Tag Archives: SNAP

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.


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


Ask the Experts Web Forum: Is the Price Right? Understanding the economics of healthy food for consumers and farmers


Posted by HFHP Coalition

Thursday, February 7, 11 AM PT/2 PM ET

Register here today!

Have a question about the price of healthy food that you’ve always wanted to ask an economist? Curious about ways to increase demand for farm products at a local level? Then this webinar is for you! It is a follow-up to Healthy Farms Healthy People’s August webinar, in which the panelists explored how the price of food affects the health of consumers and the economic viability of farmers. We are bringing back those same panelists to spend an hour answering your questions about the economics of healthy food.

We strongly encourage participants to watch the previous webinar on the price of healthy food before attending this webinar. The previous webinar will provide a quick grounding in the economics of healthy food and a few ways that organizations around the country are trying to make food affordable for consumers and economically viable for producers. Bring your questions about the previous webinar or healthy food pricing from the consumer or producer perspectives to the February 7 webinar. The entire discussion will be devoted to your questions!

Speakers:

Dr. Andrea Carlson is an economist with USDA’s Economic Research Service where her main areas of research include the economics of nutrition and organic foods. Last year, she released a report that examined whether healthy foods are more expensive than less healthy foods.

Dr. Chad Hellwinckel is a research assistant professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where he focuses on agricultural land use policies, climate change mitigation, biofuels analysis and defining appropriate long-term agricultural policy in a post peak-oil world. He is also a member of the Knoxville Food Policy Council.

Dr. Jennifer Obadia has worked with farmers markets in Massachusetts in various capacities over the years. She conducted her dissertation research on the efficacy of markets from the farmer and consumer perspectives. She has also provided technical assistance to market managers while working at the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. In 2011, she conducted an evaluation of the use of SNAP at Massachusetts farmers markets, including the impact of financial incentives for SNAP participants to purchase fruits and vegetables at farmers markets.

Alexa Delwiche is the Food Policy Coordinator for the Los Angeles Food Policy Council. In this capacity, she manages the large network of individuals working collaboratively to build a Good Food system for Southern California. Most recently, her work with the LAFPC has focused on developing and advancing the Good Food Purchasing Pledge and Guidelines for Food Service Institutions in partnership with a diverse group  - including labor and environmental organizations, businesses, school food service, public health advocates, and many more.

Michael O’Gorman has been a pioneering organic farmer for over forty years. The last twenty years he has been the production manager for some of the nation’s largest organic vegetable companies. Michael is the founder of the Farmer Veteran Coalition, where he helps farmers plan and operate economically-viable businesses.

This Healthy Farms Healthy People web forum is organized by Coalition Steering Committee member, ChangeLab Solutions, and will be moderated by Christine Fry.


Welcome to L.A.


Posted by HFHP Coalition
Cross-posted from Community Food and Justice Coalition
 
By Erin Middleton

CFJC spent the week before Thanksgiving in Los Angeles, along with the Healthy Farms Healthy Peoples Coalition Coordinator, and had a number of conversations with coalition partners about the food justice movement, particularly in the L.A. region.  A few overarching themes surfaced regarding some of the critical  “whats” and “hows” of attaining food system change that is fair, healthy and sustainable at every point of the food chain – from growing and harvesting to distribution and waste management.

There are many essential issues that need to be addressed in order to transform our food system. A few discussed in LA on this trip were the decriminalization of poverty (criminalization of poverty involves declaring certain acts that are more likely to be committed by poor or homeless people, such as begging and being in public places, a crime.)[1], immigration reform, and carving out healthy space for young eaters.

While in conversation with the Los Angeles Community Action Network and Hunger Action Los Angeles we discussed the widespread false U.S. notion that we should “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps”. But what would you do if you had little or no opportunities? As congress considers deep cuts to SNAP (formerly food stamps) in the 2012 Farm Bill, increasingly more people do not know where their next meal will come from. In California alone an estimated 3.8 million adults — particularly those in households with children as well as low-income Latinos — can’t afford to put adequate food on the table.[2]

Click here to keep reading.


New Report: Healthy Food Incentives Cluster Evaluation 2011


Posted by HFHP Coalition

Cross-posted from Fair Food Network

This report summarizes initial results of a cluster evaluation of four organizations – Fair Food Network, Market Umbrella, Roots of Change, and Wholesome Wave – that offer SNAP incentives at farmers’ markets. The goal of the evaluation is to help inform further investments in SNAP incentives that have the potential to increase access to healthy food for low income consumers, improve the economic viability of farmers, and strengthen local communities.

