Nutrition subcommittee at work

We'll try to get United Fresh reaction from Lorelei DiSogra's tomorrow, but here is the discussion draft of the nutrition programs from the House Ag subcommittee on nutrition. As expected and feared, "contingent" and not mandatory funds are at work in the nationwide expansion of the fruit and vegetable program, though it appears the DOD Fresh Program receives an honest boost in Section 32 funding from $50 million in 2008 to $125 million in 2012. The subcommittee markup is Thursday.

Some excerpts:


Subtitle C—Child Nutrition and Related Programs
SEC. 4301. EXPANSION OF DOD FRESH PROGRAM.Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) is amended by inserting after the 6th sentence, the following: ‘‘Of the funds available, the Secretary of Agriculture shall expend not less than $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $75,000,000 for both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 for the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to schools and service institutions in accordance with section 6(a) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(a)).’’.
SEC. 4302. EXPANSION OF FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM. (a) FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.—Sec- tion 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended in subsection (g)— (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘July 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘July 2007’’; (2) in paragraph (5), in each of subparagraphs(A) and (B), by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’; and (3) in paragraph (6)(B)—(A) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004, and on each October 1 thereafter,’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2007, and on each October 1 thereafter,’’
(b) CONTINGENT FUNDING AMENDMENT.—In title XI of this Act— (1) if changes to law not pertaining to the fresh fruit and vegetable program reduces outlays and/or increases revenue by an amount sufficient to offset the increased outlays that would occur over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2017, if total funding for the fresh fruit and vegetable program were increased to $100,000,000 in each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 (as estimated by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives at the time of the enactment of this Act); and (2) if such reductions in outlays or increases in revenue in paragraph (1) are specifically and exclusively dedicated to increasing funding for fresh fruit and vegetable program from the amount specified in the amendment made by paragraph (3) to $100,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; then (3) section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) is amended in subsection (g)—(A) in paragraph (1), by amending sub paragraphs (A) and (B) to read as follows: ‘‘(A) 50 elementary or secondary schools in each State;‘‘(B) additional elementary or secondary schools in each State in proportion to the student population of the State; and’’; (B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’; and (C) in paragraph (6)(B)(i), by striking‘‘$9,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’.

TK: $100 million, 50 states, 50 schools in each state, plus additional schools based on proportional student population. But even with the goodwill toward the program, finding that kind of contingency funding will be a tooth and nail battle.

FDA's new tomato safety initiative

The FDA has just announced the agency will begin a "multi-year Tomato Safety Initiative to reduce the incidence of tomato-related foodborne illness" in the U.S.

The Packer's Doug Ohlemeier will cover this story this week. Here is what the FDA said in the news release:

The initiative, part of FDA’s Produce Safety Action Plan, is a collaborative effort between FDA and state health and agriculture departments in Florida and Virginia. Several universities and members of the produce industry also are part of the effort. It will begin during this year’s growing season for Virginia in the summer and for Florida in the fall.

During the past decade, the consumption of fresh and fresh-cut tomatoes has been linked to 12 different outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States. Those outbreaks include 1,840 confirmed cases of illness. The majority of these outbreaks have been traced to products from Florida and the eastern shore of Virginia; however, tomato-associated outbreaks also have been traced to tomatoes from California, Georgia, Ohio, and South Carolina. The effort will include identifying practices or conditions that potentially lead to product contamination, which will allow FDA to continue to improve its guidance and policy on tomato safety. The initiative will evaluate the need for additional produce safety research, education, and outreach.

TK: The release says FDA investigators in coordination with their respective state counterparts will "visit tomato farms and packing facilities in Florida and Virginia to assess food safety practices and use of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs)." Another quote, "The visits will allow FDA and state officials to evaluate a "variety of environmental factors including irrigation water, wells, procedures for mixing chemicals, drought and flooding events, and animal proximity to growing fields." I'm curious about how the FDA will organize these visits. Must farmers agree to allow FDA/state inspectors on their farms? If not, are there any ground rules established?

A radical turn

Though a Google alert on immigration reform, I found this disturbing link from a pro-immigrant Web site that is pleased that the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform has stalled.

Here are a couple of excerpts from a post by Roberto Lovato, a New York-based writer with New America Media.

