New school-lunch rules produce complaints, more trash, efforts to repeal them

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the Obama administration's effort to mandate more fresh fruit, vegetables and whole grains into the diets of school children, has some uphill climbing to do and it's not just the kids who are complaining. Though, admittedly, they were the first. Sarah Gonzales of Agri-Pulse took a look at some rural school districts trying to implement the law in advance of the law's implementation deadline, to see how the new science-based standards were working in real lunchrooms. What she found were complaints from student athletes who thought they needed more calories and more options, and substantial increases of good food thrown in the garbage. They also got this parody of "The Hunger Games" from some ingenious Kansas kids:

Dawn Matthews, director of food service for the rural Camdenton school district in Missouri, serves 3,200 school lunches every school day to kids in every grade level from K-12. The new standards, drawn from recommendations from an independent panel of doctors, nutritionists and other experts, require better nutrition and allow schools to serve between 550-650 calories for students in K-5, 600-700 calories of students for 6th through 8th grades, and 750-850 for high school lunches. Agri-Pulse reporters explain that a daily lunch costs $2.10, but almost 60 percent of the meals are offered for free for a reduced price in this rural district. Matthews notes that participation in the program is dropping with the new menu in place.

Urban kids don't like the lunches, either, reports Vivian Yee of The New York Times. (NYT photo by Librado Romero: A Manhattan school where seventh-graders called vegetables "gross.") Even before the deadline for the act to be put into effect, Gonzales notes, Reps. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kans., and Steve King, R-Iowa, introduced the No Hungry Kids Act last month to repeal the new school guidelines. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also issued a recent policy statement saying the initial law was "well-intentioned, but falls short of providing a comprehensive policy for educating students in healthy living."

The results of the first few months of trial -- especially the waste -- have been "disheartening," said food director Matthews. It is also early. "I think it's going to evolve over time," said the chairman of Florida's Lake County School Board, Roseanne Brandeburg. "If you're in elementary school, and this is what you're going to be served, you're going to get used to it."

Agri-Pulse is subscription-only, but free trials are offered on its website.

White children exposed to high level of chemical BPA five times more likely to be obese, study finds

White children exposed to high levels of bisphenol A, better known as BPA, are five times more likely to be obese than children with low levels, according to a study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study by the New York University School of Medicine is the first to link the chemical to obesity in children, which is more prevalent in rural areas.

Environment Health News reporter Brien Bienkowski reports that scientists found traces of BPA, which are used in some canned food and beverages, paper receipts and dental sealants, "are found in virtually every U.S. adult and child. In the study of body mass and BPA data from 2,838 youths aged 6 to 19, only white children were found to have significant increases in obesity prevalence as their BPA levels increased. Those with the highest concentrations in their urine were five times more likely to be obese than children with the lowest levels. Black children with higher BPA levels were 1.25 times more likely to be obese than those with lower levels, which the scientists said is not statistically significant. Hispanic children had the same rates of obesity at the highest and lowest levels."

Bienkowski reports that "representatives from the chemical industry said the study had too many weaknesses to prove any connection. Steven Hentges, from the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, said that attempts 'to link our national obesity problem to minute exposures to chemicals found in common, everyday products are a distraction from the real efforts underway to address this important national health issue.' "

One study of preschoolers in North Carolina and Ohio found that 99 percent of BPA exposure was through food. But since the chemical is in many plastics and other products, this is difficult for scientists to pin down. “People are always told if you just stop eating or exercise more, you will lose weight. But there may be more to it … and I think there is,” said Retha Newbold, a visiting scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who specializes in BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  (Read more)

Walmart offers discount to Humana plan members for purchase of healthier grocery items

Starting Oct. 15, more than 1 million members of Humana Inc.'s Healthy Rewards program will start getting a 5 percent credit on about 1,300 healthy food items at all U.S. Walmart stores.  The credit can be used against future purchases at Walmart, which has about half its stores in rural areas.

