Tag Archives: nutrition

Tell the Senate: Oppose Cuts to SNAP and SNAP-Ed


Posted by HFHP Coalition

Action Alert from Public Health Institute

The full Senate is discussing the Farm Bill this week. Right now, the bill protects SNAP-Ed, but proposes $4.1 billion in cuts to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps). These nutrition programs are under threat and need your support now.

Over the next few days,  we’ll see amendments that try to strip even more funding from SNAP, and cut SNAP-Ed and other nutrition programs. We need to call today and make sure our senators hear loud and clear that they have to oppose any cuts to our nutrition programs.

Call your senators and tell them America’s hungriest people are depending on full funding for our nutrition programs.

Talking Points for your call
Introduce yourself to your senators, tell them you are a constituent, tell them you strongly support provisions in the Senate Bill S. 954 that protect SNAP-Ed and increase access to healthy foods, and ask them to:

  • Vote No on the Thune amendment, which proposes significant cuts to SNAP-Ed
  • Reject amendments that would cut funding or weaken nutrition programs, including SNAP and SNAP-Ed.
  • Protect other important nutrition programs like the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Programs and proposals to strengthen SNAP retailer standards to improve access to healthy foods in low-income communities.

Call your Senators

OpenCongress.org provides an easy, zip-code lookup that provides your senators’ direct phone numbers. Find your senators’ numbers.

On twitter? You can also find and send a tweet to your Senator.

Here’s a sample tweet:
@senator, Vote for a #FairFarmBill that fully protects #SNAP and #SNAPEd. America can’t afford not to feed its hungriest families.

@senator, #SNAP-Ed works! A #FairFarmBill puts the healthiest foods on the tables of those who need it.


Farm Policy Roundup from American Farmland Trust


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from American Farmland Trust

By Jeremy Peters

House and Senate Agriculture Committees completed work this week on their respective versions of the 2013 Farm Bill. Highlights of both markups are below. Major differences exist between the bills, primarily on nutrition and commodity programs. A significant development in the Senate bill was the committee’s support for reattachment of conservation compliance to crop insurance premium assistance, and removal of crop insurance limits from the committee bill. This has been a hard-fought agreement and support for conservation compliance is now needed in the Senate to keep those provisions intact.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has indicated the Senate will take up the Farm Bill beginning on Monday, May 20 so time is of the essence in getting contacts made to Senate offices. A host of amendments are anticipated to place means testing on crop insurance (Durbin-Coburn), cap or even eliminate premium support (Shaheen-Toomey, Flake, Feinstein-McCain), and to publish farmer information on crop insurance assistance. Amendments are also anticipated from Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. to strip conservation compliance and wetland protections from the bill. AFT has worked with partners on the agreement to develop a handy Conservation Compliance FAQ to help answer questions about what the compliance agreement means.

Now to recap the week’s committee activities—

After a relatively short mark-up, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted 15-5 to move their version of the farm bill out of committee. AFT continues to carefully monitor changes to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). An amendment from Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., was successful in removing the 40 percent funding floor for the Agricultural Land Easement portion of ACEP, which leaves funding for farmland protection potentially exposed to diversion to wetlands, grasslands and other lands of ‘ecological value.’ We are working with committee staff to provide the strongest possible report language to give USDA direction in that regard.

A second notable amendment was from Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., which provides a technical fix to the certification program under ALE. As you are aware, the certification process provided in the 2008 Farm Bill has proven to be a challenge based on NRCS interpretation of the program, so the Leahy amendment along with strengthened report language will provide greater clarity and an improved process for states and other qualified entities to become certified.

The House Agriculture Committee marked-up their version of the farm bill until late Wednesday evening. Consideration of the conservation title was dispensed with fairly early in the markup with five amendments brought up for consideration. The final committee vote on approving the bill out of committee was 36-10. Differences on nutrition, dairy, sugar and conservation compliance are setting up for a major farm bill floor fight in the House of Representatives as early as mid-June.