My experiences on different sides of the border lead me to believe that war and the rise of a national security state necessitate a new response from movimiento leaders. We need to complement current efforts at policy reform while moving beyond some of the more reformist politics that rode and channeled the movimiento’s momentum into electoral politics and Beltway policy circles. This reformism is now short-circuiting the electric sensations and aspirations of millions who marched. Rather than deal with the deadly anti-immigrant climate solely through marches, lobbying and other important methods we used in California, the movimiento must confront the extremist, national security-infused politics of immigration in a manner more resembling the peaceful yet militant methods being honed in the insurgent continent, where people shut down corporate media in Oaxaca and took over presidential palaces in Bolivia.
It only takes a few thousand marchers to build our own wall—a human wall—around ICE or Minutemen offices and stop business as usual. We could also hurt the bottom line of a specific multinational corporation, one that’s fomenting migration by economically strangling entire countries. Instead of sending money home using multinational banks that are destroying home countries, why not charge a people’s tax by boycotting them?

These and other kinds of actions are necessary because, in the best of all possible outcomes, current “immigration reform” will result in nothing less than the greatest threat to immigrant life in the history of the United States. Regardless of whether there’s a legalization of 12 million people or a guest worker program or no law passed, the number of immigrant workers exploited in rural and urban areas will expand and deepen; the number of families separated and terrorized by raids will grow; the number of children and adults in immigrant prisons will increase; the number of dead in the desert will multiply; the number of ordinances outlawing housing, drivers licenses, etc. will proliferate. The plight of those writer Walter Mosley calls “brown slaves” will continue sliding into chaos and suffering imaginable only by those who have lived literal slavery.

Rather than accept the corporate media’s declarations of the movement’s death, we ourselves should declare: “Immigration reform is dead.” In its place, we should continue working quietly toward alternative visions accompanied by more radical action, building grassroots power while overcoming fear of the state, corporate and other elitist forms of power.



TK: It seems the conservatives have resisted immigration reform because of its pathway to legalization, while some pro-immigrant voices call immigration reform "the greatest threat to immigrant life in the U.S." In fact, the greatest threat to life in the U.S. may be a continuation of current policy of nearly open borders that not only fails to control illegal immigrants but also fails agricultural producers by denying them access to a legal workforce.

Mulch and the farm subsidy database

Here is the link to the blog Mulch, (also featured as a RSS feed on this site) which now links to the updated version of the farm subsidy database by the Environmental Working Group.


Here is an explanation what the database is about:

The lists of top subsidy beneficiaries have changed dramatically. Just about every ranking of subsidy payments has changed in this new database because, for the first time, USDA has tracked subsidy benefits as they pass through tens of thousands of farm business entities—agribusiness cooperatives, partnerships, joint ventures and corporations—and has assigned virtually all farm subsidy 'benefits' to individuals. The Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database bases all of its rankings and analyses on this new benefits tracking data.
Specifically, some 358,057 individuals now have a dollar value for subsidy benefits associated with their names for the first time in our system—and they received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits alone between 2003 and 2005. In the database, those individuals have a double asterisk after their name, indicating that all of their subsidy benefits were in the form of pass-through(s) from a farm business(es) in which they had an ownership interest. A single asterisk means both payments made directly and pass-through subsidies are attributed to the individual by USDA. Listings with no asterisk are for individuals or entities that received all of their subsidy directly from USDA.

TK: Some 358,057 people probably aren't thrilled that their federal subsidy information is available in a public database. At the same time, the database sheds needed light on the realities of farm subsidies and could sharpen arguments on either side of the debate about the farm program reform. Rep. Dennis Cardoza told me today that farm program expenditures only account for about 13% of agriculture spending and that number could be even lower by the time the farm bill is written. The message: don't place all the onus on program crop subsidies in the search for new dollars.

The case for nutrition dollars

The Washington Post covers the public plea from environmental and anti-hunger groups for $15 billion in additional funding from the farm bill.

Antihunger and environmental groups have asked the U.S. Congress to guarantee them $15 billion in additional spending, some of it at the expense of traditional U.S. crop subsidies.
Environmentalists on Monday raised a direct challenge to farm subsidies, asking House and Senate leaders to increase land stewardship spending by $10 billion over five years, nearly a 40 percent increase from current levels.
Antihunger groups want $5 billion in new funding for public nutrition programs like food stamps and school lunch.

