Cuts to SNAP in the Ryan budget

For many years, the Food Stamp Program enjoyed reliable bi-partisan political support.  Even as the U.S. entitlement program for cash assistance was cut and converted to a block grant in the 1990s, food stamps remained largely unharmed.  Leading Republicans such as Senator Bob Dole joined leading Democrats in supporting food assistance for low-income Americans.

Now, at a time when U.S. household food insecurity is near record levels, the nation's largest food assistance program -- under its newer name the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- is targeted for the most severe cuts ever in its 50-year history.  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, GOP Congressman Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan for 2013-2022, approved by the House of Representatives Thursday in a partisan vote, would cut SNAP by $133.5 billion, or 17 percent, over ten years.

In reaction to this proposed budget plan, GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, "It's an excellent piece of work."

Second-place GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, according to the New York Times, said the budget didn't go far enough.

The New York Times editorial yesterday disagreed.  The Times said the proposed cuts "would mean a loss of $90 worth of food a month" for the average household.  If you read the Center on Budget's analysis carefully, clearly the Times should have said "a loss of $90 worth of food stamps in a month" (the distinction arises because SNAP benefits are effectively food support only in part and effectively income support for the remainder).  An economist colleague called me up to criticize this oversight in the Times editorial and to encourage me to post on this topic, saying of the Times: "It's an attempt to be inflammatory.  They wanted a big number."

I see the point, but I might add that the budget cut correctly described, $133.5 billion from SNAP, also is a big number, and perhaps also in this election season an attempt to be inflammatory.

Update (4/1/2012): My colleague encourages me to explain the economic flaw in the Times editorial even more clearly.  The issue has to do with the effect on food spending from an additional dollar of SNAP benefits.  A good rough estimate is that an additional dollar of SNAP benefits generates about 30 cents of additional food spending.  The rest of the additional SNAP benefit substitutes for cash income that the household otherwise would have spent on food, freeing up resources for other household needs such as housing or transportation.  The economic lesson is that a targeted benefit such as SNAP is in part a food subsidy and in part a general income subsidy.  The Times editorial should not have said the Ryan budget would generate a loss of $90 in food, but rather that the budget would generate a loss of $27 in food and $63 in other household needs.

With this correction in mind, my friend writes: "What you did not do in your blog post was tell your reader the nature of the NYT mistake and what the right concept is.... So finally, if I object, it is that you did not take this opportunity to teach a little economics and encourage accuracy.   You came very close to saying, lying is okay as long as the political cause is GOOD.   I do not think you really believe that."

Jim Moseley on AGree

The best moment in this video is former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Jim Moseley's personal story about his two sons, both young farmers, one traditional and one organic.  Currently, Moseley is one of four co-chairs of a foundation-funded agricultural policy initiative called AGree.  The other co-chairs -- also each with their own videos -- are former USAID executive Emmy Simmons, Stonyfield Farm's Gary Hirschberg, and former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman.  I am serving on an affiliated Research Committee, which has been difficult and highly educational work.  AGree also has an excellent news feed.

The most distinctive feature about AGree is the Advisory Committee, with representatives from all walks of life in U.S. agriculture and the food system. The purpose of the initiative is to improve the tenor of U.S. farm and food policy debate.  That's a difficult task, and the initiative is by no means ensured of success.  If it does have any success, it will be largely attributable to the courage, tolerance, and hard work of this remarkable Advisory Committee.

Why Calories Count

Why Calories Count, the new book by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim, nicely bridges the world of food policy commentary and nutrition science. It offers a great counterpoint to the loud and untrustworthy bazaar of diet books, each blaming some simple villain for the obesity epidemic (too much carbs, too much fat, too little calcium, whatever).  Why Calories Count teaches a wealth of detail about how calories are measured and how their effects are studied.  It also tells great stories, from the history of nutrition science to the poignant service of wartime conscientious objectors who participated in a clinical study of human starvation.  If I were a graduate student in nutrition or public health, I would find this book inspiring as an eloquent and engaging secondary reading alongside a nutrition science textbook.  Strongly recommended.

Links: Jane Brody, Mark Bittman.

Bon Me lunch truck in Boston

Today for the first time I had lunch at the Bon Me Truck at Dewey Square Plaza in Boston, operated by Friedman School alum Asta Schuette and partners. It is Boston's contribution to a trend toward high-quality food trucks around the country. Terrific real wholesome food. I should have visited much earlier.

