Jacqueline Dowd reports for Change.org that doing the good deed of giving a homeless person some food might result in a $300 fine in Miami. Several other cities are adopting these ham-handed fines.
Seriously, what would Jesus say about this?
Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
NY Times: THE SAFETY NET Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades
The New York Times reporters Jason DeParle and Robert Gebeloff write about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or the Food Stamp program, which provides assistance to families needing help with food. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an outline of the program here.
Normally, the benefits are limited to 3 months for unemployed childless adults, but this rule is suspended in many areas due to the economic downturn. The program also contains a work incentive, in that for every dollar of additional income a beneficiary earns (assuming she or he is within the program's income limits), benefits decrease only by 24-36 cents. DeParle and Gebeloff find that the program is getting increasing enrollment during these hard times, and that while a lot of people have scorned it as a welfare program that encourages dependency, a lot of beneficiaries really need the help and need to be coaxed into applying. Some excerpts:
MARTINSVILLE, Ohio — With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.
It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.
While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.
...
The Safety Net
A Program Once Scorned
With millions of jobs lost and major industries on the ropes, America’s array of government aid — including unemployment insurance, food stamps and cash welfare — is being tested as never before. This series examines how the safety net is holding up under the worst economic crisis in decades.
Previous Articles in the Series »
The Recession’s Impact
Faces, numbers and stories from behind the downturn.
Multimedia
Interactive Map
Food Stamp Usage Across the Country
Slide Show
Once Scorned, a Federal Program Grows to Feed the Struggling
Related
Times Topics: Food Stamps
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (547) »
It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.
While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.
There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps, according to an analysis of local data collected by The New York Times.
The counties are as big as the Bronx and Philadelphia and as small as Owsley County in Kentucky, a patch of Appalachian distress where half of the 4,600 residents receive food stamps.
In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. Even in Peoria, Ill. — Everytown, U.S.A. — nearly 40 percent of children receive aid.
While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades.
Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.
“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”
Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to 98 percent in Missouri. Mr. Concannon urged lagging states to do more to enroll the needy, citing a recent government report that found a sharp rise in Americans with inconsistent access to adequate food.
“This is the most urgent time for our feeding programs in our lifetime, with the exception of the Depression,” he said. “It’s time for us to face up to the fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people.”
...
The program’s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent.
With most of his co-workers laid off, Greg Dawson, a third-generation electrician in rural Martinsville, considers himself lucky to still have a job. He works the night shift for a contracting firm, installing freezer lights in a chain of grocery stores. But when his overtime income vanished and his expenses went up, Mr. Dawson started skimping on meals to feed his wife and five children.
He tried to fill up on cereal and eggs. He ate a lot of Spam. Then he went to work with a grumbling stomach to shine lights on food he could not afford. When an outreach worker appeared at his son’s Head Start program, Mr. Dawson gave in.
“It’s embarrassing,” said Mr. Dawson, 29, a taciturn man with a wispy goatee who is so uneasy about the monthly benefit of $300 that he has not told his parents. “I always thought it was people trying to milk the system. But we just felt like we really needed the help right now.”
The outreach worker is a telltale sign. Like many states, Ohio has campaigned hard to raise the share of eligible people collecting benefits, which are financed entirely by the federal government and brought the state about $2.2 billion last year.
By contrast, in the federal cash welfare program, states until recently bore the entire cost of caseload growth, and nationally the rolls have stayed virtually flat. Unemployment insurance, despite rapid growth, reaches about only half the jobless (and replaces about half their income), making food stamps the only aid many people can get — the safety net’s safety net.
Support for the food stamp program reached a nadir in the mid-1990s when critics, likening the benefit to cash welfare, won significant restrictions and sought even more. But after use plunged for several years, President Bill Clinton began promoting the program, in part as a way to help the working poor. President George W. Bush expanded that effort, a strategy Mr. Obama has embraced.
The revival was crowned last year with an upbeat change of name. What most people still call food stamps is technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
By the time the recession began, in December 2007, “the whole message around this program had changed,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. “The general pitch was, ‘This program is here to help you.’ ”
Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs.
In the promotion of the program, critics see a sleight of hand.
“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”
Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.
Normally, the benefits are limited to 3 months for unemployed childless adults, but this rule is suspended in many areas due to the economic downturn. The program also contains a work incentive, in that for every dollar of additional income a beneficiary earns (assuming she or he is within the program's income limits), benefits decrease only by 24-36 cents. DeParle and Gebeloff find that the program is getting increasing enrollment during these hard times, and that while a lot of people have scorned it as a welfare program that encourages dependency, a lot of beneficiaries really need the help and need to be coaxed into applying. Some excerpts:
MARTINSVILLE, Ohio — With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children.
It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.
While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.
...
The Safety Net
A Program Once Scorned
With millions of jobs lost and major industries on the ropes, America’s array of government aid — including unemployment insurance, food stamps and cash welfare — is being tested as never before. This series examines how the safety net is holding up under the worst economic crisis in decades.
Previous Articles in the Series »
The Recession’s Impact
Faces, numbers and stories from behind the downturn.
Multimedia
Interactive Map
Food Stamp Usage Across the Country
Slide Show
Once Scorned, a Federal Program Grows to Feed the Struggling
Related
Times Topics: Food Stamps
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (547) »
It has grown so rapidly in places so diverse that it is becoming nearly as ordinary as the groceries it buys. More than 36 million people use inconspicuous plastic cards for staples like milk, bread and cheese, swiping them at counters in blighted cities and in suburbs pocked with foreclosure signs.
Virtually all have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare.
While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply. That bipartisan effort capped an extraordinary reversal from the 1990s, when some conservatives tried to abolish the program, Congress enacted large cuts and bureaucratic hurdles chased many needy people away.
From the ailing resorts of the Florida Keys to Alaskan villages along the Bering Sea, the program is now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.
There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps, according to an analysis of local data collected by The New York Times.
The counties are as big as the Bronx and Philadelphia and as small as Owsley County in Kentucky, a patch of Appalachian distress where half of the 4,600 residents receive food stamps.
In more than 750 counties, the program helps feed one in three blacks. In more than 800 counties, it helps feed one in three children. In the Mississippi River cities of St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans, half of the children or more receive food stamps. Even in Peoria, Ill. — Everytown, U.S.A. — nearly 40 percent of children receive aid.
While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust. There are about 50 small counties and a dozen sizable ones where the rolls have doubled in the last two years. In another 205 counties, they have risen by at least two-thirds. These places with soaring rolls include populous Riverside County, Calif., most of greater Phoenix and Las Vegas, a ring of affluent Atlanta suburbs, and a 150-mile stretch of southwest Florida from Bradenton to the Everglades.
Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster.
“I think the response of the program has been tremendous,” said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, “but we’re mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who could benefit.”
Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to 98 percent in Missouri. Mr. Concannon urged lagging states to do more to enroll the needy, citing a recent government report that found a sharp rise in Americans with inconsistent access to adequate food.
