Currently browsing posts about: Food-assistance

I’m trying to keep up with meat crisis items.  Here are two.

CULLING

This is too upsetting to even talk about.

• Letter from members of Congress asking for help with animal disposal
• Instructions on how to do this
• The New York Times on the details of pig destruction

HARVEST BOXES AGAIN

The USDA’s current version of Harvest Boxes for food assistance is called the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, as I wrote about in a previous post.

The idea is that all those food animals and other foods that are being destroyed because of food chain problems will be collected, packed in boxes, and distributed to food banks  to be further distributed to people in need.

The USDA has now issued the contracts to companies who have bid to do this work.

Oops.  Some getting millions of dollars in contracts have no experience with this sort of thing.  As Politico reveals,

Most of the most well-known companies in the business, from large national names like FreshPoint, a division of Sysco, to more regional companies like Keany Produce, based in Maryland, were left off.  Muzyk of Baldor Specialty Foods said it’s clear that some companies applied without understanding what’s really required to purchase, pack and distribute fresh food at the scale the program requires. It requires proper cold storage capacity and trucks as well as food safety practices, particularly for produce which is vulnerable to contamination.

The contracts have raised eyebrows throughout the produce industry.

The Packer, which writes about produce-industry matters, wants to know how those contracts were awarded.

But questions immediately began circulating: How does a high-dollar events promoter pull down the largest contract ($39 million) in Texas? Why are companies without Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licenses, warehouses, coolers or trucks receiving multi-million contracts, some well beyond the annual revenue of the company?…United Fresh Produce Association president and CEO Tom Stenzel wrote to Bruce Summers, administrator of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, which is overseeing the contracts, with a list of 15 questions.

The Packer, also wonders what will go in those boxes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture gives companies participating in the Farmers to Families Food Box Program leeway on what’s going in the produce boxes. The Packer wants to see what Farmers to Families’ contract recipients are packing into their boxes.

This looks like a disaster waiting to happen.  Companies with no track-record for these kinds of logistics are supposed to collect food, pack it, and get it to food banks.

Food banks, largely run by volunteers, are supposed to get the boxes to those who need food.

I can’t imagine how this can work.  In the meantime, the culling continues.

Additions

• The USDA responded to the letter from United Fresh.
• United Fresh is pretty happy with the USDA’s response.

Yesterday, I mentioned the commentary in the New York Times—Americans Are Lining Up for Food. What Is Team Trump Doing?—calling on the USDA to expand SNAP rather that transfer responsibility for food assistance to private food banks.  No matter how good they are—and many do fabulous work—volunteer charitable agencies cannot keep up with assistance demands.

SNAP can.

SNAP, as I explained recently, is the last vestige of what used to be a much stronger safety net for the poor.  It is demonstrably effective in raising families out of poverty and reducing levels of food insecurity.

SNAP’s great strength is that it is an entitlement.  We have more than 30 million people newly unemployed in the United States.  Many of them will qualify for SNAP and are entitled to program benefits.

SNAP ought to command widespread bipartisan support, but the program is instead a flashpoint for political battles.

The reality of so many Americans running out of food is an alarming reminder of the economic hardship the pandemic has inflicted. But…Republicans have balked at a long-term expansion of food stamps — a core feature of the safety net that once enjoyed broad support but is now a source of a highly partisan divide. Democrats want to raise food stamp benefits by 15 percent for the duration of the economic crisis, arguing that a similar move during the Great Recession reduced hunger and helped the economy. But Republicans have fought for years to shrink the program, saying that the earlier liberalization led to enduring caseload growth and a backdoor expansion of the welfare state…The Republican distrust of food stamps has now collided with a monumental crisis. Cars outside food banks have lined up for miles in places as different as San Antonio, Pittsburgh and Miami Beach.

Anti-hunger groups make a strong case for a 15 percent increase.  Feeding America is running ads to promote SNAP, for example, this one targeting North Dakota

In the meantime, we have relief funds..

• The Restaurant Workers’ Community Foundation’s Emergency Relief Fund
• Brooklyn Service Workers Coalition
• One Fair Wage Emergency Fund
• United States Bartenders’ Guild Emergency Assistance Fund
• See: Hunter Food Policy Center’s resource guides

If history teaches us anything, it is that private charity can never replace government policy.  Now, more than ever, we need government for the people.

Remember “Harvest Boxes”?  This was USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue’s method for replacing SNAP benefits with boxes of food commodities (see my much earlier post on this).

The idea was widely ridiculed at the time (impractical, logistically expensive, condescending), but the Covid-19 pandemic has resuscitated the plan.