Keep reading…


NEW Issue Brief: Finding Common Ground on Environmentally Sound Economically Viable Agriculture


Posted by HFHP Coalition

Environ-Sound-Econ-Viable-Ag_cvrIt’s a common saying that farmers are the original environmentalists: their livelihoods are so dependent on land and water that they can’t help but care about environmental issues. The interdependence between farms and the environment also matters for public health.

Public health professionals have long been involved in setting and enforcing food safety, water quality, and air quality standards. In recent years, rising rates of diet-related diseases has made collaboration between the public health and agriculture communities even more pressing. The growing involvement of public health in agriculture policymaking provides an opportunity to identify ways to increase access to nutritious food while protecting the environment and the farmer’s bottom line.

Learn about strategies to advance public health and environmentally sound agriculture alike.

Click here to download the issue brief.

Check out more in the Finding Common Ground series.


Secretary’s Column: Ready to Help Pass a Food, Farm and Jobs Bill


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from USDA

By Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

In recent months, the Federal budget has dominated the conversation here in Washington. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we have been working hard on mission critical priorities, even as we implement mandatory across-the-board budget cuts.

The good news is that our proactive efforts to cut costs have saved more than $828 million in recent years, putting us in a better position to deliver important programs.

But we also have not lost sight of a key requirement for these programs to continue: passage of a comprehensive, multiyear Food, Farm and Jobs Bill.

In January, Congress took short-term action to extend many 2008 Farm Bill programs for nine months. Those programs will expire in September, limiting their effectiveness and providing no long-term certainty for farmers, ranchers and rural communities.

As Congress returns to Washington in the coming days, leaders from both parties have signaled a willingness to come together and get a Food, Farm and Jobs Bill passed. That is promising news. USDA intends to provide whatever technical assistance we can to help Congress pass a long-term, comprehensive bill.

A Food, Farm and Jobs Bill would allow USDA to continue our record accomplishments on behalf of the American people, while providing new income opportunities across rural America.

It would enable USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products at home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new opportunities for local and regional food systems and grow the biobased economy.

It would maintain important agricultural research, and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Americans. A comprehensive bill would also continue programs that directly help rural communities – such as the 110 grants USDA awarded this week under our Value-Added Producer Grant program to help rural small businesses manufacture new products, expand local food systems and create jobs.

We have not lost sight of the importance of a long-term Food, Farm and Jobs Bill – and I know folks across rural America are counting on Congress to get the job done as soon as possible. We stand ready to help in any way we can.

For the original posting and an audio version, click here.


Tell the Senate: America Depends on Our Nutrition Programs


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Action Alert from the Public Health Institute

Wednesday the Senate Budget Committee is set to consider proposals that would slash billions from our country’s nutrition programs—reducing funding that provides SNAP (food stamps) to over 47 million Americans, and completely eliminating the nutrition education program SNAP-Ed. As budget conversations continue over the next few days, a proposal on the table from Senator Roberts, to slash $36 billion, is expected to be the first of many misdirected attempts to balance the budget by literally taking healthy foods off of people’s plates. The proposed cuts could go even higher, if we don’t stand up for nutrition programs today.

On the heels of last week’s devastating sequester cuts, we can’t afford to sever one of the most important safety nets for our poorest families. Cutting nutrition programs won’t reduce poverty, stop children from going hungry or provide resources that improve diets.

Please make a call today to the Senate Budget Committee and tell them to protect SNAP and SNAP-Ed from any cuts —in Senator Roberts’ proposal, and in any future negotiations.

“Times are tough right now for millions of Americans,” Senator Roberts said when he introduced his bill—but cutting our nutrition programs won’t make things any easier. Today 15% of our nation lives below the poverty line, the highest proportion in a half century. They depend on SNAP, SNAP-Ed, and the emergency food assistance program for the resources, knowledge, and access to healthy foods that they need to prevent hunger and improve diets on tight budgets.