“This is the most urgent time for our feeding programs in our lifetime, with the exception of the Depression,” he said. “It’s time for us to face up to the fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people.”
...
The program’s growing reach can be seen in a corner of southwestern Ohio where red state politics reign and blue-collar workers have often called food stamps a sign of laziness. But unemployment has soared, and food stamp use in a six-county area outside Cincinnati has risen more than 50 percent.
With most of his co-workers laid off, Greg Dawson, a third-generation electrician in rural Martinsville, considers himself lucky to still have a job. He works the night shift for a contracting firm, installing freezer lights in a chain of grocery stores. But when his overtime income vanished and his expenses went up, Mr. Dawson started skimping on meals to feed his wife and five children.
He tried to fill up on cereal and eggs. He ate a lot of Spam. Then he went to work with a grumbling stomach to shine lights on food he could not afford. When an outreach worker appeared at his son’s Head Start program, Mr. Dawson gave in.
“It’s embarrassing,” said Mr. Dawson, 29, a taciturn man with a wispy goatee who is so uneasy about the monthly benefit of $300 that he has not told his parents. “I always thought it was people trying to milk the system. But we just felt like we really needed the help right now.”
The outreach worker is a telltale sign. Like many states, Ohio has campaigned hard to raise the share of eligible people collecting benefits, which are financed entirely by the federal government and brought the state about $2.2 billion last year.
By contrast, in the federal cash welfare program, states until recently bore the entire cost of caseload growth, and nationally the rolls have stayed virtually flat. Unemployment insurance, despite rapid growth, reaches about only half the jobless (and replaces about half their income), making food stamps the only aid many people can get — the safety net’s safety net.
Support for the food stamp program reached a nadir in the mid-1990s when critics, likening the benefit to cash welfare, won significant restrictions and sought even more. But after use plunged for several years, President Bill Clinton began promoting the program, in part as a way to help the working poor. President George W. Bush expanded that effort, a strategy Mr. Obama has embraced.
The revival was crowned last year with an upbeat change of name. What most people still call food stamps is technically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
By the time the recession began, in December 2007, “the whole message around this program had changed,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that has supported food stamp expansions. “The general pitch was, ‘This program is here to help you.’ ”
Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs.
In the promotion of the program, critics see a sleight of hand.
“Some people like to camouflage this by calling it a nutrition program, but it’s really not different from cash welfare,” said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose views have a following among conservatives on Capitol Hill. “Food stamps is quasi money.”
Arguing that aid discourages work and marriage, Mr. Rector said food stamps should contain work requirements as strict as those placed on cash assistance. “The food stamp program is a fossil that repeats all the errors of the war on poverty,” he said.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Guernica: Food among the ruins
An article in Guernica, an online magazine, argues that it would be technically feasible to convert most of the land in Detroit to farming. The entire city of Detroit is close to being a food desert, whereas most food deserts in the US are only parts of inner cities. Converting most of the city to farmland would be of tremendous benefit to the residents. However, community leaders the author interviewed felt that the political and community will to do this does not yet exist.
The article is quite long, but here's an excerpt:
The article is quite long, but here's an excerpt:
There are a few cities in the world that grow and provide about half their total food supply within their urban and peri-urban regions—Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Havana, Cuba; Hanoi, Vietnam; Dakar, Senegal; Rosario, Argentina; Cagayan de Oro in the Philippines; and, my personal favorite, Cuenca, Equador—all of which have much longer growing seasons than Detroit. However, those cities evolved that way, almost unintentionally. They are, in fact, about where Detroit was agriculturally around one hundred and fifty years ago. Half of them will almost surely drop under 50 percent sufficiency within the next two decades as industry subsumes cultivated land to build factories (à la China). Because of its unique situation, Detroit could come close to being 100 percent self-sufficient.
First, the city lies on one hundred and forty square miles of former farmland. Manhattan, Boston, and San Francisco could be placed inside the borders of Detroit with room to spare, and the population is about the same as the smallest of those cities, San Francisco: eight hundred thousand. And that number is still declining from a high of two million in the mid-nineteen fifties. Demographers expect Detroit’s population to level off somewhere between five hundred thousand and six hundred thousand by 2025. Right now there is about forty square miles of unoccupied open land in the city, the area of San Francisco, and that landmass could be doubled by moving a few thousand people out of hazardous firetraps into affordable housing in the eight villages. As I drove around the city, I saw many full-sized blocks with one, two, or three houses on them, many already burned out and abandoned. The ones that weren’t would make splendid farmhouses.
As Detroit was built on rich agricultural land, the soil beneath the city is fertile and arable. Certainly some of it is contaminated with the wastes of heavy industry, but not so badly that it’s beyond remediation. In fact, phyto-remediation, using certain plants to remove toxic chemicals permanently from the soil, is already practiced in parts of the city. And some of the plants used for remediation can be readily converted to biofuels. Others can be safely fed to livestock.
Leading the way in Detroit’s soil remediation is Malik Yakini, owner of the Black Star Community Book Store and founder of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network. Yakini and his colleagues begin the remediation process by removing abandoned house foundations and toxic debris from vacated industrial sites. Often that is all that need be done to begin farming. Throw a little compost on the ground, turn it in, sow some seeds, and water it. Water in Detroit is remarkably clean and plentiful.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Follow up on obesity policy: reduce agriculture subsidies
I rarely agree with the Wall Street Journal, that screed of naked capitalism on social policy. Indeed, the linked article decries government attempts to tax fattening foods, not to mention government involvement in the health system. Nonetheless, the capitalist pigs make a good point:
But Congress could give up its own bad habits right now. Start by reforming agricultural “policy,” meaning subsidies that help make unhealthy food artificially cheap. Most of the new calories in the American diet come from processed foods, and taxpayers have underwritten them since the New Deal with huge price supports for commodity crops like corn and soy.
These are processed into low-quality calories that make their way to consumers as refined starches, high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils and feed for livestock. Most farmers receiving ag subsidies are actually prohibited by law from growing “specialty crops”—i.e., fruits and vegetables—as protectionism for California and Florida produce growers. Call the 19% of kids who are obese the children of the corn.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The economic stimulus plan provides $150 million for food banks. Advocates for the hungry say it can't arrive soon enough.
Daniel Taylor of CNN Money profiles a food bank in New York City. The US stimulus plan provides $150 million for food programs. Is it enough?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For Jesse Taylor, the debate over the federal stimulus plan wasn't about politicians trying to score points or economists parsing the unemployment rate.
It was about the growing ranks of hungry people lining up outside his Harlem food pantry.
"We're in the midst of a perfect storm: We've received budget cuts, we've seen an increase in the number of people coming in, and we've seen the cost of food going up," said Taylor, senior director of Community Kitchen, a food pantry and soup kitchen run by the New York City Food Bank.
On a recent cold morning, the unassuming and friendly Taylor greeted members of the community -- some of whom he has come to know by name -- waiting to enter the pantry for a bundle of groceries.