Walmart, the largest U.S. food retailer, has taken note that "one of the biggest barriers to healthy nutrition is cost," Dr. John Agwunobi, president of health and wellness at Walmart, told Reuters. His company, he said, is trying an overall approach to improve the nutritional value of the food it sells. And because food accounts for more than half of Walmart's annual sales, and since it has tremendous clout in the U.S. market, the hope is that changes at its stores can influence other supermarket chains to do more about healthy eating.

Walmart products eligible for the credit include fresh fruits, vegetables, lean cuts of meat, skim milk, brown rice and packaged goods, the company told Reuters. The program works with a HumanaVitality card provided to members of Humana's rewards unit who receive points for meeting health goals. (Read more)

Study says almost 40 percent of rural Americans are obese, while only about a third of urbanites are

Getty Images photo via ABC News

Rural people are more likely to be obese, according to a new study, "the first in more than 30 years to use actual measurements of height and weight, rather than self-reported data, which can be unreliable," reports Mary McVean of the Los Angeles Times. The study "suggests rural obesity is a bigger problem than we realized," writes Dr. Julielynn Wong of the ABC News medical unit.

"People tend to overestimate how tall they are and underestimate how much they weigh," said the lead researcher, Christie Befort, assistant professor of preventive medicine and public health at the University of Kansas Medical Center. "The differences between rural and urban were most pronounced for younger adults between the ages of 20 and 39."

She said the rural-urban disparity could be a result of the "cultural diet" of rural people, which generally has more meat and fat, and isolation from better food sources and exercise facilities. The Times story also says "another factor could be the increased mechanization of farm work," but that presumes that a large percentage of rural Americans work on farms, which is not true.

The study found that 39.6 percent of rural Americans are obese, while 33.4 percent of urban residents were, but the story does not give the study's time period or how it defined "rural."

The study appears in the latest issue of the subscription-only quarterly Journal of Rural Health, which is subscription-only; the journal's site says abstracts of its articles are available from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed service, but the article has not been posted at this writing. for the Times story, click here.

'Farm Bill Now' group pushes on, but what if a hasn't passed when some laws expire Sept. 30?

The days are getting shorter for a 2012 Farm Bill, with the U.S. House having only eight more days in session before the election, and perhaps more important, before Sept. 30, when most of the current bill expires. Proponents of passing a full bill, not just a stopgap extension, say their task is made all the harder because farm income numbers are looking up in spite of the drought. Agri-Pulse reports that hasn't stopped major farm organizations, and a group called the Farm Bill Now Coalition from hitting the road in an effort to push to see things their way.

"Agriculture is one of the few bright spots in the American economy," explained National Corn Growers Association Vice President Pam Johnson during a press conference at the Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa, where the coalition went looking for support. "Our farmers continue to be more productive and innovative. But to continue that trend, we need to have some certainty about how we plan our business. And this is exactly what the Farm Bill does." The coalition plans another event on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 12.

Agri-Pulse notes that many programs will not expire on Sept. 30 if the bill is not reauthorized. Crop insurance, for example, is permanent. But dairy farmers would be particularly hard-hit, as would some conservation programs. Also set to disappear would be many nutrition programs, international trade and food aid programs, some targeted specifically at children.

Agri-Pulse is subscription-only, but free trials are offered at www.agri-pulse.com.

Farm Bill politics: Obama says U.S. will buy meat, blames Ryan for lack of bill; incumbents feel heat

Obama speaks in Council Bluffs today.
(Register photo by Bryon Houlgrave)

President Obama is announcing today that the Department of Agriculture intends to buy up to $170 million of pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to help support farmers suffering from the drought. The food purchases will go toward "food nutrition assistance" programs such as food banks. Reuters reports "The president will also direct the Department of Defense to encourage its vendors to speed up purchases of lamb, pork and beef and freeze it for later use." (Read more)