By protecting SNAP-Ed, we support programs like a Pennsylvania SNAP-Ed School Nutrition initiative that resulted in a 50% reduction in obesity among 4th and 5th graders. We support Harvest of the Month in Michigan and California, which links farmers, schools and grocery stores and increases the purchase and consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Click here to join PHI and nutrition advocates across the country. Make a call today to the Senate Budget Committee and tell them to protect SNAP and SNAP-Ed from any cuts—now and in future negotiations—and oppose Roberts’ proposal. (We’ve made it easy with phone numbers and suggested talking points.)

Thank you for your help.

Matthew Marsom
Vice President of Public Health Policy and Advocacy


Public Health Institute and California Project LEAN Applaud USDA Proposed Nutrition Standards for Foods Sold in Schools


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from Public Health Institute

Joint Statement from Cyndi Guerra Walter, California Project LEAN, and Gabrielle Serra, Public Health Institute

“Public Health Institute (PHI) and California Project LEAN (Leaders Encouraging Activity and Nutrition) applaud the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposal, ‘Smart Snacks in Schools,’ to establish minimum nutrition standards for foods and beverages sold in schools.

“ ‘Smart Snacks in Schools’ is a significant step toward ensuring children across the nation have greater access to fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy, and  lean protein, and less access to sugar-sweetened beverages.

“These proposed standards are part of a comprehensive effort required by the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 to ensure that healthy food and beverages are available in schools for all children, whether they participate in the federally subsidized school meals or purchase foods and beverages from snack bars, student stores or vending machines.

“Good nutrition is a critical factor in promoting children’s health, and their success in and out of the classroom. Establishing minimum national nutrition standards for foods and beverages sold in schools is an important step to help ensure that healthy choices are the default option for our children. Research shows that competitive food and beverage standards can help reduce the risk for obesity-related chronic diseases. In California–where competitive food standards have been in place since 2007– high school students consumed fewer calories, less fat and less sugar at school than students in states with no competitive food standards in place.

“PHI and California Project LEAN look forward to working with USDA, states and local school districts to ensure the implementation of strong, science-based nutrition standards for foods and beverages sold in schools. We also underscore our commitment to support innovation and leadership in communities across the United States to establish and implement nutrition standards that go above and beyond the federal guidelines for foods and beverages sold outside the school meal programs to improve nutrition and prevent childhood obesity.”


Fiscal Cliff Deal Cuts SNAP-Ed, Critical Nutrition Program


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from the Public Health Institute
 
Statement by Matthew Marsom, Vice President for Public Health Policy and Advocacy

“The last-minute political maneuvering by Congress to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff’ has undercut a critical nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Education (SNAP-Ed). The Public Health Institute is extremely disappointed and concerned about the health impacts of this rushed decision on our most vulnerable population, recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

“The American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed Tuesday by the Senate and House of Representatives and sent to the president for his signature, tacked on an extension of major farm programs through fiscal 2013 in an effort to protect milk pricing. But the enormous down-to-the-wire pressure to prevent tax hikes for the middle class left little room for a substantive discussion of the fine print of the farm bill extension deal. In the process, SNAP-Ed, a federal/state partnership that supports nutrition education for persons eligible for food stamps, was slashed by one-third for 2013. Earlier versions of the Farm Bill had never included or considered cuts to SNAP-Ed, and this last minute cut was never vetted or approved by the Agriculture Committees.

“SNAP-Ed helps low-income Americans make healthy choices on a limited budget, reduces their risk of chronic disease and obesity, and optimizes the economic and nutritional value of SNAP benefits. SNAP-Ed programming has proven that investment in nutrition education can enable SNAP to effectively address the dual challenges of improving nutrition and food security among low-income populations. This funding cut to the program undermines and weakens a critical component of our nationwide efforts to promote healthy eating and prevent chronic disease just as investments to prevent obesity and promote healthy eating are beginning to show results.

“Prior to the fiscal cliff process, a reasonable farm bill package was being negotiated. Though imperfect, it reflected the input of farmers and rural America, anti-hunger advocates and the public health community. As the new Congress faces a reauthorization of the farm bill in September, political pressure and time constraints must not trump common sense and evidence: SNAP-Ed must have full funding restored and protected, ensuring that all Americans, particularly those who are most vulnerable, can make the healthiest decisions when feeding their families.”