Click here for the Healthy Incentives Cluster Evaluation 2011.


2012 Farm Bill: Do Agriculture Leaders Have Enough Gas and Road Left to Finish the Job?


Posted by HFHP Coalition
By Gabrielle Serra

For anyone who follows what goes on (or what doesn’t) in Washington, it’s a well-known fact that significant pressure on members to act is a major ingredient for the success of any legislation, regardless of merits. Now, with the number of legislative days quickly waning for the 112th Congress, agriculture leaders are facing internal and external pressures that are driving their recent efforts to finalize a bill, which also gives more shape to the potential fates of a 2012 farm bill.

First, agriculture leaders understand the need to act. They have heard the increasingly concerned calls to action from many constituents in the food and agriculture system, and share those concerns. After the 2008 farm bill was allowed to expire on October 1, without current authority, agriculture programs are set to revert back to permanent law which includes a portfolio of outdated and impractical commodity pricing and subsidy programs. The fact that the farm bill was allowed to expire was never because any of the agriculture leaders thought this was in itself a good idea, but rather that it could lead to significant and necessary pressure on congress to act and achieve a bicameral compromise before any real consequences are realized. That time is quickly approaching. With the expired dairy provisions, consumers would start to see a spike in milk prices in the new year. This is important. While only a fraction of legislators include agriculture as a major priority for their legislative decisions, every legislator cares about the price for a gallon of milk just as they care about the prices their constituents are paying for a gallon of gas.

Whether pressure from within the agriculture community is enough to drive action is yet to be seen. Sharp disagreements remain. Most significantly, the House and Senate maintain opposing priorities for what a modern commodity title should include. The House put forward a Price Loss Coverage program that would trigger payments to farmers when market prices fall below target levels. The Senate rejected this proposal in favor of a program that would compensate growers for part of their revenue insurance deductibles. Recently, agriculture leaders, who historically enjoy one of the more consistently amicable bipartisan relationships in Congress, have each indicated their willingness to compromise to reach agreement on commodity programs.

As the week comes to a close, both sides have dug in their heels on what an acceptable compromise on the commodity title must look like. One could assume that such strong positioning is necessary to allow each side to staunchly defend their bargaining positions in order to claim major concessions from the other chamber as negotiations proceed. While this may all just be necessary gamesmanship and standard politicking, time is running short for leaders to engage in such a slow-dance for long.

What’s more is that the commodity title isn’t the only challenge to be addressed. Agriculture leaders need a spending target on the bill from the White House and House GOP leadership in order to resolve the wide differences on cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This is not likely to be concluded any time soon. The spending target for a new farm bill, including the scope and scale of SNAP cuts, is expected to be decided at the highest levels. Agriculture leaders can’t expect a spending target until the broader fiscal cliff negotiations develop further and even then, they might still be waiting.

To date, there hasn’t even been a commitment from the White House or House leadership that a farm bill would be included as part of any agreement. Further, it is yet impossible to know whether there will even be a fiscal cliff agreement before the end of this congress that a farm bill could be attached to.

No doubt, the farm bill is not a driving priority of the fiscal cliff negotiations, but the potential savings from agriculture will continue to be attractive to negotiators to include as part of any agreement. If a fiscal cliff agreement of some sort is reached, and a new farm bill is ready that could pass both chambers, it’s increasingly likely that the farm bill would get a ride. That said, there is concern that a fiscal cliff agreement could include reductions in spending to agriculture, such as the widely popular elimination of direct payments (worth $49 billion over the next decade), with or without a new farm bill.

The potential for the White House and House leadership to include spending cuts to agriculture as part of any fiscal cliff agreement, regardless of whether a new farm bill is ready, is the second driving pressure for agriculture leaders to reach an agreement on a package. Taking savings from farm programs without also advancing a comprehensive new farm bill would compromise agriculture leaders’ ability to use part of this savings to implement a new farm program infrastructure, regardless of whether it looks like the senate or house proposals. This outcome would be extremely unpopular among the agriculture community.

With such significant differences between the House and the Senate on what a new farm bill should include, and no guarantee that there’s a future for a new farm bill this year, it’s not expected that a compromise will be reached before the last possible moment.

So now, with three weeks and counting until the next congress is gaveled in, the questions on HFHP’s mind are whether agriculture leaders have enough leverage and enough time to find a path forward for a 2012 farm bill. And then, of course, we must ask ourselves whether that would be the farm bill that our food and agriculture system needs and that our HFHP community can support.