It won’t be called Harvest Boxes.  Instead, welcome to the $3 billion “Farmers to Families Food Box Program.”

Agricultural Marketing Service’s Commodity Procurement Program will procure an estimated $100 million per month in fresh fruits and vegetables, $100 million per month in a variety of dairy products, and $100 million per month in meat products. The distributors and wholesalers will then provide a pre-approved box of fresh produce, dairy, and meat products to food banks, community and faith-based organizations, and other non-profits serving Americans in need.

It comes with an Infographic.

How will this work?  USDA has an FAQ page.

Q. Please explain the goal of the government regarding execution of these contracts?

A.  The prime contractor receiving an award is responsible for all aspects of contract performance. The aspects of performance include but are not limited to sourcing product for inclusion in boxes, conducting all aspects of preparing the boxes, sourcing and communicating with non-profits and transportation and final delivery of boxes to the non-profit on a mutually agreeable, recurring schedule.

What does this mean?

Contractors will acquire dairy, meat, and/or produce, pack it in boxes, and deliver those boxes to food banks, which will then distribute the boxes to people seeking food.  This puts food banks—charitable organizations largely run by volunteers—on the front line of food assistance.

Should we be doing this?

I’m not the only one thinking this system is logistically absurd and just plain wrong.

Matt Russell, Robert Leonard and Beto O’Rourke, writing in the New York Times, say “Americans Are Lining Up for Food. What Is Team Trump Doing?”

Funding food banks while not expanding food stamps…is a solution driven by ideology rather than practicality. We have great respect for these organizations, but food banks aren’t up to feeding tens of millions of hungry Americans indefinitely.  We already have an amazingly efficient and effective program to do this. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, empowers Americans in literally hours and days to go to their local grocery store and get the food they need.

What’s supposed to be in the boxes?

The USDA explained in its solicitation document what it is expecting to get.

Who is getting the contracts?  Look them up here.  United Fresh, which represents fruit and vegetable growers, has questions about the selection process.   And farmers are asking: how is it possible for companies with no warehouses or storage capacity to prepare boxes?

But that’s not all. 

The USDA also announced an additional $470 million in food purchases for donation to food banks for delivery in July.

As for benefit for farmers, FERN’s AgInsider reports:

“USDA is working as quickly as possible to implement CFAP,” said the spokesperson. “Signup for the direct assistance is expected to begin by the end of May. USDA proposes to use a $125,000 payment limit per commodity, with an overall payment limit of $250,000 per individual/entity and a $900,000 adjusted gross income limit for individuals who do not derive 75 percent or more of their income from farming.”

I’m interested to see how this works, in practice.  We should know in a couple of weeks.

The USDA has established a new Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP).

This has $19 billion to distribute to farmers, ranchers, and consumers.

Cutting through the rhetoric, the new program has two parts:

1. Direct Support to Farmers and Ranchers—$16 billion: for direct support and marketing costs.  [Note: producers say this is not enough].
2. USDA Purchase and Distribution—$3 billion: for buying fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and meat products at the rate of $100 million per month, each.  “The distributors and wholesalers will then provide a pre-approved box of fresh produce, dairy, and meat products to food banks, community and faith based organizations, and other non-profits serving Americans in need.”  [Note: Fruit and vegetable producers say this is not enough].

In addition, the USDA says it will:

• Allocate $873.3 million to purchase a variety of agricultural products for distribution to food banks, as determined by industry requests, USDA agricultural market analysis, and food bank needs.
• Under previous acts, allocate $850 million for food bank administrative costs and USDA food purchases, of which a minimum of $600 million will be designated for food purchases, as determined by food bank need and product availability.

Comment 

• The bulk of this program goes to Big Ag—on top of the $22 billion or so Big Ag got in compensation for trade losses last year.
• The much smaller Purchase and Distribution program is to deal with the shocking problem of producers destroying foods while hungry people line up for food distribution from food banks overwhelmed by the demand.
• USDA is using this to reinstate its “harvest box” proposals as a means to replace SNAP benefits.
• USDA is not backing off from its other long-term strategy to do all it can to reduce SNAP enrollments and benefits, or from Trump Administration public charge policies that put anyone who is not a citizen at risk of never getting citizenship or of deportation if they apply for public benefits.
• These measures are expensive band-aids.  They do not address fundamental flaws in agricultural support programs.
• Maybe this crisis will at last cause Congress to start supporting sustainable, resiliant agriculture?  Hey, I can dream.

Here is everything else the USDA says it is doing

the USDA announcement also says what it is already doing  “to make sure children and families are fed during a time of school closures and job losses, as well as increase flexibilities and extensions in USDA’s farm programs to ensure the U.S. food supply chain remains safe and secure.”  What follows is a direct quote.

