Currently browsing posts about: USDA

The USDA has just announced Investments to Strengthen U.S. Specialty Crops Sector.

The launch of the Assisting Specialty Crop Exports (ASCE) initiative will provide $65 million for projects that will help the specialty crop sector increase global exports and expand to new markets. Additionally, today USDA is announcing $72.9 million in grant funding available to support the specialty crops industry through the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) will fund innovative projects designed to bolster the competitiveness of the expanding specialty crop sector. Specialty crop exports totaled $24.6 billion in FY2023, representing 13.8 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports.

“Specialty crops” is USDA-speak for fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains—the food plants everyone, including the USDA, recommends for health.

The USDA co-sponsored Dietary Guidelines say:

A healthy dietary pattern consists of nutrient-dense forms of foods and beverages across all food groups, in recommended amounts, and within calorie limits. The core elements that make up a healthy dietary pattern include:

• Vegetables of all types—dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other vegetables

• Fruits, especially whole fruit

• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain

The USDA, however, defines “Specialty” crops as

Fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops (including floriculture).

It lumps edible foods, herbs, and spices together with inedible annual and perennial bedding plants, potted house plants,  cut flowers, and Christmas trees, among others.  So the new money supports export of all of them, not just food.

The money—$65 million—is hardly a rounding error compared to the billions spent on support of commodity crops like corn and soybeans.

Commodity crops go for food for animals and fuel for automobiles; only a tiny fraction goes for food for people.

Despite the Dietary Guidelines, the USDA support of food for people is minimal.  Hence, “Specialty.”

We need the USDA to refocus its priorities on food for people and environmental sustainability.

Hey—I can dream.

I was guest editor for a supplement to the American Journal of Public Health: Policies and Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Family Nutrition.

It is open access so you can access it here.

I wrote the lead editorial: Equitable Access to the USDA’s Food Assistance Programs: Policies Needed to Reduce Barriers and Increase Accessibility.  113(S3), pp. S167–S170.  

This special supplement to AJPH deals with a critically important topic: enabling and increasing access to federal nutrition assistance programs among low-income Americans who are eligible for these programs but unaware, unable, or unwilling to participate in them. To help identify the barriers to nonparticipation and to recommend policies to reduce them, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded research projects aimed at these goals, especially as they pertain to families with young children.  PDF/EPUB

Editor’s choice

USDA sent out a news release about the current funding status of WIC, the  Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

 More than 6.7 million women, infants, and children participate in WIC — the program serves just under half of all infants born in the U.S. 

Unless Congress acts to fund the program, things could get worse.  

A new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), provides estimates of people eligible for WIC benefits nationally, by state, by race and ethnicity, and, for the first time in this series of reports, by urbanicity. 

 

Evidence shows that WIC participation results in better pregnancy outcomes, including fewer infant deaths, premature births, and low birthweight infants and the program has been shown to reduce health care costs and increase preventative care and immunization rates among children. 

The USDA says WIC is Vital – but Vastly Underutilized, Research Finds 

The just released study reports that an average of 12.13 million moms, babies, and young children were eligible for WIC in 2021. However, only 51%, or 6.21 million, of those who were eligible actually participated…A failure to fully fund WIC this fiscal year means some states would likely need to put eligible families on waiting lists. 

Comment

WIC differs from SNAP in three important ways.

1. WIC is not an entitlement; participation can only go as high as the funding permts.  Women can be eligible, but not get benefits if the money runs out.
2. WIC charge cards allow purchase only of WIC-eligible foods.
3. Congress required WIC to be evaluated for its effects on child health.

For a long time, the funding only covered about half of women and children eligible for WIC.  That changed about 25 years ago when Congress decided—on the basis of evidence produced by evaluations—to provide enough funding to cover everyone who was eligible.  Enrollments rose.

This report documents problems with enrollments in the program; enrollment is low and declining, especially among groups who need the benefits the most.

Any number of reasons could account for the underuse and decline:

• Difficulties dealing with bureaucracy
• Immigrant concerns about status vulnerability
• Lack of transportation
• Not speaking English
• Stigma
• Not knowing about eligibility
• Lack of outreach

Yes, Congress should fund WIC at a 100% level.  It’s demonstrably one of the best programs going.