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.


National Call-In Day to Urge Congress to Protect Anti-Hunger Programs


Posted by HFHP Coalition
By Gabrielle Serra

The federal nutrition programs are widely accepted and valued for providing assistance to millions of vulnerable families including women, children, and seniors that promote health and protect from poverty. With negotiations underway to try to avoid the fiscal cliff, however, congress and the administration have put virtually everything on the table, including cuts to entitlement programs, like SNAP, and other critical discretionary programs, like WIC.

On Wednesday, November 28, Feeding America is hosting a national call-in day to urge Congress to reject cuts to federal nutrition  and anti-hunger benefits as part of any deal on the fiscal cliff. For more information about how to participate, click here. Feeding America provides a toll-free number and suggested message points.

Now is the time to stand up for those who rely on the federal nutrition programs to feed their families and make ends meet by calling on congress to pursue a balanced approach that protects the most vulnerable among us from harm.

By marking your calendars for Wednesday, November 28, and by carving out just a few minutes of your time, you can make a big difference.


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.


Expiring Provisions in the Farm Bill


Posted by HFHP Coalition
By Gabrielle Serra

It has become clear that Congress will allow the 2008 Farm Bill to expire on September 30. The farm bill will remain stalled in the House of Representatives while Congress is in recess through the November election.

With the Senate passing a bipartisan bill back in June, responsibility for the stalemate falls at the feet of House leadership who has struggled to find a political sweet spot to move either a temporary extension of current law or the draft bill reported out of the Agriculture Committee. House leadership has faced political challenges centered on intra- and inter-party differences over funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House Republicans are divided over whether the Agriculture Committee-passed bill that proposes $16 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next ten years is adequate or not enough. Meanwhile, House Democrats generally consider the proposed SNAP cuts to be too severe. The two caucuses have remained just as divided over the implications of extending current legislation.

Looking ahead, with the expected expiration of current law on September 30, Congress has until the end of the calendar year to take action before serious consequences to the farm safety net would be triggered. Most major programs in the current law, such as the nutrition programs and crop insurance, will continue with the 6-month Continuing Resolution (H.J Res 117) that is currently making its way through Congress. Further, most commodity programs are dictated by the crop cycle rather than the fiscal calendar providing Congress with a cushion of varying lengths before the agriculture production community begins to feel effects. That being said, allowing the current farm bill to expire is not without any consequences.

The most obvious concern is for the 37 programs in the current farm bill that do not have baseline funding or authorization for funding beyond FY 2012. This means that when the current federal fiscal year comes to a close on September 30 that even if Congress wanted to, they could not appropriate funds to these programs. Further, if policymakers intend to continue these programs in their current or revised form, they will need to identify offsets to pay for them.  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of continuing these programs for an additional five years would cost between $9 billion to $14 billion.

The 37 expiring provisions affect 12 of the 15 titles in the 2008 Farm Bill. Two of the provisions – the agriculture disaster assistance program and the Wetlands Reserve Program account for approximately 80 percent of the projected costs of reauthorization. Continuation or revision of agriculture disaster assistance, which both the Senate and House farm bills would address, has been a major concern in light of the summer’s drought. The impact on conservation programs has also stirred significant concern.

There are numerous other programs that would be affected if Congress allows either the current farm bill to expire, or even if they enacted a short-term extension because they have no authorization for funding after September 30. Healthy Farms Healthy People is particularly concerned about the impact that this would have on a few of these programs specifically because of our focus on improving affordable access to fruits and vegetables, local and regional food systems, and equity. These programs include (but are not exclusive to) the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Farmers Market Promotion Program, Specialty Crop Research, Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program, and Value-Added Producer Grants.

For more information on each of the 37 programs without baseline after September 30, we encourage you to refer to the recent report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, “Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.” The report can be found here and describes the cost of action to reauthorize the expiring programs.

Congress will return in November with a list of must-pass legislation to address, which now must also include the farm bill. It is impossible to predict the path forward for the 2012 farm bill without knowing how the political landscape will look after the election. It’s clear that the House and Senate of this Congress will continue to have significant differences in commodity title policy and SNAP funding when they return in November. With the election behind them, though, there will certainly be some form of action before the end of this Congress to at least bypass the threat of reverting back to 1940’s farm policy.

Healthy Farms Healthy People will continue to monitor and navigate the various scenarios, and we will keep you posted here.