Today in Iowa, a key swing state, Obama gave U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan partial blame for Congress' failure to pass a Farm Bill with short-term relief for farmers, and called Mitt Romney's running mate the “ideological leader of the Republicans in Congress,” Jason Noble reports for the Des Moines Register. Obama also criticized Romney for favoring expiration of tax credits for wind energy. (Read more) A campaign spokesman replied, "Paul Ryan hails from an agriculture state and supported disaster relief, and the truth is no one will work harder to defend farmers and ranchers than the Romney-Ryan ticket." When a reporter asked Ryan about drought relief, which the House passed but which died in the Senate because of the Farm Bill impasse, he declined to discuss it, Steve Peoples of The Huffington Post reports.

Ryan's selection has made it less likely that a new Farm Bill will pass before the election, writes Chris Clayton of DTN/The Progressive Farmer: "Despite increasing pressure to adopt the legislation to help rural America cope with the drought, the Farm Bill now becomes an even more political document." (Read more)  While the drought is not the president's fault or a problem he can cure, "It is a far bigger issue for Barack Obama than Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney," says the Chicago Sun-Times. "Corn is the biggest crop in the U.S., and the price impacts a variety of domestic and international markets." (Read more) However, Obama's "promising help and compassion" in Iowa shows the advantages of an incumbent, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

The lack of a new Farm Bill has also turned up the heat on congressional incumbents in farm country. "Farmers are complaining loudly to their representatives, editorial boards across the heartland are hammering Congress over its inaction, and incumbents from both parties are sparring with their challengers over agricultural policy," Jennifer Steinhauer writes for The New York Times. "This year’s Farm Bill was unlike any before it. While the House Agriculture Committee signed off on a measure, its substantial cuts to food programs alienated too many Democrats. And its cuts to those programs, as well as to some forms of farm aid, were not enough to appease the chamber’s most conservative members." (Read more)

As schools prepare to follow new federal lunch rules, fruit and vegetable snack program up for debate

Bloomberg photo by Ian Waldie

As students and teachers return to school, food-service directors are working to implement the new federal school lunch regulations that take effect Oct. 1 -- a story for any local news outlet, since it affects almost every student.

Meanwhile, another school food program is up for debate. Congress is deciding whether frozen, canned and dried produce should be included in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. House Republicans say yes, to save money and make a wider range of options available year round. But the Senate is pushing to keep the program limited to fresh fruit and vegetables only. The argument — or food fight, as Dina ElBoghdady of The Washington Post calls it — has trade and other groups weighing in.

"If the goal is to expand and improve upon childhood nutrition, it doesn't make sense to limit the kinds of fruit and vegetables that schools serve," said Corey Henry, a spokesman for the American Frozen Food Institute. "Let the schools decide." But Sandi Kaur, acting director of nutrition services at the California Department of Education, disagrees, saying "it's the fresh that makes this program unique."

The program allows schools to distribute fresh fruit and vegetables as snacks to students and has "raised consumption in participating schools by a quarter-cup per day, or 15 percent," ElBoghdady reports. "The increase did not contribute to weight gain, suggesting that the fruit and vegetables replaced other foods." Last year, USDA spent $150 million to pay for the snacks for 3 million children. (Read more)

College students gravitate to agriculture, realizing it's 'more than cows and plows'

In the midst of the soul-killing drought, the mind-numbing Farm Bill fight and the constant debate about the use of pesticides, here's some news that just might make the day in farm country: Enrollment in agricultural colleges is downright booming. Why? Because, university officials tell Jens Manuel Krogstad of USA Today, "ag-related college majors appeal to both the heart and mind of a student." Better maybe still, students feel that with the degree they can help address such global issues as hunger and obesity.

"There's a better understanding that when we use the term agriculture, it's not all plows and cows," said Ian Maw, vice president for food, agriculture and natural resources at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities in Washington, D.C.