USDA should be doing all it can to address that list of barriers—all of them.

The reports

• The USDA report on WIC enrollments
• Enrollment data volume I
• Enrollment data volume II

Jerry Mande, a co-founder of Nourish Science wrote me to urge support for a national action plan to reduce obesity—and the chronic diseases for which it raises risks. (Note: he also has an op-ed in The Hill on NIH research and leadership needs).

Here is what we should do. It’s time for a new federal nutrition goal. For decades it’s been some variation of “access to healthier options and nutrition information.” Jim Jones [the new head of food and nutrition at FDA] used that last week in his vision for the new human foods program. It’s in USDA FNS’s mission too. The WaPo reporting on life expectancy, fatty liver disease, & Lunchables in school meals reveals that goal has failed and needs to be replaced.

The goal should be updated to: ensuring that every child reaches age 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health. Cory Booker proposed making it the U.S. goal in his attached letter to Susan Rice on the WHC [White House Conference]. It’s part of the Nourish Science vision.

It’s doable.  USDA has the necessary power, reach, and resources. Over half of infants are on WIC, 1/3 of children in CACFP [Child and Adult Care Feeding Program], virtually all in school meals, and almost ½ of SNAP recipients are under 18. If we leveraged those programs to achieve the new goal and with FDA’s & CDC’s help, we could make substantial progress. For example, USDA was able to raise school meal HEI [Healthy Eating Index] scores from failing U.S. average of 58 to an acceptable 82 in just three years.

We have a successful blueprint in FDA regulation of tobacco. When we began our FDA investigation in 1993 1/3 of adults and ¼ of kids smoked cigarettes. Today we have a $700M FDA tobacco center and 11% of adults and only 2% of high school students smoke cigarettes.

We should set the new goal in the upcoming Farm Bill. We should change USDA’s name to the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture and state the new goal.

The only needed ingredient to make this happen is an effective federal nutrition champion. That’s how tobacco happened.

I’m optimistic. We can do this.

I like the vision.  I’m glad he’s optimistic.  Plenty of work to do to get this on the agenda.

Some background

• The CDC on how nearly 70% of American adults are overweight or have obesity.
• My report on the White House Conference, a year ago
• Politico (Helena Bottemiller Evich, now at Food Fix)  on how diet- and obesity-related diseases are a huge public health problem, especially for COVID-19, but no government program exists to prevent them.
• Politico (Catherine Boudreau and Helena Bottemiller Evich) on how federal research on prevention of diet- and obesity-related diseases hardly exists.

A lot of good stuff is going on about school food these days.  Here are five items.

I.  Universal school meals:

Massachusetts has become the 8^th state to authorize universal school meals for kids in public schools.

Five of the eight states that have passed universal school meal programs did so this year. Minnesota and New Mexico enacted their policies in March, with Vermont following in June,  Michigan in July and now Massachusetts.  [Others are underway; here’s a current list]

II.  The USDA’s Healthy School Meals Incentives

• Lifting Up School Meals
• Resources: Media Toolkit, School Meals Webpage, Support for Schools webpage
• List of the Healthy Meals Incentives small/rural school district grantees

III.  Water-in-schools initiatives

A new study just out: “Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention” finds drinking water associated with healthier weights.

• The US News and World Report article on the study.
• A short video of study findings is available in English and Spanish
• National Drinking Water Alliance article
• Water First resources are available here

IV.  Plant-based school meals

Another study, Plant-Based Trends in California’s School Lunches, produced these findings:

• 68% of districts offer plant-based options daily or weekly, a 54% increase since 2019.
• Plant-based entrees increased by 16% (but account for only 8% of entrées offered).
• Districts are serving higher quality, whole plant-based entrees.

But then things get complicated:

• Processed meat entrees account for 18% of all entrées offered, an increase of 11% since 2019.
• More the half (57%) of all offerings on school menus contain cheese, and some of these are highly processed and include meat (e.g., pepperoni pizza).

California has a School Food Best Practices Fund for purchasing high-quality plant-based offerings, along with locally grown, minimally processed and sustainably grown food.

