Tag Archives: farm bill

Doyle’s response.

Posted on by
2

I just realized I have been remiss in posting Congressman Mike Doyle‘s response to my request to maintain food stamp assistance in the Farm Bill (which was passed in the Senate today, in case you’re wondering). Doyle and I are firmly in the same camp on this issue, which is probably why I received both an email and an actual letter in the mail about this (the text was the same). Still no response from Toomey.

—

Thank you for contacting me in support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  I am glad we agree on this important issue. I am grateful that you took the time to write to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Like you, I strongly believe that it is our duty as a society to care for those less fortunate than ourselves, and SNAP plays a big role in providing this help. In the fiscal year 2011, SNAP helped around 44.7 million people, about half of whom were children. As families across the country continue to rebuild, SNAP has been there to assist those families hardest hit and keep them out of extreme poverty.

Unfortunately, a war is being waged on such social safety net programs. Just as people need food stamps more, the Republicans’ proposed budget seeks to cut funding for SNAP by $133 billion and tighten the eligibility requirements.

I voted against this proposed budget, but unfortunately it did pass the House. Luckily, it will be dead on arrival in the Democrat controlled Senate, and, because a budget has to pass both the Senate and the House in order to become law, we can be relatively certain that these draconian cuts won’t survive. Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues here in the House to protect SNAP and other programs like it.

Again, thank you for contacting me in support of SNAP.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may ever be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Mike Doyle

Member of Congress

Casey’s response.

Posted on by
4

As promised over at the Digging Deep Campaign, here’s the entire text of the response I received from Senator Bob Casey‘s office when I wrote regarding maintaining food stamp assistance in the Farm Bill. If/when I get something from Senator Pat Toomey‘s office, I’ll be sure to post it here.

I welcome your thoughts – and will start digging into Casey’s positions on the mammoth bill. Since he’s representing me in the Senate, I probably should pay attention to what he’s doing on my behalf.

—
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding nutrition programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. I appreciate hearing from you.

Roughly every five years, Congress reauthorizes the Farm Bill which governs federal farm and food policy. On April 26, 2012, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee met, modified and approved the 2012 Farm Bill. The bill is now pending on the Senate legislative calendar. I am hopeful that the full Senate will vote on the 2012 Farm Bill soon. If passed into law, the 2012 Farm Bill would reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion dollars through the elimination of unnecessary subsidies and the consolidation of programs. I worked to improve the Farm Bill so it was more fair and equitable for Pennsylvania agriculture. The current version of the 2012 Farm Bill includes benefits for Pennsylvania’s specialty crop farmers, dairy farmers, and conservation programs; and it improves the Secretary’s ability to purchase foods for use in federal nutrition programs. Still, more work must be done on this legislation.

The Committee-passed version of the 2012 Farm Bill supports food assistance programs, including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I introduced an amendment to the Farm Bill to allow USDA to consider the needs of states and the demands placed on emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks, when purchasing commodities through the TEFAP program. This amendment is included in the current bill. The 2012 Farm Bill also includes provisions to improve access to healthy foods in food deserts and to fund SNAP education and training programs. I have heard from many people about the “heat and eat” provision of SNAP. The Farm Bill permits participating states to coordinate SNAP and the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) allowing the LIHEAP agency to provide cash benefits directly to SNAP households. The current version of the 2012 Farm Bill would require at least $10 per year in LIHEAP assistance in order to qualify for the Standard Utility Allowance in the SNAP eligibility determination process.

It is very important to me that the Senate develops nutrition assistance policy that will help Pennsylvanians. I will continue to work with my colleagues on nutrition policy in preparation for when the full Senate considers the 2012 Farm Bill.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

ew. gross.

Posted on by
Reply

I’m hanging out with pink slime over at the Digging Deep Campaign this week – and am thankful that I just bought 100 lbs of beef from my favorite local farmer (which was from a cow that I had met personally). 

I briefly note there that, although the uproar over pink slime is fantastic to see – it’s amazing  to me how much people don’t know about the industrial food supply, and when they do start to learn, they are disgusted enough to do something about it – you can’t just call it a day when the USDA caves a little and gives school districts the choice of not buying ground beef with pink slime (The Lunch Tray explains why). Because the main reason the USDA buys pink slime for school lunches is because it’s cheap. And if school districts (cash-strapped already, at least in this state) still have to operate under the same reimbursement standards for the school lunches, we’ll see something else cheap sneak its way into the school lunch program.