"We definitely need to bail out the hungry," Taylor said.
The $787 billion economic stimulus plan signed by President Obama on Feb. 17 allocates $150 million to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The 28-year old program, known as TEFAP, sends shipments of federally purchased food to states, which in turn gets the food in the hands of large food banks. The food banks then allocate the food to soup kitchens and pantries that serve people in need.
The $150 million for TEFAP provided by stimulus about doubles the amount of money allotted to the program in 2009, and the funds will be distributed starting soon, according to the USDA. But with the economic situation still deteriorating, people on the front lines of the nation's hunger problem worry that it's not enough.
"It's a great first step, and we're grateful to the administration for putting those funds into TEFAP," said Taylor, whose parent agency is set to receive about $6 million more in food this year because of the stimulus package. "But it's not enough to cover all the people coming in and requesting emergency food assistance."
The $150 million is half of what Feeding America, a network of more than 200 food banks that advocates in Washington for food assistance programs, sought from Congress. Feeding America said its member food banks are reporting a 30% increase in the number of people seeking assistance over a year ago, and 72% of food banks have been unable to adequately meet demand.
New York Gov. David Patterson's office estimates that 3.5 million New Yorkers will require some form of food assistance in 2009. New York City Food Bank, the largest in the country, said that 2 million of those people will have never accessed food assistance programs in the past.
One such person is Rosetta Stokes, a former postal worker who retired 10 years ago due to a disability. She had managed to get by on her disability payments until now. Thursday was her first day at a soup kitchen.
"I do have my disability, but it doesn't seem like it's lasting. Food prices are rising and sizes are getting smaller," said Stokes, who called her grits and eggs served up by the Community Kitchen staff "a blessing."
"Everything's just gotten overwhelming," she added. "Every day it's something like, 'Wow, I can't do ... what I was doing yesterday.' "
Rising prices worry advocates
People seeking emergency food have cited unemployment and soaring food prices as the leading causes of their need. Food costs rose 5.9% last year, and staple foods like corn, wheat and other grains have grown even more expensive.
"Food is the most elastic expenditure in a household's budget," said Maura Daley, vice president of government relations and advocacy and Feeding America. "Food prices are still rising, so it's hard to predict how quickly we'll see relief."
Even though the stimulus plan plans to alleviate hunger by allocating $20 billion to food stamp programs, rising food prices could still put a dagger into those plans.
"They helped us by raising the food stamps, but the food [costs] have gone higher," said Carmen Quinones, a foster mother in Harlem, who has been coming to the Community Kitchen's food pantry for two months.
"You still have to come out of pocket to make ends meet at the end of the month," said Quinones. "Hopefully this stimulus package will provide more funds for us and more jobs. That's what it's all about - creating jobs and getting people off the system."
Stimulus: A good start
Some experts are optimistic that the recovery plan's aim of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs over the next two years will indirectly help the hunger situation.
"The more preventative work we can do, obviously the better," said Aine Duggan, vice president of government relations at the New York City Food Bank. "The more jobs we create at this time, then the less people we'll see turning to emergency food programs."
Still, Duggan said organizations that work with the huger issue are readying themselves for even greater demand for food banks' services in 2009 than in 2008. She expects resources to be stretched thin but said the stimulus money will help.
"The message with the economic stimulus bill is there isn't a silver bullet here. There is no way to fix the entire problem with one bill," Duggan said. "But we can certainly provide assistance to people who are most in need - at least in a temporary way."
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For Jesse Taylor, the debate over the federal stimulus plan wasn't about politicians trying to score points or economists parsing the unemployment rate.
It was about the growing ranks of hungry people lining up outside his Harlem food pantry.
"We're in the midst of a perfect storm: We've received budget cuts, we've seen an increase in the number of people coming in, and we've seen the cost of food going up," said Taylor, senior director of Community Kitchen, a food pantry and soup kitchen run by the New York City Food Bank.
On a recent cold morning, the unassuming and friendly Taylor greeted members of the community -- some of whom he has come to know by name -- waiting to enter the pantry for a bundle of groceries.
"We definitely need to bail out the hungry," Taylor said.
The $787 billion economic stimulus plan signed by President Obama on Feb. 17 allocates $150 million to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emergency Food Assistance Program.
The 28-year old program, known as TEFAP, sends shipments of federally purchased food to states, which in turn gets the food in the hands of large food banks. The food banks then allocate the food to soup kitchens and pantries that serve people in need.
The $150 million for TEFAP provided by stimulus about doubles the amount of money allotted to the program in 2009, and the funds will be distributed starting soon, according to the USDA. But with the economic situation still deteriorating, people on the front lines of the nation's hunger problem worry that it's not enough.
"It's a great first step, and we're grateful to the administration for putting those funds into TEFAP," said Taylor, whose parent agency is set to receive about $6 million more in food this year because of the stimulus package. "But it's not enough to cover all the people coming in and requesting emergency food assistance."
The $150 million is half of what Feeding America, a network of more than 200 food banks that advocates in Washington for food assistance programs, sought from Congress. Feeding America said its member food banks are reporting a 30% increase in the number of people seeking assistance over a year ago, and 72% of food banks have been unable to adequately meet demand.
New York Gov. David Patterson's office estimates that 3.5 million New Yorkers will require some form of food assistance in 2009. New York City Food Bank, the largest in the country, said that 2 million of those people will have never accessed food assistance programs in the past.
One such person is Rosetta Stokes, a former postal worker who retired 10 years ago due to a disability. She had managed to get by on her disability payments until now. Thursday was her first day at a soup kitchen.
"I do have my disability, but it doesn't seem like it's lasting. Food prices are rising and sizes are getting smaller," said Stokes, who called her grits and eggs served up by the Community Kitchen staff "a blessing."
"Everything's just gotten overwhelming," she added. "Every day it's something like, 'Wow, I can't do ... what I was doing yesterday.' "
Rising prices worry advocates
People seeking emergency food have cited unemployment and soaring food prices as the leading causes of their need. Food costs rose 5.9% last year, and staple foods like corn, wheat and other grains have grown even more expensive.
"Food is the most elastic expenditure in a household's budget," said Maura Daley, vice president of government relations and advocacy and Feeding America. "Food prices are still rising, so it's hard to predict how quickly we'll see relief."
Even though the stimulus plan plans to alleviate hunger by allocating $20 billion to food stamp programs, rising food prices could still put a dagger into those plans.
"They helped us by raising the food stamps, but the food [costs] have gone higher," said Carmen Quinones, a foster mother in Harlem, who has been coming to the Community Kitchen's food pantry for two months.
"You still have to come out of pocket to make ends meet at the end of the month," said Quinones. "Hopefully this stimulus package will provide more funds for us and more jobs. That's what it's all about - creating jobs and getting people off the system."
Stimulus: A good start
Some experts are optimistic that the recovery plan's aim of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs over the next two years will indirectly help the hunger situation.