Also, students see a clear path to a job after graduation. "At traditional agriculture powerhouses such as Penn State, where enrollment is up more than 40 percent since 2004, career preparation can include cutting-edge research in areas such as plant breeding or genomics," writes Krogstad. "Schools in more urban regions draw students interested in local foods and healthy eating. Farmland prices have tripled in the U.S. in the past decade, and corn prices have doubled since mid-2010, and the high-paying jobs that follow are catching students' attention in a down economy, Maw said. 

Iowa State University, where the agriculture college this fall expects to surpass an enrollment record set 35 years ago, is straining to meet industry demand for its graduates, said Dean Wendy Wintersteen. Iowa State reports a 95 percent job-placement rate for graduates from its colleges of engineering and agriculture, and wages can start between $50,000 and $60,000, President Steven Leath said. (Read more)

House passes drought-aid bill, as outlook for overall Farm Bill remains unclear

The House passed a disaster aid package today to help cattle and sheep ranchers who are running out of pasture and up against high feed prices. The vote was 223-197. While the $383 million measure "promises some political cover for Republican candidates in farm states," reports David Rogers of Politico, the standoff over the five-year Farm Bill "remains a serious liability for the GOP going into November’s elections."

The current Farm Bill expires at the end of September, when Congress is likely to recess for campaigning. Congress has relatively little time to legislate before that, because it is starting a recess that will run through Labor Day. The chairmen of the House and Senate agriculture committees were scheduled to meet tonight "to begin negotiations toward a potential compromise that could be called up in September if the political winds shift enough in favor of action," Rogers writes.

Physician group wants milk out of school lunches

A nonprofit group that promotes a vegan diet is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to recommend that Congress remove milk from school lunches because it is contributing to childhood obesity. (Photo by Kathleen Flynn, Tampa Bay Times)

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine calls milk an "ineffective placebo" and says a large body of research shows that drinking dairy milk doesn't improve bone health or prevent fractures in children. The group also says milk is "the number one source of saturated fat in children's diets," Feedstuffs reports. "We are asking Congress and the USDA to put children's interests above the interests of the dairy industry," said Susan Levin, PCRM's nutrition education director. She said focusing on milk as the most important source of calcium in children's diets "distracts schools and parents from foods that can actually build bones, like beans and leafy greens."

National Milk Producers Federation President and CEO Jerry Kozak said in a statement, "Milk is the single largest contributor of nutrients in kids' diets," including calcium, potassium, phosphorus, protein and vitamins A, D and B12. (Read more)

Key Democrat says he will get Boehner to move Farm Bill, but sources tell Politico otherwise

The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee predicted yesterday that that Farm Bill would   see House floor action the week before the August recess, but several sources told Politico that it "is unlikely to see a floor vote," reporter Jake Sherman writes. "The committee’s product won’t see the light of day. Instead, Republicans are likely to try to extend the current farm policy that they’ve consistently decried as broken."

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he and Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., "would speak to [House Speaker John] Boehner about the bill in the coming days," reports Amanda Peterka of Environment & Energy News,(a subscription-only service). "He's a practical guy. He's a friend of mine," Peterson said of Boehner. "Next week I'll go over and see him. We'll have a little talk. I think at the end, I'm predicting ... the last week before we leave, this will be on the floor."

Boehner's office has said the floor schedule is controlled by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is allied with more conservative members seeking bigger cuts in food stamps, which account for about 80 percent of the bill's spending.

"GOP leaders are worried about a messy floor fight over divisive regional policies months before voters head to the ballot boxes," Sherman writes. "Odd couples could abound: The far left and far right would likely vote against the bill on the floor, the former thinking the bill cuts too much from food stamps, the latter insisting cuts aren’t deep enough. There’s also division over how much the government should be subsidizing the farm industry and whether it should control commodity prices. Arguing complex farm policy on the House floor in this political climate gives many Republican members pause. If the House can’t pass a bill, then it would go into negotiations with the Senate with a weak negotiating stance." 