V.   School Nutrition policies and practices

A new study, “School Nutrition Environment and Services: Policies and Practices That Promote Healthy Eating Among K-12 Students,” says these interventions work:

Providing school nutrition professionals with professional development

• Improving the palatability of school meals
• Offering taste tests
• Pre-slicing fruit
• Providing recess before lunch
• Offering incentives for trying healthier options
• Providing access to drinking water

Comment:  Yes on universal school meals.  Everyone should be working on states to pass this legislation.  As for what works in schools, these interventions are well within the possible.  Get to work!

I received an email from the USDA about what it is doing about school meals for the fall (and see ALSO at the end of this post).

It included links or attachments to resources.

• Lifting Up School Meals:  key messages, calendar of themes for Fall 2023, and links to resources  
• Media Toolkit: Includes videos, social media content, flyers, fact sheets, and b-roll 
• School Meals Webpage: Hub for all things school meals 
• HealthyMeals Incentives: overall description
• Grantees, Funding Amounts, by State
• Support for Schools: Webpage highlighting financial support, such as grants and extra food funds, provided to schools for their meal programs

This last one shows the money USDA has put into school meals since 2021.

This looks impressive.  Let’s hope it does good. 

ALSO

The Chef Ann Foundation, which teaches scratch-cooking in schools, is recruiting applicants for its Healthy School Food Pathway Fellowship.  This is a 13-month training program.  See messages and graphics.  They are also hosting an explanatory webinar—tomorrow—for which you can register here.

Several readers have asked me to comment on legislative proposals to refocus SNAP on nutrition quality.

Their requests were triggered by an editorial in The Hill,  America’s food program for the poor should focus on nutrition, by two former USDA Secretaries, Dan Glickman and Ann Veneman, who co-chair the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Food and Nutrition Security Task Force.

They have several suggestions for improving SNAP:

To start, they should make diet quality a core, statutory focus of SNAP. Legislation from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — the SNAP Nutrition Security Act of 2023 — would not only provide a statutory focus on nutrition within SNAP but craft a robust data collection strategy to identify opportunities to improve nutrition in the program.

The Booker/Rubio bill is clear about its purpose:

Food programs administered by the Department of Agriculture  should simultaneously combat food insufficiency and diet related chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and cancer, which cause immense suffering, significantly increase already high health care spending, increase poverty, and undermine military readiness.

The bill calls for a report from the USDA Secretary that includes:

• An analysis of the food and nutrition security of participants and non-participants in SNAP
• Changes in SNAP aimed at improving food and nutrition security and diet quality
• An analysis of the effectiveness of those changes
• Recommendations for additional authority for the USDA Secretary to improve food and nutrition security and diet quality.

The core of this bill is store-level data collection.

The bill authorizes the USDA to study “the specific food items acquired with [SNAP] benefits by eligible households.”

Good idea, and about time too.  I was on the SNAP to Health commission which made similar recommendations in 2012.

I hope Congress passes it.  Here are the organizations that endorse the bill so far (as of July 14, 2023).

For the record: if we were starting from scratch on poverty reduction, my strong preference is for income support, not SNAP.  It worked splendedly during the pandemic.

Given that SNAP is what we’ve got, my preference is for the WIC model, or would be if all of these questions weren’t so politicized.

I find it hard to keep up with everything USDA is doing in food assistance, because its programs go way beyond SNAP.  Every now and then, the USDA sends an update via email.

General Overview of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs

USDA’s domestic food and nutrition assistance programs affect the daily lives of millions of people, with about one in four U.S. residents participating in at least one food assistance program at some point during a typical year.

Expenditures for food and nutrition assistance account for more than two-thirds of USDA’s budget.

USDA food and nutrition assistance programs, costs and participation, fiscal year 2022

USDA expenditures on food assistance programs, fiscal years 1970–2022

You may also be interested in charts on:

• Child Nutrition Programs 
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)  
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

The point: This is a huge amount of money.  These programs demonstrably relieve poverty, but are not nearly enough to solve it.  And the amounts are large enough to constitute a target for budget cutters, regardless of consequences.

Most of the attention focuses on SNAP, the most expensive program.  To the extent that the others stay off budget cutters radar, they can do plenty of good.

And these are basically what’s left of the safety net for the poor (except for the Earned Income Tax Credit).

These help, but not nearly enough.