"The more preventative work we can do, obviously the better," said Aine Duggan, vice president of government relations at the New York City Food Bank. "The more jobs we create at this time, then the less people we'll see turning to emergency food programs."
Still, Duggan said organizations that work with the huger issue are readying themselves for even greater demand for food banks' services in 2009 than in 2008. She expects resources to be stretched thin but said the stimulus money will help.
"The message with the economic stimulus bill is there isn't a silver bullet here. There is no way to fix the entire problem with one bill," Duggan said. "But we can certainly provide assistance to people who are most in need - at least in a temporary way."
Saturday, May 24, 2008
US Farm Bill: the only good thing was the food stamps
The US Congress recently passed a farm bill. The only good thing in that bill was the increase in funding for food stamps, which aid Americans unable to afford food. It's an important safety net. Economists generally consider direct subsidies to purchasers to be effective.
However, the farm bill is also laden with subsidies for agribusiness, and tons of other forms of pandering.
As you know, agricultural subsidies by the US and Europe prevent farmers in the Global South from competing on even terms. It helps to keep them in a cycle of poverty.
There was a similar situation at the Temple in Jerusalem, with the money changers. Jesus was so furious that He performed the only act of physical violence He ever performed in his ministry.
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, mainly over its high cost. However, the Congress is likely to override him. Congress is scamming the American people, as well as the poor farmers in the South. I'm not advocating that Americans take whips to their Congresspeople. But if we go by Jesus' actions, I don't think He will judge the American Congress very kindly.
However, the farm bill is also laden with subsidies for agribusiness, and tons of other forms of pandering.
As you know, agricultural subsidies by the US and Europe prevent farmers in the Global South from competing on even terms. It helps to keep them in a cycle of poverty.
There was a similar situation at the Temple in Jerusalem, with the money changers. Jesus was so furious that He performed the only act of physical violence He ever performed in his ministry.
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, mainly over its high cost. However, the Congress is likely to override him. Congress is scamming the American people, as well as the poor farmers in the South. I'm not advocating that Americans take whips to their Congresspeople. But if we go by Jesus' actions, I don't think He will judge the American Congress very kindly.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Why sharing with competitors is smart
Businessweek has an article about Samuel Adams sharing 10 tons of hops with small craft brewers at cost. No deep religious implications here, I just like craft beer.
Earlier this spring, we at Samuel Adams decided to share 10 tons of hops at cost with other craft brewers whose businesses had been imperiled by price hikes and crop shortages. Some business leaders may see this as enabling the competition at the precise moment we could have beaten it. I see it as both the right thing to do and smart business.
The craft beer segment is championed by a fairly close knit group of passionate brewers who operate as much like colleagues as competitors. Brewers are entrepreneurs, but they are also craftsmen and artisans who love comparing brewing tips, ingredients and beers. We also love educating consumers about what makes beer great. In turn, those curious consumers seek the variety we tell them is a hallmark of craft brewing. Variety comes through having many entrepreneurs, competitors, simultaneously innovating with new recipes.
There's a palpable sense that we succeed together or not at all. This is true for many business sectors that have a core of small, entrepreneurial players, but it's especially true when those small businesses have to compete with giants one hundred times their size, the way craft brewers have to compete with multi-national breweries like Anheuser-Busch, SAB Miller-Coors and Diageo.
Indeed, I believe it's precisely this collegial approach to business and commitment to innovation that has encouraged robust growth in craft brewing for the past five years. In 2007 alone, sales of craft beers increased 12 percent while mass domestic beer sales remained flat.
Craft brewers had been expanding and preparing to meet this increasing demand when, late last year, several new realities converged to create the industry's most clear-cut moment of vulnerability in 25 years.
The downturn struck craft brewers swiftly. First, prices for wheat and barley increased significantly as farmers opted to switch crops and grow corn to satisfy the burgeoning market for corn-based ethanol. Then, transportation costs increased dramatically due to oil and gas prices. Finally, the weak dollar combined with several seasons of low yields to send prices soaring for the aromatic hops that craft brewers prefer.
Last fall, Noble Bavarian Hops that had been selling for $6/pound were rumored to be selling for $30/pound. Samuel Adams has been fortunate. We've been around longer than most craft brewers, and we have long term contracts with hops growers, so our supplies were secure.
In mid-January we hosted a meeting of the Massachusetts Brewers' Guild, and the hops crisis was the primary topic. I heard about brew pubs that changed their recipes, small breweries that discontinued brewing some styles and others that were poised to shut their doors. It was then I realized that as the category leader it was time for us to step in and lend a hand. We decided to suspend brewing of one of our beers, the very hoppy Imperial Pilsner, and offer 20,000 pounds of German Tettnang Tettnanger and English East Kent Goldings hops to craft brewers in need.
So, I posted a message on a craft brewers' message board, and we set up a system on our Web site where brewers could apply. We didn't publicize it outside the brewers' forum.
The response was overwhelming. In short order, we received applications for 75,000 pounds of hops from nearly a quarter of the nation's 1,400 craft brewers. We felt a lottery was the fair way to distribute the hops we set aside, and in the end 108 breweries received between 88 and 528 pounds each. Worth Brewing Company, for example, a tiny brewery in Iowa that brews beer ten gallons at a time, will receive 88 pounds of hops, which Peter Ausenhus and his wife Margaret Bishop who own Worth Brewing, say will keep them in business for a year. In all, the hops we distributed will make approximately 36,000 barrels of craft beer, or 10 million pints.
Since we held the lottery, many people have asked me about the idea of helping competitors. Certainly part of the decision came from an instinctual sense of obligation. While the Boston Beer Company is one of the more senior members in this fraternity of craft brewers, I always feel close to the harsh challenges that many of these smaller breweries face as they grow, because it wasn't so long ago that I was in their shoes.
But I believe that that taking one of my beers off the market temporarily so that dozens of other beers could stay on the market was smart business, too. Of course it seemed risky for us to part with our most important ingredient—especially without yet knowing if the 2008 hops crop will be healthy. But I knew it was riskier for Sam Adams if the choices in craft beers diminish or the quality deteriorates. Rather than worrying about stealing share from each other, I was thinking about craft beers losing share overall. With just under 4 percent of the beer market, we all have plenty of room to grow.
What can leaders in other industries take away from our experience? Of course a rising tide lifts all boat, but more than that, leaders can be the gravity that lifts that tide. Leaders need to be alert to situations in which the long-term interests of their companies are best served by putting the needs of their segments or industries first, even when that means enabling competitors to better compete for your customers in the short-term.
Provided by Harvard Business—Where Leaders Get Their Edge
Earlier this spring, we at Samuel Adams decided to share 10 tons of hops at cost with other craft brewers whose businesses had been imperiled by price hikes and crop shortages. Some business leaders may see this as enabling the competition at the precise moment we could have beaten it. I see it as both the right thing to do and smart business.