The Farm Bill and the Fiscal Cliff


Posted by HFHP Coalition
By Gabrielle Serra

While the clock ticks toward the end of the 112th Congress, fiscal cliff negotiations are taking up all the oxygen and political capital in Washington. The president and Speaker Boehner bear the lion’s share of burden in averting consequences to our economic recovery that would occur if the significant fiscal contractions scheduled to take place in the coming weeks are not addressed. While both parties continue to try to position themselves so as to claim major concessions from the other side as a tradeoff for any compromise, the possibility of a deal remains possible, yet murky, and anything but certain. While Healthy Farms Healthy People is as concerned as anyone about what’s at stake from the fiscal cliff, and any alternative agreement, we are especially concerned about what these negotiations mean for the fate of the farm bill.

It has become increasingly clear that the House has neither the time nor political will to move a farm bill under regular order. The future for the farm bill now rests on whether reauthorization can be attached to another must-pass legislative vehicle before the end of the year. And by reauthorization, we mean either a five-year new comprehensive bill or an extension of the 2008 farm bill.

HFHP was encouraged this week when agriculture leaders had a green light to negotiate policy differences between the respective bills passed off the Senate floor and reported out of the House Agriculture Committee this past summer. For those like us looking for any sign to suggest that the wheels of democracy are in motion, agriculture leaders made public statements to the effect that they are fully invested in successfully negotiating a new 5 year farm bill and they are currently not negotiating parameters for an extension of the 2008 bill. Each of the four agriculture leaders have suggested a willingness to bend a little on each of their signature issues, including Title I (Commodity Programs) and Title IV (Nutrition Programs), which continue to be the big elephants in the room. There is real optimism that a compromise is attainable.

While agriculture leaders express confidence that they can achieve an agreement on the outstanding issues in the commodity title, the partisan divide over cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is no closer to being resolved. With the highly charged nature of the SNAP cut debate, the reality that neither the House nor Senate could pass a bill that reflects the amount of cuts proposed by the other chamber, and a recognition that legislative action of some kind is needed to enact a farm bill before the end of the year to avoid reverting back to 1940’s farm policy, the scope and scale of cuts to SNAP are to be decided at the highest level.

If the president and the speaker are able to reach a compromise on SNAP cuts that would be amendable to both chambers, it is increasingly likely that a new farm bill could be finalized and attached to any fiscal package that moves before the end of the year. While there is no easy path ahead, moving a new comprehensive farm bill continues to be politically more attractive than extending the 2008 bill because of the significant savings, ranging from $23 to $35 billion, that a new farm bill could contribute to offset the cost of a larger fiscal cliff agreement.

To be sure, however, the possibility of an extension of the 2008 farm bill into 2013 remains a plausible option that may be necessary if fiscal cliff negotiations fail.

No doubt, there is substantive and political work that has yet to be done in order to ensure a desirable new farm bill is achievable this year. And, the devil remains in the details. With negotiations ongoing, it’s not certain whether an outcome will be reached that HFHP and our colleagues will consider to be better than an extension, particularly among the nutrition, conservation, rural development, and food systems communities which have a lot at stake in either option. We are limited by an imperfect crystal ball in making our predictions as to whether 2013 may provide a better or worse environment for policy and program priorities, and there, as always, are differing views on the impact (or opportunities) of starting over again in the new year.

Healthy Farms Healthy People will continue to monitor the state of the negotiations and any farm bill developments in Washington. We continue to encourage agriculture leaders, congress and the White House to advance a new farm bill that is a good deal for the American people, that promotes a healthy, safe, and just food and farming system, and encourages vibrant rural communities.

Stay tuned, and stay hopeful.


Finding Common Ground on SNAP for Agriculture, Health, and the Economy


Posted by HFHP Coalition

The largest federal food safety net program in the United States is good for agriculture, public health, and local economies – but it’s also the subject of much debate as its funding comes up for reauthorization every five years.

How does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) benefit health, agriculture, and the economy? And what are some of the conflicts that frequently arise as lawmakers attempt to balance these and other interests?

