USDA’s Economic Research Service has a new report on China’s investment in agriculture and farmland.

China’s outward agricultural investments are growing rapidly.

The purchases are everywhere: Indonesia, New Zealand, Bulgaria, Jamaica, etc., but some is in the United States.

China owns Smithfield, for example (see previous post).

The report is worth a serious read.  If you aren’t up to that, take a look at the tables and figures.  I wanted to reproduce a lot more of them.

The Intercept published an account last week pointing out that:

• Amazon will soon accept grocery orders from SNAP (food stamp) participants
• One third of Amazon employees are paid so little that they depend on SNAP for food
• Taxpayers also subsidize Amazon with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements

Amazon pays its employees a median (half above, half below) annual salary of $28,466.

The New York Times  points out that critics

have produced studies that say Amazon’s warehouses — which employ more than 125,000 full-time workers in the United States — don’t increase total local employment because of losses in other sectors. They also question the wisdom of subsidies to attract them. The American Booksellers Association, which represents independent bookstores, recently published a similar report on Amazon’s economic impact.

Amazon generated nearly $178 billion in online sales in 2017, its income grew by 27.8%, and it made $3 billion in profit.

Now we know why.

As anyone who has ever been within sniffing distance of an industrial pig farm can tell you, the stench is pervasive, gets into your clothes, and seems impossible to avoid or wash out.  It seems incomprehensible that pig producers could be permitted to cause such odors and impose the stench on neighbors.

When I was on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, the primary finding of our investigations was this: Laws existed to stop pollution but nobody enforced them.

But now neighbors of a North Carolina hog farm sued Smithfield—and won!

As Politico explained

The jury agreed with the 10 plaintiffs in the civil case, who contended that a contractor to Smithfield Foods created a situation where residents could no longer enjoy their property because of noxious smells. Waste from the hogs is stored in open-air lagoons and sprayed onto fields as fertilizer. Neighbors said manure particles traveled to their property located a few hundred feet from the farm, coating their homes, clothing and cars.

The judges instructions to the jury were simple.

The first question to the jury was whether Murphy-Brown had “substantially and unreasonably” interfered with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. For each of them, the jury answered “yes” and awarded them $75,000 in compensation.  As to whether the company was liable for punitive damages, the jury again answered yes, and awarded each the same amount – $5 million.

They won’t actually get this amount; North Carolina laws cap damage payments.

Nevertheless, the verdict opens the possibility for other such lawsuits and further damages.

Smithfield will appeal, of course.

These lawsuits are an outrageous attack on animal agriculture, rural North Carolina and thousands of independent family farmers who own and operate contract farms. These farmers are apparently not safe from attack even if they fully comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations. The lawsuits are a serious threat to a major industry, to North Carolina’s entire economy and to the jobs and livelihoods of tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

Yes, but does Smithfield have the right to ruin the lives of people in the community and create vast amounts of stinking waste that is not treated—amounts larger than that produced by people in small cities.

We would not dream of leaving human waste exposed and untreated.  Pig waste is no different.

Let’s hope the verdict sticks and causes big changes in animal production methods.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has named about 50 Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS).

These recognize “the proudest traditions of human ingenuity in harnessing precious resources to provide food and livelihoods and protect unique ecosystems.”

They are:

Outstanding landscapes of aesthetic beauty that combine agricultural biodiversity, resilient ecosystems and a valuable cultural heritage.  Located in specific sites around the world, they sustainably provide multiple goods and services, food and livelihood security for millions of small-scale farmers.  Through a remarkable process of coevolution of humankind and nature, such sites have emerged over centuries of cultural and biological interactions and synergies, representing the accumulated experiences of rural people….

GIAHS sites are testimony to the inventiveness and ingenuity of people in their management of resources, biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics, and use of landscapes, codified in traditional but evolving knowledge, practices and technologies. These ancestral agricultural systems constitute the foundation for contemporary and future agricultural innovations and technologies. Their cultural, ecological and agricultural diversity is still evident in many parts of the world, maintained as unique systems of agriculture.

I am just getting to this (better late than never), but in March Congress passed the 2,232-page appropriations bill H.R. 1625 (115).  This continued funding for the federal government until the end of September.

Despite White House calls for deep cuts—this bill gave:

• USDA and FDA $23.3 billion in discretionary funding, $2.4 billion above current levels.
• USDA USDA Farm to School Grant Program $5 million
• Food for Peace ,$1.7 billion
• Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, $35 million, a 30% increase since last bill
• USDA Economic Research Service, $86.75 million, above USDA’s request of $77 million.
• USDA Agricultural Research Service, $1.2 billion, above the $993 million request
• Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, $400 million, $25 million more than in 2017
• USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $981.1 million, $925 million more than current spending.
• Child nutrition programs (school meals), $24.25 million, $2 million more than current levels.
• Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), $6.175 billion in discretionary funding over two years
• Commodity assistance programs (soup kitchens, food banks, farmer’s market nutrition programs and other emergency assistance programs), $322.1 million over two years, and above current $313 million

But then there’s SNAP, where the real money is: $74.01 billion.  This is a $4 billion cut from current levels, and “subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as may be required by law.”

Except for SNAP, these look good for the next few months.

But the Farm Bill can change all this and we have yet to see what Congress will do about it.

And, according to Politico, the White House is expected to ask for up to $60 billion in cuts.

Start lobbying now.

Do food recalls reflect failures in food safety regulation or should they be considered a success?

USDA reports a significant increase in recent food product recalls.

• Between 2004 and 2008, food recalls averaged 304 a year
• Between 2009 and 2013, they averaged 676 a year.

USDA attributes the increase to

• Improvements in pathogen and risk-detection technology
• Increased regulatory oversight and enforcement
• Congressional passage of food safety legislation

This sounds like success, no?

The food categories accounting for most recalls?

• Prepared foods and meals
• Nuts and seeds
• Baked goods and grains
• Candy
• Sauces, condiments and dressings

The most common reasons for the recalls:

• Failure to declare major allergens
• Possible Salmonella contamination.

Here’s another reason, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office: USDA’s inadequate standards for pathogens in meat and poultry, particularly turkey breasts and pork chops.

The report recommends that USDA work on this problem.  The USDA says it will.

Food safety requires endless vigilence, and government agencies need to do vigilent oversight.

You have to love Congress.  It has just passed a bunch of amendments to its draft of the Farm Bill among them, this:

Apparently, this is such a serious problem in our society that it requires federal regulation?  The House must think so.

Really, you can’t make this stuff up.

While Congress is trying as hard as it can to cut funding for SNAP and impose work requirements, it’s worth taking a look at some recent reports:

• The Nutritional Quality of Foods Acquired by Americans: Findings from USDA’s National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey outline possible influences on the foods Americans purchase or otherwise acquire, including consumer income levels, food stores/sources, food-source access, and participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Access the entire report here (41 pp.). A two-page summary is here.
• SNAP Versus Non-SNAP Household Food Acquisition Habits: A recent USDA Economic Research Service study found that SNAP households acquire about the same amount of calories per adult equivalent as non-SNAP households, while spending fewer dollars and relying more on school meals and food from family and friends. Read the findings here.
• How Far Do SNAP Benefits Fall Short of Covering the Cost of a Meal?  From the Urban Institute, this analysis explores the adequacy of SNAP benefits today. The analysis found the benefit does not cover the cost of a low-income meal in 99 percent of US continental counties. According to the analysis, the average cost of a low -income meal is $2.36. This is 27 percent higher than the SNAP maximum benefit per meal of $1.86, which takes into account the maximum benefit available to households of varying sizes.

Thanks to the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior for collecting these reports.  I’m a member.