The craft beer segment is championed by a fairly close knit group of passionate brewers who operate as much like colleagues as competitors. Brewers are entrepreneurs, but they are also craftsmen and artisans who love comparing brewing tips, ingredients and beers. We also love educating consumers about what makes beer great. In turn, those curious consumers seek the variety we tell them is a hallmark of craft brewing. Variety comes through having many entrepreneurs, competitors, simultaneously innovating with new recipes.
There's a palpable sense that we succeed together or not at all. This is true for many business sectors that have a core of small, entrepreneurial players, but it's especially true when those small businesses have to compete with giants one hundred times their size, the way craft brewers have to compete with multi-national breweries like Anheuser-Busch, SAB Miller-Coors and Diageo.
Indeed, I believe it's precisely this collegial approach to business and commitment to innovation that has encouraged robust growth in craft brewing for the past five years. In 2007 alone, sales of craft beers increased 12 percent while mass domestic beer sales remained flat.
Craft brewers had been expanding and preparing to meet this increasing demand when, late last year, several new realities converged to create the industry's most clear-cut moment of vulnerability in 25 years.
The downturn struck craft brewers swiftly. First, prices for wheat and barley increased significantly as farmers opted to switch crops and grow corn to satisfy the burgeoning market for corn-based ethanol. Then, transportation costs increased dramatically due to oil and gas prices. Finally, the weak dollar combined with several seasons of low yields to send prices soaring for the aromatic hops that craft brewers prefer.
Last fall, Noble Bavarian Hops that had been selling for $6/pound were rumored to be selling for $30/pound. Samuel Adams has been fortunate. We've been around longer than most craft brewers, and we have long term contracts with hops growers, so our supplies were secure.
In mid-January we hosted a meeting of the Massachusetts Brewers' Guild, and the hops crisis was the primary topic. I heard about brew pubs that changed their recipes, small breweries that discontinued brewing some styles and others that were poised to shut their doors. It was then I realized that as the category leader it was time for us to step in and lend a hand. We decided to suspend brewing of one of our beers, the very hoppy Imperial Pilsner, and offer 20,000 pounds of German Tettnang Tettnanger and English East Kent Goldings hops to craft brewers in need.
So, I posted a message on a craft brewers' message board, and we set up a system on our Web site where brewers could apply. We didn't publicize it outside the brewers' forum.
The response was overwhelming. In short order, we received applications for 75,000 pounds of hops from nearly a quarter of the nation's 1,400 craft brewers. We felt a lottery was the fair way to distribute the hops we set aside, and in the end 108 breweries received between 88 and 528 pounds each. Worth Brewing Company, for example, a tiny brewery in Iowa that brews beer ten gallons at a time, will receive 88 pounds of hops, which Peter Ausenhus and his wife Margaret Bishop who own Worth Brewing, say will keep them in business for a year. In all, the hops we distributed will make approximately 36,000 barrels of craft beer, or 10 million pints.
Since we held the lottery, many people have asked me about the idea of helping competitors. Certainly part of the decision came from an instinctual sense of obligation. While the Boston Beer Company is one of the more senior members in this fraternity of craft brewers, I always feel close to the harsh challenges that many of these smaller breweries face as they grow, because it wasn't so long ago that I was in their shoes.
But I believe that that taking one of my beers off the market temporarily so that dozens of other beers could stay on the market was smart business, too. Of course it seemed risky for us to part with our most important ingredient—especially without yet knowing if the 2008 hops crop will be healthy. But I knew it was riskier for Sam Adams if the choices in craft beers diminish or the quality deteriorates. Rather than worrying about stealing share from each other, I was thinking about craft beers losing share overall. With just under 4 percent of the beer market, we all have plenty of room to grow.
What can leaders in other industries take away from our experience? Of course a rising tide lifts all boat, but more than that, leaders can be the gravity that lifts that tide. Leaders need to be alert to situations in which the long-term interests of their companies are best served by putting the needs of their segments or industries first, even when that means enabling competitors to better compete for your customers in the short-term.
Provided by Harvard Business—Where Leaders Get Their Edge
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Think about what you eat: Seafood
Our choices about what to eat have significant impacts on the health of the planet. For example, meat is considerably more resource intensive to produce than grain.
We need to be careful about what types of seafood we eat. Some fish populations are in danger, and/or are farmed using high impact fishing gear (driftnets, tuna, and dolphins). Others have pollution problems (e.g. mercury).
Environmental Defense has categorized seafood into Eco Best, Eco OK, and Eco Worst.
Anchovies, US catfish, mussels, pacific halibut, farmed oysters, and canned or Alaskan salmon are examples that are on the approved list.
White sturgeon caviar (NOT sturgeon caviar from the Caspian), wild clams, US King crabs, haddock caught by hook and line, and canned light or canned white Tuna are on the OK list.
Chinese crawfish, most non-farmed caviar, monkfish, Atlantic Halibut and farmed Atlantic Salmon are some of the fish on the avoid list.
Each webpage provides an explanation about the species of fish.
We need to be careful about what types of seafood we eat. Some fish populations are in danger, and/or are farmed using high impact fishing gear (driftnets, tuna, and dolphins). Others have pollution problems (e.g. mercury).
Environmental Defense has categorized seafood into Eco Best, Eco OK, and Eco Worst.
Anchovies, US catfish, mussels, pacific halibut, farmed oysters, and canned or Alaskan salmon are examples that are on the approved list.
White sturgeon caviar (NOT sturgeon caviar from the Caspian), wild clams, US King crabs, haddock caught by hook and line, and canned light or canned white Tuna are on the OK list.
Chinese crawfish, most non-farmed caviar, monkfish, Atlantic Halibut and farmed Atlantic Salmon are some of the fish on the avoid list.
Each webpage provides an explanation about the species of fish.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Financial Times: City dwellers priced out of the market
Javier Blas in Addis Ababa
Yeshi Degefu stopped eating meat about a year ago. Vegetables followed soon and, more recently, chickpeas and lentils. Today, Mrs Yeshi, 50, of Addis Ababa, queues for subsidised wheat, the only food she can still afford.
“In the past year all food prices have jumped,” Mrs Yeshi says at the Gojjam Berenda grain distribution centre in the Ethiopian capital. “Everything is much more expensive.”
Mrs Yeshi is caught up in a food crisis that is hitting the urban population rather than the rural poor, the group that has in the past faced the greatest threat of hunger. This time, the problem is not a shortage of food but its price.
The spread of the crisis to the cities is particularly unwelcome for the governments of developing countries because urban populations are more likely to protest, triggering riots which in Africa have already hit Burkina Faso and Senegal.
The emergency has few precedents: only Indonesia and Mexico suffered price-related food crises in the 1990s. In the past, hunger has been linked to natural disaster, such as drought, conflict or extreme poverty, rather than rising prices.
Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the World Food Programme, says the crisis is the “new face of hunger” affecting urban areas. Rising prices, she says, mean that “people in the cities which just eight months ago did not need food aid need it now”.