Three views of ractopamine in pigs

Helena Bottemiller this week writes a thorough summary of the international trade controversies over U.S. exports of pork from pigs that have been treated with the growth promoter ractopamine hydrochloride.  This animal drug is allowed under U.S. rules, but banned in many other countries, so U.S. trade negotiators have been pressing hard to get other countries to relent and allow small residues of the drug in imported pork.

Bottemiller describes the history of testing by the drug's manufacturer, Elanco, in terms that could leave a reader quite concerned:

The FDA ruled that ractopamine was safe and approved it for pigs in 1999, for cattle in 2003 and turkeys in 2008. As with many drugs, the approval process relied on safety studies conducted by the drug-maker — studies that lie at the heart of the current trade dispute.

Elanco mainly tested animals — mice, rats, monkeys and dogs — to judge how much ractopamine could be safely consumed. Only one human study was used in the safety assessment by Elanco, and among the six healthy young men who participated, one was removed because his heart began racing and pounding abnormally, according to a detailed evaluation of the study by European food safety officials.

When Elanco studied the drug in pigs for its effectiveness, it reported that “no adverse effects were observed for any treatments.” But within a few years of Paylean’s approval, the company received hundreds of reports of sickened pigs from farmers and veterinarians, according to records from the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.

USDA meat inspectors also reported an increase in the number of “downer pigs” — lame animals unable to walk — in slaughter plants. As a result of the high number of adverse reactions, the FDA requested Elanco add a warning label to the drug, and it did so in 2002.

The company also received a warning letter from the FDA that year for failing to disclose all data about the safety and effectiveness of the drug.

Some of the research literature is available on the USDA website, including this 2003 article by Marchant and colleagues, which indicates why there might be concern.

We found that there were differences in 24h behavioral time budgets, with the ractopamine-fed pigs being more active and alert and taking longer to lie down after being disturbed. However, these differences were only apparent during the first 2 weeks. In contrast, ractopamine pigs remained more difficult to handle over the entire 4-week period. At the end of the 4-week period, they also had higher heart rates than control-fed pigs and higher levels of circulating stress hormones.

We conclude therefore, that feeding ractopamine to pigs does affect behavior and physiology. Pigs that are more difficult to move are more likely to be subjected to rough handling and increased stress during transportation, implying reduced welfare, increased workload for the handlers and, potentially, poorer meat quality. However, for this conclusion to be applicable to the finishing pig population in general, other genetic lines should be tested.

I have been spending some time recently thinking about what makes many Wikipedia articles excellent, and also about the limitations of the free encyclopedia approach. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on ractopamine is highly technical, as if written by an animal science expert, and generally downplays the safety concern. Although the Wikipedia article includes the Bottemiller article as one recent reference, its summary of the animal safety issue seems to contrast both with her article and with the Marchant article cited above. Here is the section in full:

Target animal safety

Ractopamine is safe for finishing pigs heavier than 240 pounds when administered in the diet at concentrations up to 10 ppm and fed for up to 35 days. However, there was an increase in the number of ractopamine hydrochloride-treated animals exhibiting signs of injury during the final drive to slaughter. (FDA)

I suppose the second sentence captures the animal health issues sufficiently? Of course, the great thing about Wikipedia is that articles are constantly changing and commonly improving.

South Side Chicago

While in Chicago this month for an AAEA-sponsored session of the main annual meeting of economists, I took a long walk through the South Side neighborhoods from 35th Street/Bronzeville to 51st Street, learning especially about food retail access, housing, and other topics. Here are some photographs.


For advance preparation, I read Mari Gallagher's reports on food deserts in Chicago.

My past walks on the same theme include Skid Row, Anacostia, Harlem, Roxbury, and the Hill District.

Is reducing childhood obesity a reasonable goal?

Under the headline "Obama's Government vs. Your Family," John Hinderaker of the conservative blog Powerline this week links to our coverage of the interagency working group that proposed voluntary guidelines for marketing food to children.  Hinderaker is upset that Michelle Obama considers reducing childhood obesity to be a public policy objective.

So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.

I am tempted to speculate that Hinderaker read some parts of my post more closely than others.  He probably best liked the part where I investigated some of the arcane details showing that Cheerios would not meet the long-run guidelines, which suggests that the details of the guidelines might deserve further tweaking.  Perhaps he focused less on some of the other good links in my post, which supported the interagency working group proposal and emphasized that this approach really is moderate, reasonable, and market-oriented.