I don’t usually quote myself, but in this case, I think it’s important to reiterate what I said earlier in the week at Digging Deep:

Here’s why – reimbursement rates. How much money do schools get reimbursed per child for the food in school lunches? Not much. The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) lists the current year maximum reimbursement rates as $2.79 for free lunches, $2.39 for reduced price lunches, and $0.28 for a lunch fully paid for by the child. Can you cook on an industrial scale for less than three bucks a meal? I sure can’t. And don’t forget the much-touted change in rules to the National School Lunch Program, thanks to Michelle Obama. Don’t get me wrong, doubling the amount of fruits and vegetables children are served in school is fantastic, and way overdue. But until the Farm Bill stops overwhelmingly subsidizing grains and starts leveling the playing field for fruit and veg, they’ll be more expensive. Which means the other food in each school lunch needs to be less expensive. Enter pink slime.

Yep, it all goes back to the Farm Bill. Which, as it happens, is up for reauthorization this year (because, thankfully, the Secret Farm Bill crap didn’t work last year). So work to make your voices heard – catch up on the particulars with the Environmental Working Group’s Farm Bill Policy Plate series, and consider the Community Food Security Coalition’s talking points when you contact your elected officials. Because you know the food-industrial complex is whispering in their ears. The least you can do – especially for the kids dependent on the school lunch program for their nutritional needs – is to do the same.

#myplate – beef (protein?) #2

Posted on by
1
As I mentioned earlier, two things bothered me about the USDA’s food pyramid transformation into a plate. Other people have had valid complaints about dairy by itself, protein not actually being a food, and other issues. The biggest one that struck me, however, is the disconnect between what the federal government is telling people to eat, and what the federal government is subsidizing farmers (I use this term loosely, Monsanto) to grow.
There are two striking visuals to this effect. First, one developed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine comparing #myplate to agricultural subsidiesfor crops grown that people in the United States eat (it excludes the support of exported and non-food crops). If you don’t feel like clicking, here you go:

Fruits and veggies take up half #myplate, but they only get less than 1% of agricultural subsidies. Protein is a quarter of the plate, with dairy a modest-looking glass on the side. Even if you assume that the protein quarter is only meat (which isn’t actually the case, because beans, tofu, and other vegetarian options also provide protein), there’s no reason that it needs 63% of the agricultural subsidy. At least, not if supporting your own recommendations is important.

Second, Utne Reader highlights Kitchen Gardeners’ dueling maps of Michelle Obama’s organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn – what is actually planted there, and what would be planted there if her garden reflected federal subsidies. Obviously, meat and dairy aren’t represented here, but you get the general idea:

So unless you eat corn, corn, and more corn, with some soybeans and tobacco thrown in for variety, you aren’t eating what the government supports with taxpayer dollars. At least, not directly (keep in mind that corn and soybeans are also used for animal feed, so unless you eat grass-fed everything in your meat diet, you probably are eating corn, corn, and more corn in some fashion). Here, fruit, vegetables, nuts, and ‘other specialty crops’ are less than 1% of the total subsidy, again. Does #myplate really make fruits and vegetables look like specialty crops? I certainly wouldn’t consider half of every meal a specialty.

What does this mean for the consumer? Even without considering increasing gas prices (and therefore, increased transportation costs for the food you’re eating), if you eat what USDA suggests you eat, your food bill is likely to go up, because half of your food is hardly subsidized by the government at all. How is that serving the American public?

And that’s just within USDA itself. How about the conflict between subsidizing foods that cause health problems (like obesity, diabetes, and other non-hereditary diseases)? Or having the Farm Bill be at odds with the First Lady’s attempts to combat these issues in kids? That’s HHS, the CDC, and the White House up against USDA. That certainly doesn’t seem like an efficient way to run government.

In fact, the President and Congress agree with me. The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 aims to avoid overlapping government programs to increase efficiency and effectiveness for the American people. In addition, agencies in the Obama administration are collaborating in a way that is unprecedented at the federal level. HUD, DOT, and EPA are jointly funding grants designed to further sustainablilty in housing, transportation, and the environment. Six agencies are collaborating across agency boundaries to combat domestic and sexual abuse. And nine agencies are collaborating (for better or for worse, depending on your opinion of this topic) about building transmission lines on federal lands. Trust me when I say that federal agencies talking to each other regularly, let alone really collaborating, is nothing short of miraculous.

So…. <insert crickets chirping here> why exactly aren’t we subsidizing the foods the government is telling us we should eat to be healthy? Is USDA exempt from that whole collaboration idea?