Ms Sheeran says food prices in the cities are rising much faster than wages, squeezing purchasing power. “We see food on the shelves but people are unable to buy it,” she says at the distribution centre where wheat is less than half the price paid at the city’s markets.
The International Monetary Fund says the “social implications of rising food prices can be severe”, warning that “food price-related riots” could spread.
“These pressures pose new challenges for African policymakers and will have particularly adverse effects on the poor,” the IMF says.
Food aid officials say that the urban middle class is not yet suffering from hunger, but warn that because of rising prices, families are cutting every other expense, including education and health, in order to cover their monthly food bill. A varied diet makes way for reliance on the staple.
The evolution of food prices in Ethiopia is illustrative of the trend in urban areas across emerging countries. The price of wheat in Addis Ababa has surged 32 per cent since last summer, while that of lentils has jumped 73 per cent and maize 47 per cent in the same period, according to the WFP.
In the five years to 2007, food prices in Ethiopia have soared by 62.3 per cent. The jump is significantly faster than non-food prices, says the WFP, “suggesting that those involved in [the] non-food sector of the economy, predominantly the urban population, have become relatively poorer over the last five years”.
In the Ethiopian capital’s grain market the mood among traders is gloomy as prices continue to climb. “This is the new gold,” says Yosef Yilak, a trader, showing in his hands teff, the indigenous grain used to make Ethiopian injerra, or flat bread. “Demand outstrips supply,” he says.
The developing crisis in the grain markets of the main cities led the Ethiopian government to create a grain stabilisation programme in April last year. Although the scheme initially covered just the capital, distribution centres now operate in 12 other cities.
Berhane Hailu, the general manager of the Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise, which runs the programme, says that an estimated 4m people in urban areas benefit from it.
Governments across the world are taking similar measures and also lowering food taxes and slashing import tariffs for agricultural commodities in an effort to control local food prices.
But Trevor Manuel, South Africa’s finance minister, says that one of the tragedies of the current crisis is that there is no short-term solution and even some of the policies now being implemented in several countries could backfire.
“Few systems work. In the past it has been demonstrated that subsidies, strategic stockpiles or vouchers for foods all create some problems,” Mr Manuel told the Financial Times on the sidelines of the African Union finance ministers’ meeting.
As Mrs Yeshi waits to buy subsidised wheat, the policy talks mean little. Her only concern is that she “can no longer feed the children”.
Yeshi Degefu stopped eating meat about a year ago. Vegetables followed soon and, more recently, chickpeas and lentils. Today, Mrs Yeshi, 50, of Addis Ababa, queues for subsidised wheat, the only food she can still afford.
“In the past year all food prices have jumped,” Mrs Yeshi says at the Gojjam Berenda grain distribution centre in the Ethiopian capital. “Everything is much more expensive.”
Mrs Yeshi is caught up in a food crisis that is hitting the urban population rather than the rural poor, the group that has in the past faced the greatest threat of hunger. This time, the problem is not a shortage of food but its price.
The spread of the crisis to the cities is particularly unwelcome for the governments of developing countries because urban populations are more likely to protest, triggering riots which in Africa have already hit Burkina Faso and Senegal.
The emergency has few precedents: only Indonesia and Mexico suffered price-related food crises in the 1990s. In the past, hunger has been linked to natural disaster, such as drought, conflict or extreme poverty, rather than rising prices.
Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the World Food Programme, says the crisis is the “new face of hunger” affecting urban areas. Rising prices, she says, mean that “people in the cities which just eight months ago did not need food aid need it now”.
Ms Sheeran says food prices in the cities are rising much faster than wages, squeezing purchasing power. “We see food on the shelves but people are unable to buy it,” she says at the distribution centre where wheat is less than half the price paid at the city’s markets.
The International Monetary Fund says the “social implications of rising food prices can be severe”, warning that “food price-related riots” could spread.
“These pressures pose new challenges for African policymakers and will have particularly adverse effects on the poor,” the IMF says.
Food aid officials say that the urban middle class is not yet suffering from hunger, but warn that because of rising prices, families are cutting every other expense, including education and health, in order to cover their monthly food bill. A varied diet makes way for reliance on the staple.
The evolution of food prices in Ethiopia is illustrative of the trend in urban areas across emerging countries. The price of wheat in Addis Ababa has surged 32 per cent since last summer, while that of lentils has jumped 73 per cent and maize 47 per cent in the same period, according to the WFP.
In the five years to 2007, food prices in Ethiopia have soared by 62.3 per cent. The jump is significantly faster than non-food prices, says the WFP, “suggesting that those involved in [the] non-food sector of the economy, predominantly the urban population, have become relatively poorer over the last five years”.
In the Ethiopian capital’s grain market the mood among traders is gloomy as prices continue to climb. “This is the new gold,” says Yosef Yilak, a trader, showing in his hands teff, the indigenous grain used to make Ethiopian injerra, or flat bread. “Demand outstrips supply,” he says.
The developing crisis in the grain markets of the main cities led the Ethiopian government to create a grain stabilisation programme in April last year. Although the scheme initially covered just the capital, distribution centres now operate in 12 other cities.
Berhane Hailu, the general manager of the Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise, which runs the programme, says that an estimated 4m people in urban areas benefit from it.
Governments across the world are taking similar measures and also lowering food taxes and slashing import tariffs for agricultural commodities in an effort to control local food prices.
But Trevor Manuel, South Africa’s finance minister, says that one of the tragedies of the current crisis is that there is no short-term solution and even some of the policies now being implemented in several countries could backfire.
“Few systems work. In the past it has been demonstrated that subsidies, strategic stockpiles or vouchers for foods all create some problems,” Mr Manuel told the Financial Times on the sidelines of the African Union finance ministers’ meeting.
As Mrs Yeshi waits to buy subsidised wheat, the policy talks mean little. Her only concern is that she “can no longer feed the children”.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Food crisis
It is high time I did some explaining about the global food crisis. Macroeconomic relationships are complex, and I am in the midst of finals and a job hunt. However, I also need a break.
The graphic on the left shows the effects of projected food price increases on trade balances for 2008, and comes to us courtesy of an article by the International Monetary Fund. Not my favorite bunch of people, but not the worst of the lot as far as I know. Basically, countries in red are expected to import more food. Countries in blue are expected to export more. Deeper colors mean more imports/exports.
Let's consider the United States, which should increase its food exports slightly thanks to the price increases. The US does have a lot of arable land.
From the IMF article:
A rise in food prices of 48 percent since end-2006 is a huge increase that may undermine gains the international community has made in reducing poverty, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned.
He told an April 10 news conference in Washington that policy responses to higher food prices have to be tailored to meet the needs of each country.
Strauss-Kahn said the IMF could take four steps to help address higher food prices in the short term:
• Support countries in designing appropriate macroeconomic policies to deal with shocks
• Provide advice and technical assistance for countries where rising food prices are eroding terms of trade, through targeted income support for the poor—without jeopardizing hard-won gains on economic stabilization
• In countries where price shocks are affecting the balance of payments, provide assistance through IMF lending facilities
• Work, along with other agencies and donors, to help countries mitigate negative impacts.