Feeding Kids and Families

• USDA expanded flexibilities and waivers in all 50 states and territories to ensure kids and families who need food can get it during this national emergency.
• USDA is partnering with the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty, McLane Global, PepsiCo, and others to deliver more than 1,000,000 meals a week to students in a limited number of rural schools closed due to COVID-19.
• USDA authorized Pandemic EBT in Michigan and Rhode Island, a supplemental food purchasing benefit to current SNAP participants and as a new EBT benefit to other eligible households to offset the cost of meals that would have otherwise been consumed at school.
• USDA expanded an innovative SNAP online grocery purchase pilot program in Arizona and California, Florida and Idaho, and DC and North Carolina, in addition to Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, Oregon and Washington.

Actions to Ensure a Strong Food Supply Chain

• USDA is working to ensure the food supply remains safe and secure.
• USDA announced flexibilities to ensure food distribution for certain food products like dairy and eggs reach retail settings.
• USDA announced farm loan flexibilities, deferrals (PDF, 243 KB), and maturity extensions.

Whole of Government Response in Rural America

• USDA released The COVID-19 Federal Rural Resource Guide (PDF, 349 KB), a first-of-its-kind resource for rural leaders looking for federal funding and partnership opportunities to help address this pandemic.
• USDA opened a second application window (April 14, 2020 to July 13, 2020) for $72 million of funding under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant program.
• USDA Rural Development lenders may offer 180-day loan payment deferrals without prior agency approval for Business and Industry Loan Guarantees, Rural Energy for America Program Loan Guarantees, Community Facilities Loan Guarantees, and Water and Waste Disposal Loan Guarantees.
• USDA will use the $100 million provided for the ReConnect Program in the CARES Act to invest in qualified 100 percent grant projects.

For all the information on USDA’s work during the COVID-19 pandemic and resources available, please visit www.usda.gov/coronavirus.

President Trump’s $2 Trillion relief package is the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020.’’

This 880-page (!) bill addresses food systems in several ways, most of them in “Title I Agricultural Programs” which starts on page 609 like this:.

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Office of the Secretary’’, $9,500,000,000, to remain available until expended, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus by providing support for agricultural producers impacted by coronavirus, including producers of specialty crops, producers that supply local food systems, including farmers markets, restaurants, and schools, and livestock producers, including dairy producers: Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 22 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 23 Deficit Control Act of 1985.

This sounds good (in Ag-speak, specialty crops are fruits and vegetables), but what this means in practice, according to the New York Times, is

• About $23.5 billion in assistance to farmers ($9.5 in subsidies, $14 in borrowing authority)

But this will go mainly to soy and corn producers, key Trump constituents in an election year.  This amount follows nearly $26 billion in aid already provided to offset losses from the China trade war.  This new funds exceed USDA’s entire discretionary budget request for next year.  The USDA Secretary may allocate the funds as he wishes, with no oversight.

So much for welfare for the rich.

As for the poor, the bill provides

• About $25 billion for food assistance (domestic food programs $8.8 billion, SNAP $15.8 billion).

This too sounds like a lot but all it does is account for the expected increase in demand from people newly out of work.  It does not in any way increase the amount that individuals and families receive.

How did this happen?  Chalk it up to effective lobbying by agribusiness.

The gains for agribusiness were accomplished, says the Times, by “A small army of groups mounted the fast-moving campaign for aid, including the politically powerful American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Joining them were other smaller players representing producers of goods like turkey, pork and potatoes or sunflowers, sorghum, peanuts and eggs.”

Earlier, Politico reported that nearly 50 organizations representing farmers, equipment manufacturers and agricultural lenders sent a letter stating their needs as a result of declining demand from school and restaurant shutdowns and direct-to-consumer sales.

The bill does little to help the folks who most need help.  Anti-hunger groups tried, but failed.

Poor people need to vote.  And organize.

The Trump Administration has released its proposed budget for fiscal year 2021.

I emphasize proposed because Congress has to pass it before it goes into effect.  What will Congress do?  Time will tell.

With that said, here are the White House documents.

• The main budget page
• The 2021 budget: “A budget for America’s Future”
• Major savings and reforms
• Analytical Perspectives.  Its web page links to specific chapters
• Fact sheets  (two are particularly relevant: Support for working families, and Investing in Rural America)
• Budget summary tables

From the Hagstrom Report (thanks Jerry)

• Agriculture Department section
• Health and Human Services section

These sections are classic examples of double-speak.  The words mean precisely their opposites.  “Reform,” for example, really means cut budget and enrollment.

