Currently browsing posts about: USDA

FERN’s Ag Insider reports: USDA’s top lawyer says politics has nothing to do with the recent reassignment of senior officers.

Of course it doesn’t.

Stephen Vaden, the former Trump transition official now serving as the USDA’s interim chief lawyer, says politics played no part in the reassignment of 13 of the department’s top-rank and highest-paid civil servants since the new administration took office. Four of the career employees retired rather than accept the new posts.  “All reassignments were based on organizational need,” said Vaden in a seven-page letter released within hours of a request from all 10 Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee for information about the personnel moves.

Does he really think anyone believes this?

Statements from USDA these days are easily interpreted.  They mean the opposite.

The FDA is responsible for food labeling but in the peculiar way things get done in federal agencies, the USDA governs front-of-package labeling for organics and also gets involved in labels for non-GMO, no-antibiotics and those for country-of-origin.

It has just published a report on all this:

The report is a good place to learn about the labeling laws passed in 1990, and it has an interesting case study on GMO labeling:

It has a lot to say about organic labeling:

Do such labels influence what the public buys?  Yes.  (That’s what the USDA is worried about)

Does the public understand what the labels mean?  Not really. (The USDA worries about this too)

The USDA derives many conclusions from this study, but boils them down to this statement:

There are fundamental tradeoffs in how information is presented to consumers. If it is presented simply, then important nuance or complexity may be missed. On the other hand, if standards and labels attempt to convey complexity, then consumers may just be confused. Policymakers and marketers will need to consider these tradeoffs in the future when developing new process-based labels.

What the USDA does not discuss is the fundamental issue behind fights over food labels.  They work well to discourage people from buying products that may not be good for them or do not meet their values.  That’s why the food industry opposes them so strongly.

The USDA, straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, has promised “new SNAP flexibilities to promote self-sufficiency.”

What does USDA mean by “flexibilities”?  Here are its exact words (I put the key words in quotes and in bold for emphasis:

The USDA announces its revised school meal rules, in words that would make George Orwell proud:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today provided local food service professionals the flexibility they need to serve wholesome, nutritious, and tasty meals in schools across the nation. The new School Meal Flexibility Rule…reflects USDA’s commitment, made in a May proclamation to work with program operators, school nutrition professionals, industry, and other stakeholders to develop forward-thinking strategies to ensure school nutrition standards are both healthful and practical…This action reflects a key initiative of USDA’s Regulatory Reform Agenda, developed in response to the President’s Executive Order to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.

Try and get your head around this.  The revised rules make school meals less nutritious.  They allow schools to:

• Serve flavored rather than plain low-fat milk (higher in sugar)
• Be exempt from serving whole grain-rich products.
• Have until the end of the 2020-2021 school year to reduce the salt in school meals.

This rule will be in effect for SY 2018-2019. USDA is accepting public comments for longer term use at www.regulations.gov.

I will never understand why adults would lobby to make school meals less healthful, but here is the School Nutrition Association praising the changes.  The Association cites survey data indicating that 65 percent of school districts are having trouble with whole grains and 92 percent with sodium requirements.

I love Margo Wootan’s quote (she is director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest):

The proposal is a hammer in search of a nail…Virtually 100 percent of schools are already complying with the final nutrition standards, including the first phase of sodium reduction.

Here are:

• USDA’s press release
• CSPI’s press statement
• American Heart Association’s press release

The USDA has just updated its agricultural statistics charts.

Some of the charts deal with trade issues.  I thought this one was especially interesting.

We (or farm animals) consume most of some commodities (pork, corn, beef).  Others are mainly for export (cotton, almonds,).

This is why trade matters to much to U.S. agriculture.

Belgium has produced a new food guide “pyramid,” upside down.  Its advice:

• Drink water
• Eat more fruits, vegetables, and grains
• Eat less dairy and meat, particularly those high in fat
• Eat a lot less junk food, sugary drinks, and alcohol

Nothing new here, really, except for making the advice so graphically clear.

As Quartz puts it, “the new food pyramid in Belgium sticks meat next to candy and pizza.”

USDA: take note.

International

For the past few weeks I’ve been collecting reports on food security.  I’ve already posted the most recent report on worldwide trends (not good) from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Here are two more on global trends:

• Progress and Challenges in Global Food Security: USDA/ERS researchers analyze the roles of trade, agricultural productivity, safety nets, and better data and measurement in achieving achieving gains in global food security.
• The World Food Crisis: The Way Out (2017/10th Anniversary Issue).  This comes from Right to Food and Nutrition Watch and includes their reports from the last 10 years.

In an editorial triggered by the FAO report, The Lancet announces a major effort to address global food security:

In 2018, The Lancet will launch four food-related initiatives: the EAT-Lancet Commission, the LancetObesity Commission, a Series on health and agriculture, and a Series on the double burden of malnutrition. Each of these projects will reinforce a different aspect of the global call for equitable and sustainable provision of food to be a priority: recommending how policy makers approach food systems inclusive of health, cultural respect, agriculture, production, transport, trade, and retailing.

U.S. Domestic

In the meantime, food security remains a significant issue in the U.S., as indicated by this collection of recent reports, mostly from USDA:

• Food Security in the U.S.: Food security—access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life—is one requirement for a healthy, well-nourished population. ERS plays a leading role in Federal research on food security in U.S. households and communities.
• Food Security in the United States: This product provides information about publicly available data from national surveys that include the U.S. Food Security Survey Module. Technical information is provided to facilitate appropriate use of the data, and links are provided to access data on line or to order the data files on CD-ROM.
• Household Food Security in the United States in 2016: An estimated 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure at some time during the year in 2016, lacking access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all their members; essentially unchanged from 12.7 percent in 2015.
• Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2016:  This is the statistical supplement for USDA’s annual report on households’ access to adequate food for active, healthy living.
• Food Insecurity, Chronic Disease, and Health Among Working-Age Adults: Lower food security is associated with higher probability of 10 chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, cancer) and is more strongly predictive of chronic illnesses than income in some cases.  In some cases, food insecurity is more closely related to chronic disease, than is income.
• Understanding the Prevalence, Severity, and Distribution of Food Insecurity in the United States  
• PBS News Hour Twitter Chat titled “What it means to be hungry in America:  ERS tweeted responses to questions from News Hour and shared links to ERS research. You can find a summary of that Twitter Chat here.
• The Effects of Energy Price Shocks on Household Food Security in Low-Income Households: This study shows that an unexpected rise in the prices of gasoline, natural gas, and electricity increases the probability of food insecurity and other food access problems, while an unexpected drop in the price of each energy source decreases the probability. Low-income households are more vulnerable to energy price shocks than households with higher incomes.  An Amber Waves magazine article was published in conjunction with this report.
• USDA’s National School Lunch Program Reduces Food Insecurity 
• Adults With Disabilities, Especially Mental Health Disabilities, Are at a Higher Risk for Food Insecurity

USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue says this about our new “trade breakthrough” with China:

The  point of US trade policy is to have open markets for our products.  USDA has a quick summary of our current balance of trade.  We are doing pretty well with it.

And here’s why:

Hence: Selling beef to China should up those numbers.