Blog
More food stamp debates
This interesting article in Politico discusses ongoing discussions and challenges in the debate over the size and composition of food assistance programs that are typically bundled into the farm bill. There questions over waivers, work requirements, the size of cuts, and many more:
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is being asked to defend a Republican plan to permanently repeal waivers allowing able-bodied, jobless adults to continue to get aid in periods of high unemployment. Yet back home in Oklahoma, his own state already passed a law ending its waiver effective last month—without requiring any action by Congress.
Then there are fights over work requirements:
Not waiting for Washington, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is pushing ahead with a plan to cut off food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents who fail to work at least 20 hours a week.
Given the nature of the partisan fighting (and infighting), I thought I'd go back to the survey we conducted last month where we asked people whether they supported or opposed various changes to the food stamps programs (more details on that are here).
In particular, I wanted to break down the results to look at the partisan divide to see which issues Republicans and Democrats were in most and least agreement. Here is the breakdown (the figures are the % that agree with the change).
I've highlighted in red those issues with the most disagreement between Rep and Dems (typically at 25-35% difference in support) and those in green where there is most agreement (typically less than a 10% difference in in support). The biggest disagreements, not surprisingly, have to do with size of cuts. Almost 60% of Republicans and almost 70% of Tea Party identifiers support cutting food stamps by $39 billion; only 29% of Democrats support that move. Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats (81% and 72%) supported separating food stamps from the farm bill.
Also out of curiosity, I was interested in the difference in the general public and those who are on or who have ever previously been on food stamps. Here is that breakdown.
The biggest disagreements are about the length of time one can stay on food stamps and the size of the cuts. The most agreement is on splitting the farm bill and food stamps and on eliminating certain eligibility rules.
We don't use GMOs because our ingredients aren't genetically modified
I found this label on the back of a juice bottle amusing.
It is easy to stand on principle when there is no cost to doing so.
All Natural Law Suits
Back in May, I wrote the following:
there is a large contingent of lawyers with eyes set on the food industry Some were involved in the Tobacco lawsuits and are looking for a new target. Others are food lawyers and public health advocates using the legal system to invoke the change they want. In other cases, food company A is suing food company B in an attempt to limit competition. Whatever the reasons, one lawyer told me something to the effect that: if you've got the word "natural" on your food product, there is good chance you're going to get sued.
It seems the Wall Street Journal is now on the story. They ran a piece yesterday on natural food labels. They write:
Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up, alleging false advertising. Attorneys say at least 100 lawsuits have been filed in the past two years challenging the natural claims of UnileverULVR.LN +0.32% PLC's Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg Co. K +0.41% 's Kashi, Beam Inc. BEAM +2.39% 's Skinnygirl alcohol drinks and dozens of other brands. Some lawsuits have been thrown out, but others have ended with multi-million-dollar settlements. Still others are pending. For the most part, the suits are filed by plaintiffs' lawyers on behalf of consumers who purchased the products, seeking class-action status.
The problem is, as the WSJ notes, that:
The Food and Drug Administration has no definition, says a spokeswoman, but rather a long-standing policy that it considers "natural'' to mean that "nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.'' The agency's website says it is "difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth."
No only does the FDA not have a definition, another deeper problem is that consumers don't know what they think natural means. As I pointed out in a survey in June, 66% of consumers think foods with added salt are natural, but only 32% think foods with added sodium chloride are natural.
How safe is the poultry you buy?
All told, Mr. Millman and his mother, Ann Marks, gathered 213 samples of chicken drumsticks from supermarkets, butcher shops and specialty stores in the New York area.
Now they and several scientists have published a study based on the project in the journal F1000 Research. The results were surprising.
Almost twice as many of the kosher chicken samples tested positive for antibiotic-resistant E. coli as did the those from conventionally raised birds. And even the samples from organically raised chickens and those raised without antibiotics did not significantly differ from the conventional ones.
That's from this post in the NYT.
But, as the story reminds us, don't forget that:
The contamination does not mean the chicken is dangerous to eat. Generally, poultry is safe if handled carefully and cooked to an internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit, according to guidelines from the Agriculture Department
.