You want evidence?  The budget proposes an 8% cut to overall USDA spending, with a $15 billion cut to SNAP.

The Fact Sheet summarizes SNAP proposals [with my translations]:

Reforming [cutting budget and reducing SNAP participation]the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The Budget proposes to strengthen work requirements to help all able-bodied adults participating in SNAP enter the job market and work toward self-sufficiency [lose eligibility for participation].

The Budget also promotes the use of data and technology to improve program integrity and streamline State operations [Tightening up on fraud will reduce participation].

Finally, the Budget proposes to combine the traditional retail-based SNAP electronic benefit with the direct provision of nutritious and 100 percent Americangrown USDA Foods, maintaining our commitment to helping needy families avoid hunger while generating substantial savings to the taxpayer and allowing innovative partnerships with the private sector [Really?  USDA still hasn’t given up on Harvest Boxes?].

This is so awful that a group of Democratic members—all former recipients of SNAP benefits— wrote a letter to Trump expressing concerns.

Let’s hope Congress rejects these cuts.

The New York Times’ analyses

• Trump’s $4.8 Trillion Budget Would Cut Safety Net Programs and Boost Defense
• Trump budget would fray safety net
• What’s in President Trump’s 2021 fiscal budget

Here’s some good news for a change.  The CDC announces that young children enrolled in the WIC program are reducing their prevalence of obesity.

The study: State-Specific Prevalence of Obesity Among Children Aged 2–4 Years Enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — United States, 2010–2016.  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) November 22, 2019 / 68(46);1057–1061.

The happy result:  “Among children aged 2–4 years enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), obesity prevalence decreased from 15.9% in 2010 to 13.9% in 2016 and during 2010–2014, decreased in 34 of the 56 WIC state or territory agencies.”

One possible explanation:  WIC revised its food packages a few years ago to emphasize healthier food options in order to

promote fruit, vegetable, and whole wheat product purchases; support breastfeeding; and give WIC state and territory agencies more flexibility to accommodate cultural food preferences….In addition, the availability of healthier foods and beverages in authorized WIC stores has increased. Children enrolled in WIC consumed more fruits, vegetables, and whole grain products and less juice, white bread, and whole milk after the revisions than they did before.

Comment: Here is evidence that eating more healthfully promotes healthier body weights.  Let’s do more of this.

Note: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State of Childhood Obesity report provides an interactive map, state by state.

I guest-edited a series of papers on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH).  The papers are now online and will be in print in the December issue of the journal.

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, served as Guest Editor for the special section: “AJPH Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.” M. Nestle oversaw peer review for the articles, provided input on peer reviewer selection and peer review evaluation, suggested which articles would appear in the special section, and wrote the lead Commentary.

Conflicts of interest disclosure: Marion Nestle’s retirement benefits and a small fund from New York University support her research, publications, and Web site (foodpolitics.com). She receives royalties from books—and honoraria, travel, and meals related to lectures—about matters relevant to this special section.

PODCAST

Alfredo Morabia, the executive editor of AJPH, interviewed one of the authors, Joanna Cruz Simmons, and me in his monthly podcast.

SECTION OVERVIEW

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications.  Marion Nestle.  109(12), pp. 1631–1635.

EVIDENCE

Links of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program With Food Insecurity, Poverty, and Health: Evidence and Potential.  Brynne Keith-Jennings, Joseph Llobrera and Stacy Dean.  109(12), pp. 1636–1640.  Supplemental Material

RURAL SNAP

Importance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Rural America.  Lisa Harnack, Sruthi Valluri and Simone A. French.  109(12), pp. 1641–1645.

URBAN SNAP

SNAP at the Community Scale: How Neighborhood Characteristics Affect Participation and Food Access.  Nevin Cohen.  109(12), pp. 1646–1651

COLLEGE STUDENT SNAP

College Students and SNAP: The New Face of Food Insecurity in the United States.   Nicholas Freudenberg, Sara Goldrick-Rab and Janet Poppendieck.  109(12), pp. 1652–1658.

SNAP DATA

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed.  Jennifer L. Pomeranz. 109(12), pp. 1659–1663

SNAP PARTICIPANTS

Recommendations From SNAP Participants to Improve Wages and End Stigma.  Tianna Gaines-Turner, Joanna Cruz Simmons and Mariana Chilton.  109(12), pp. 1664–1667.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

Alternatives to SNAP: Global Approaches to Addressing Childhood Poverty and Food Insecurity.  Lia C. H. Fernald and Wendi Gosliner.  109(12), pp. 1668–1677.   Supplemental Material