers, regulators and lawmakers about the risks associated with glyphosate-based herbicides. As they’ve suppressed the risks, they’ve trumpeted the rewards and pushed use of this weed killer to historically high levels. The evidence that has come to light from Monsanto’s own internal documents, combined with data and documents from regulatory agencies, could not be more clear: It is time for public officials across the globe to act to protect public health and not corporate profits.

(6) What happens next?

Monsanto will appeal, of course; its owner, Bayer, continues to insist that glyphosate is safe.  Press accounts say that hundreds, if not thousands, of more such cases are in the pipeline, a situation similar to that faced by the tobacco industry before that industry gave up and settled.  Will Bayer do so as well?  I’m guessing not without a fight.