Open trade policies
Longer-term answers to the problem of higher food prices centered on removing obstacles to increased supply, Strauss-Kahn said.
The IMF cites increased trade as a policy option for mitigating the effects of higher commodity prices on national economies. IMF chief economist Simon Johnson told an April 9 World Economic Outlook briefing: "As a way to reduce global pressure on food and energy prices, more open trade policies in those products would be a good start. Less insular biofuels policy in advanced economies would help relieve some pressure. At the same time, we encourage countries to avoid raising taxes or imposing quotas on their food exports. These reduce incentives for domestic producers and also increase international prices."
The bit about some "advanced economies" instituting less insular biofuels policies is especially important. In the United States, corn ethanol is a scam. It costs more energy to produce ethanol than it provides as fuel. It is essentially a giveaway to agribusiness. Additionally, the US government should reduce its subsidies to agribusiness in general. Those subsidies artificially lower the price at which farmers here produce food. This makes it harder for African farmers to compete, even when we're talking about African farmers producing staple crops for Africans vs US farmers exporting those staple crops. The transition needs to be managed, and US farmers will need retraining and jobs, but this has to end.
The IMF and World Bank are free market institutions. Don't take everything they say as Gospel. That said, they are right that protectionism by nations affected by the food crisis is not a long-run solution.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
US food aid does harm to many African farmers
[From AP Business News, posted on MSN Money]
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - A humanitarian group has turned down $46 million worth of U.S. food aid, arguing that the way the American government distributes its help hurts poor farmers.
CARE said wheat donated by the U.S. government and sold by charities to finance anti-poverty programs results in low-priced crops being dumped on local markets and small-scale growers cannot compete.
Other experts said they share CARE's concern, but stressed that food donations are sometimes needed when a natural disaster harms a local area's agriculture, such as the flooding that North Korea says has devastated vast tracts of its farmland.
The Atlanta-based CARE agreed with that view. "We are not against emergency food aid for things like drought and famine," spokeswoman Alina Labrada said Thursday.
But, she added, the donation of wheat and other crops does not help in regions where people consistently go hungry because local farming has been weakened by international competition. "They are being hurt instead of helped by this mechanism," she said.
Labrada said such areas would be helped more if the U.S. and other donors gave cash that could be spent on locally produced crops, which would stimulate agricultural expansion.
The United States Agency for International Development said Thursday that its experts carry out detailed assessments to try to ensure that commodities do not disrupt local production. Jim Kunder, USAID's acting deputy adminstrator, said $375 million is the approximate average cash value of commodities that are donated for sale.
CARE decided in 2005 to phase out accepting grain donations within four years, but the move is gaining new attention because of the current debate in the U.S. Congress over the Farm Bill, which is reauthorized every five years.
"This is a crucial time. It will set policy for the next five years," Labrada said.
The U.S. farm sector and the maritime industry are the biggest supporters of the current system. The program soaks up surplus farm production, and shippers get lucrative contracts to transport donated grain for sale in needy regions.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study in April saying that emergency American food aid takes an average of 4.5 months to arrive and that legal requirements mean two-thirds of the money spent by the government on food aid goes for packing and shipping.
Washington spends an average of $2 billion on food aid programs a year, mostly funneling the help through the United Nations' World Food Program. According to some aid groups, if the U.S. gave its aid in cash rather than food, it could support about twice as many people.
In the last two farm bills, the U.S. administration called for a partial shift to cash donations instead of grain, but that was voted down by farm supporters.
According to the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, the U.S. administration's proposals for future farm spending call for 25 percent of the food aid budget to be in cash.
The European Union has spoken out strongly against U.S. food aid policy in the Word Trade Organization, accusing Washington of using such programs to skirt rules limiting agriculture subsidies.
Christian Rasmussen, at the EU's agriculture directorate in Brussels, Belgium, said the bloc had replaced food aid with cash to ensure help gets to poor countries more quickly.
"It ensures a correct diet, because you also try to buy the proper products. It's also very cost effective because you can buy the food close to the market, unlike in the U.S. case," he said.
Like aid groups, African farmers are divided.
Ousmane Ndiaye, director of the farmer and rural worker group in the West African nation of Senegal, said dumping cheap crops undermines local agriculture.
"We have the resources that we need to nourish our population. We have land. We have men and women with the capacity to do it," he said. "We have millet here. But instead of buying the millet that comes from the middle of Senegal, some people prefer to buy sorghum from foreign countries."
In neighboring Mali, however, the secretary-general of the farmers association said foreign aid helps Malians get crops that aren't produced locally.
"We farm wheat in the north of Mali, around Timbuktu. But that's not enough for all the flour we need for bread," said Fousseyni Traore. He said Mali could never produce enough wheat because its southern areas are too wet and tropical.
The Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said that in 2001, the sale of donated American grain provided 30 percent of U.S. aid groups' gross revenues, totaling $1.5 billion.
Tom Getman, executive director for international relations at the aid group World Vision, said he shared CARE's concern about the system but didn't want to turn away any kind of aid.
World Vision also is pushing to get more cash donations and less food, "because we've all gotten more and more anxious about how much it costs to do the shipping and the mixed results on the ground," Getman said.
"But there is going to be a continuing need, like in (North) Korea right now, where we've got to have food available for emergency situations. So it's just finding the balance that is so tough."
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - A humanitarian group has turned down $46 million worth of U.S. food aid, arguing that the way the American government distributes its help hurts poor farmers.
CARE said wheat donated by the U.S. government and sold by charities to finance anti-poverty programs results in low-priced crops being dumped on local markets and small-scale growers cannot compete.
Other experts said they share CARE's concern, but stressed that food donations are sometimes needed when a natural disaster harms a local area's agriculture, such as the flooding that North Korea says has devastated vast tracts of its farmland.
The Atlanta-based CARE agreed with that view. "We are not against emergency food aid for things like drought and famine," spokeswoman Alina Labrada said Thursday.
But, she added, the donation of wheat and other crops does not help in regions where people consistently go hungry because local farming has been weakened by international competition. "They are being hurt instead of helped by this mechanism," she said.
Labrada said such areas would be helped more if the U.S. and other donors gave cash that could be spent on locally produced crops, which would stimulate agricultural expansion.
The United States Agency for International Development said Thursday that its experts carry out detailed assessments to try to ensure that commodities do not disrupt local production. Jim Kunder, USAID's acting deputy adminstrator, said $375 million is the approximate average cash value of commodities that are donated for sale.
CARE decided in 2005 to phase out accepting grain donations within four years, but the move is gaining new attention because of the current debate in the U.S. Congress over the Farm Bill, which is reauthorized every five years.
"This is a crucial time. It will set policy for the next five years," Labrada said.