Learn how people who care about health, the economy, and the future of agriculture can come together around SNAP to find a common way forward.

Click here to download the issue brief.

Meet the Author and the Coalition Coordinator, and learn more about this and upcoming issue briefs, at Change with a Twist, Monday 10/29 from 4 pm to 7 pm at the SF Planning + Urban Research Association, 654 Mission Street San Francisco, CA.

Finding Common Ground is a series of Healthy Farms Healthy People issue briefs, authored by Coalition Steering Committee member organization ChangeLab Solutions, bringing agriculture and health stakeholders together, to build a stronger base of support for a healthy, economically viable food and farming system in the United States. Each brief highlights a food and farming issue in which agriculture and health stakeholders have shared interest.


Good for our health, bad for our farms?


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from The State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL
 
By Julia Freedgood of American Farmland Trust and Christine Fry of ChangeLab Solutions
 

We’ve all heard the drumbeat from nutrition experts: Eat more fruits and vegetables. We know this advice is good for our health. But what does it mean for our land—and for the farmers who grow food on our land?

With obesity rates at epidemic levels, easier access to fruits and vegetables is important, especially in low-income neighborhoods where healthy options can be hard to find. But ramping up demand for affordable produce means stepping up production, which means more demand on land and water.

How we use these resources will affect our environment and communities for years to come. We need to find new ways to protect both human health and the health of our land long into the future.

Farms and ranches operate on nearly half of all the land in the United States. Population growth, development pressures and severe weather like droughts and floods strain land and water supplies. Fields now sprout shopping malls instead of squash and melons, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that despite dramatic gains from conservation, 30 percent of cropland in America is eroding at an unsustainable rate.

Everyone who eats has a stake in healthy soil and clean water. We all need to understand what it takes to increase food production in a way that sustains our natural resources and the farmers who grow our food.

Fortunately, Americans’ burgeoning interest in knowing where our food comes from is helping health experts and growers build a powerful new alliance. Nutrition experts haven’t traditionally weighed in on conservation issues, but their involvement would go a long way toward establishing policies and incentives to encourage conservation practices, like using water more efficiently and planting cover crops to protect the soil.

The first step is to get growers and nutrition experts into the same room. Farmers can teach nutritionists about the challenges they face with access to land, a changing climate and competition for water.  Nutrition experts can inform farmers about the challenges of healthy food access and affordability.

We can’t leave it to our national leaders to bridge this divide.  As the most recent showdown over the farm bill has shown, we can’t rely on Congress to do the long-term thinking necessary to create a resilient food and farming system—one that balances farmland conservation and agricultural viability with strategies to nourish our most vulnerable. We need to turn our focus to local efforts.

Around the country, new initiatives are bringing together growers and nutritionists to look at where and how food is produced and where people buy it. These conversations often result in plans to advance a vision for food and farming in the region.

In Virginia, agriculture and health groups have come together around a statewide plan—Virginia Farm to Table—to improve access to healthy food and protect farmland. In western Iowa, growers have joined with health professionals to form the Pottawattamie County Local Food Council, connecting farmers with consumers to increase local food production and to identify new markets. In Montana, nutrition and agriculture groups have banded together to review housing development plans to ensure that the state’s fertile land can continue to provide food long into the future. And this fall, leaders in eight states, including Illinois, will host statewide meetings (with support from the national Healthy Farms, Healthy People Coalition) to bring agriculture and health groups together.

With Americans showing growing interest in where their food comes from, now is the time for farmers and nutrition experts to come together to protect both our land and our health.

Julia Freedgood is managing director of farmland and community initiatives at American Farmland Trust, a national conservation organization dedicated to protecting farm and ranch land, promoting sound farming practices and keeping farmers on the land. Christine Fry is a senior policy analyst at ChangeLab Solutions, a nonprofit public health policy center. Both serve on the steering committee of the Healthy Farms, Healthy People Coalition. For more on the intersection of food policy, agriculture and health, register at www.iphionline.org for a statewide symposium in Springfield on Tuesday.