Later in the story:

"It's time to fix the farm bill in a broad way," said David Beckmann, head of Bread for the World, a "faith-based" movement against hunger. Beckmann said his group believes "one way to get additional money for nutrition assistance is to take it out of the commodity title."

TK: The $20 billion reserve fund for the farm bill is being spent several times over. This bold call for farm program reform contrasts - at least so far - with the produce industry's wait and see approach to the farm bill markup process. Is this nutrition/environmental attempt to reshuffle funding priorities an ill-fated gambit or a master stroke? Whatever the outcome, there appears to be little to lose in the trying.

NPR report

Here is a Fresh Talk comment submitted today in the tips/comments box from an NPR reporter, linking to an NPR report about food safety:

Tom, you should check out my blog http://www.chewswise.com. I think you'll be int'd in this post, a link to an NPR story I did: http://www.chewswise.com/chews/2007/06/salad_safety.html


TK: The NPR report focuses on the ongoing testing program by Natural Selection, and provides context to the handful of "presumptive positives" found in pathogen testing since last fall.

China's retort

China's PR machine has turned the focus of the food safety debate to U.S. imports, notes this story from the AP passed on by a Fresh Talk reader.
From the story:

China said Saturday it had rejected a shipment of pistachios from the United States because it contained ants, the latest indication the government may be retaliating as Chinese products are turned back from overseas because of safety concerns.The state television report, which showed inspectors wearing face masks and sealing the shipping container that held the pistachios, indicated an increasing push to show that other countries also have food safety issues.

TK: Also, shipments of health supplements and raisins were returned or destroyed because "they did not meet quality control standards." Tit for tat? FDA official David Acheson said we will probably never know. Whether by retaliation or increased scrutiny, U.S. exporters are on notice that they - like their Chinese counterparts - are on a shorter leash.

Recycled water questioned

This story from the California Progress Report takes on, with zeal, the subject of recycled water. The author also delves into the GAP metrics for the California leafy greens agreement. Here is an excerpt:

The California growers that have been claiming that they can regulate themselves with their new organization and practices call their standards Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). After the huge financial losses this past Fall with the spinach E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak, the fresh cut industry accelerated work on a set of leafy green “Good Agricultural Practices” (GAP), now called the “GAP Metrics.” The Western Growers Association (WGA) led the coalition of industry and farm groups developingthe GAP Metrics. In a soon-to-be-published report entitled “E. Coli O157: Preventing Outbreaks”, Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Organic Center has much to say about the deficiencies of the California growers GAP metrics. You might say that Dr. Benbrook points out some “gaps in the metrics.”Dr. Benbrook states:
“The water testing provisions, collectively, are the most serious flaw in the GAP Metrics. The water testing provisions rely exclusively on testing for generic E. coli. While the presence of generic E. coli is an indicator of possible E. coli O157 contamination, the correlation is not strong, nor sufficiently reliable to judge a water source as safe if it meets the proposed generic E. coli standards. Not only is the basic standard governing water quality based on the wrong organism, the standard applicable to generic E. coli is also unscientific and indefensible. The standard is based on an outmoded recreational water quality risk assessment carried out by EPA in the mid-1980s.” Dr. Benbrook goes on to conclude:
“Clearly, new science and more thought needs to be devoted to how to set the standard for both generic E. coli and pathogenic E. coli in irrigation water. In the interim, the Metrics should be revised to require the testing of irrigation water for E. coli O157. Water with detectable levels of E. coli O157 should not be used to irrigate fresh cut leafy greens. Period.” (Emphasis added)
I couldn’t agree with him more. I have been adamant about the risk of projects like Monterey County’s recycled water project they call “Castroville Sea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP)”. Until the recycled irrigation water is regularly tested at what scientists call “point of use” (POU), the safety of leafy green consumers cannot be assured.


TK: The author, retired soil scientist Frank Pecarich, wants to add another layer of testing to the GAP metrics in place. I know little of the science discussed here, but I do know growers could be swallowed whole by the escalating cost of the tests that critics would like to prescribe for them.