The U.S. farm sector and the maritime industry are the biggest supporters of the current system. The program soaks up surplus farm production, and shippers get lucrative contracts to transport donated grain for sale in needy regions.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office published a study in April saying that emergency American food aid takes an average of 4.5 months to arrive and that legal requirements mean two-thirds of the money spent by the government on food aid goes for packing and shipping.
Washington spends an average of $2 billion on food aid programs a year, mostly funneling the help through the United Nations' World Food Program. According to some aid groups, if the U.S. gave its aid in cash rather than food, it could support about twice as many people.
In the last two farm bills, the U.S. administration called for a partial shift to cash donations instead of grain, but that was voted down by farm supporters.
According to the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, the U.S. administration's proposals for future farm spending call for 25 percent of the food aid budget to be in cash.
The European Union has spoken out strongly against U.S. food aid policy in the Word Trade Organization, accusing Washington of using such programs to skirt rules limiting agriculture subsidies.
Christian Rasmussen, at the EU's agriculture directorate in Brussels, Belgium, said the bloc had replaced food aid with cash to ensure help gets to poor countries more quickly.
"It ensures a correct diet, because you also try to buy the proper products. It's also very cost effective because you can buy the food close to the market, unlike in the U.S. case," he said.
Like aid groups, African farmers are divided.
Ousmane Ndiaye, director of the farmer and rural worker group in the West African nation of Senegal, said dumping cheap crops undermines local agriculture.
"We have the resources that we need to nourish our population. We have land. We have men and women with the capacity to do it," he said. "We have millet here. But instead of buying the millet that comes from the middle of Senegal, some people prefer to buy sorghum from foreign countries."
In neighboring Mali, however, the secretary-general of the farmers association said foreign aid helps Malians get crops that aren't produced locally.
"We farm wheat in the north of Mali, around Timbuktu. But that's not enough for all the flour we need for bread," said Fousseyni Traore. He said Mali could never produce enough wheat because its southern areas are too wet and tropical.
The Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said that in 2001, the sale of donated American grain provided 30 percent of U.S. aid groups' gross revenues, totaling $1.5 billion.
Tom Getman, executive director for international relations at the aid group World Vision, said he shared CARE's concern about the system but didn't want to turn away any kind of aid.
World Vision also is pushing to get more cash donations and less food, "because we've all gotten more and more anxious about how much it costs to do the shipping and the mixed results on the ground," Getman said.
"But there is going to be a continuing need, like in (North) Korea right now, where we've got to have food available for emergency situations. So it's just finding the balance that is so tough."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Michigan Food Stamp Challenge: try living on food stamps for a week
This is sponsored by the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. I just noticed that one reader posted this in a comment on my post about lobbying to reform US agricultural subsidies.
Could you live on $3 worth of food each day?
That’s all the average food stamp recipient gets. Three dollars a day, just $1 per meal. Can you imagine feeding your 14-year old growing son on that amount?
Yet even this small amount is under threat. Congress will vote on proposed cuts to Food Stamps this October. The time to act is now.
That’s why we’re asking you to take the Challenge. Try one living for one week from September 4-10 on just $21. Get a glimpse of what people living on food stamps face every week.
Could you live on $3 worth of food each day?
That’s all the average food stamp recipient gets. Three dollars a day, just $1 per meal. Can you imagine feeding your 14-year old growing son on that amount?
Yet even this small amount is under threat. Congress will vote on proposed cuts to Food Stamps this October. The time to act is now.
That’s why we’re asking you to take the Challenge. Try one living for one week from September 4-10 on just $21. Get a glimpse of what people living on food stamps face every week.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sojourners: Reform US agriculture subsidies that screw people in Africa and small US farmers
When you think of family farmers, do you picture comedian David Letterman or former NBA star Scottie Pippen? How about billionaires like David Rockefeller and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen?
Amazingly, they're some of the people receiving your taxpayer dollars in the form of crop subsidies, which overwhelmingly benefit absentee landlords and big agribusiness at the expense of farmers in America and the developing world who are struggling to feed their families.
Right now, Congress is deciding whether to extend these unfair subsidies as part of the Farm Bill, a mammoth but little-known piece of legislation that governs our nation's agricultural policies. It affects everyone who eats, not just those who farm.
Click here to tell Congress: Poor farmers need our help, but big agribusiness doesn't.
Here's one example: In West Africa, millions of desperately poor people farm cotton to make a living, often surviving on less than $1 a day. But our cotton subsidies make it more difficult for these farmers to survive by artificially lowering the price of cotton in violation of international agreements.
Moreover, by disproportionately subsidizing corn, wheat, and soy, the current Farm Bill encourages us to eat cheap, unhealthy, and fattening processed foods instead of fresh fruits and vegetables. As writer Michael Pollan puts it, "the reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the Farm Bill encourages farmers to grow."
In short, our current system of farm subsidies makes no sense—for those who grow food or those who eat it. We must make sure that Congress takes this opportunity to reform the Farm Bill, or these policies will continue for another five years.
Send a message to your senators and representative: It's time for fair food policy!
Remember, this issue is being decided right now, so your senators and representative need to hear from you today.
Thank you for all that you do.
Blessings,
Gini, Bob, and the rest of the team at Sojourners/Call to Renewal
P.S. The Farm Bill is being written by a handful of congresspeople in committees that have loyalties to a few farming districts. To make a difference, we need to overwhelm our representatives with the demand for reform—can you forward this message to at least five of your friends, family, or congregation members?
Amazingly, they're some of the people receiving your taxpayer dollars in the form of crop subsidies, which overwhelmingly benefit absentee landlords and big agribusiness at the expense of farmers in America and the developing world who are struggling to feed their families.
Right now, Congress is deciding whether to extend these unfair subsidies as part of the Farm Bill, a mammoth but little-known piece of legislation that governs our nation's agricultural policies. It affects everyone who eats, not just those who farm.
Click here to tell Congress: Poor farmers need our help, but big agribusiness doesn't.
Here's one example: In West Africa, millions of desperately poor people farm cotton to make a living, often surviving on less than $1 a day. But our cotton subsidies make it more difficult for these farmers to survive by artificially lowering the price of cotton in violation of international agreements.
Moreover, by disproportionately subsidizing corn, wheat, and soy, the current Farm Bill encourages us to eat cheap, unhealthy, and fattening processed foods instead of fresh fruits and vegetables. As writer Michael Pollan puts it, "the reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the Farm Bill encourages farmers to grow."
In short, our current system of farm subsidies makes no sense—for those who grow food or those who eat it. We must make sure that Congress takes this opportunity to reform the Farm Bill, or these policies will continue for another five years.
Send a message to your senators and representative: It's time for fair food policy!
Remember, this issue is being decided right now, so your senators and representative need to hear from you today.
Thank you for all that you do.
Blessings,
Gini, Bob, and the rest of the team at Sojourners/Call to Renewal
P.S. The Farm Bill is being written by a handful of congresspeople in committees that have loyalties to a few farming districts. To make a difference, we need to overwhelm our representatives with the demand for reform—can you forward this message to at least five of your friends, family, or congregation members?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