Sherman's colleague David Rogers writes, "The timing is crucial if the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are to have any hope of negotiating a final package before the current farm program expires Sept. 30," David Rogers reports for Politico. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told him, "We're not sure we could get the votes for an extension." Rogers writes, "The House floor debate could indeed be messy, but to do nothing would mean walking away from farm states months before the November elections."

There were more signs yesterday of a fractious floor debate, as two Democrats who withdrew major amendments on energy and conservation during committee markup of the bill said they would keep pressing their cases. Rep.Leonard Boswell of Iowa "pledged to continue fighting for mandatory funding" for programs that "help rural landowners make energy efficiency improvements, fund renewable energy projects and plant biofuel crops," Peterka reports. "At the markup, Boswell withdrew the amendment after committee leaders promised to work with him on the issue."

Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota "said he plans to continue working on adding a provision to the bill that limits crop insurance subsidies on newly tilled land" nationwide, not just in the Prairie Pothole region, Peterka reports. Walz said he withdrew the amendment because he was afraid of disrupting the 'fragile coalition' that [Chairman Frank] Lucas put together to move the provision forward on a regional basis.

House Agriculture Committee approves its version of Farm Bill, pushes for floor vote

The House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the 2012 Farm Bill about 1a.m. today. The bill would provide farmers with a new form of crop insurance and cut about 2 percent in spending from food stamps, officially the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program. The approval comes just three weeks after the Senate approved its version of the bill. Its prospects in the full House are uncertain; the current farm law expires in September.

An amendment repealing the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration provisions in the 2008 law, which were meant to protect small farmers by forcing new rules on meat and poultry buyers, was approved, Erik Wasson of The Hill reports. Approval of the bill is seen as a major victory for Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and ranking member Collin Peterson, left, "who had risked angering factions in their own parties to forge a compromise bill," Wasson writes. Lucas has said he will now immediately push for a full House floor vote, but his party leaders appear uncertain because of pressure from their right wing for more cuts in the food-stamp program.

The bill is estimated to save $35 billion over 10 years, mostly through major changes in commodity programs and cuts to food stamps, which are about 80 percent of its spending, David Rogers of Politico reports. Direct cash subsidies would end and be replaced by a new form of crop insurance, but target prices as a safety net, which are important to Southern farmers, would be kept. Five Democrats joined Republicans in a 31-15 vote upholding $16.5 billion savings over 10 years from food stamps. In a "pivotal" move, Rogers writes, Alabama Republican Martha Roby's amendment tightening procedures for verifying the legal status of immigrants receiving food stamps was upheld.

The strong bipartisan vote puts more pressure on House Republican leaders to give the bill a floor vote before the August recess, Rogers writes: "Seldom has a major bill moved so far in Congress with so little attention. But defying its doubters, it can no longer be ignored politically — with Iowa in play in the presidential election and the current farm program expiring Sept. 30."

The Environmental Working Group, a leading critic of how farm subsidies are structured, called the bill "the worst piece of food and farm legislation in recent memory. With the U.S government in a deep fiscal crisis, the committee’s farm bill increases unlimited subsidies for the largest and most profitable farm businesses. As millions of families struggle to put food on the table, the bill cuts funding for critical nutrition assistance programs by $16.1 billion. And with water, land and wildlife habitat under unprecedented assault by industrial agriculture, the committee’s bill slashes environmental programs by more than $6 billion while gutting regulation of pesticides, forestry, and genetically modified crops." (Read more)

Committee moving quickly through Farm Bill in hope of winning full House vote soon; that's in doubt

The House Agriculture Committee plowed through its version of the Farm Bill today as Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., right, pushed to bring the bill to the full House before the August recess and not delay action until a "lame duck" session after the Nov. 8 election.

The panel's ranking Democrat and former chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, pointed a finger at Republican leaders: “If the House leadership fails to bring up this farm bill before the recess, they will jeopardize one of the economic bright spots of our nation’s fragile economy. Farmers need the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill. We cannot wait for the mess that will occur during the lame duck, and frankly, I think an extension of the current farm policy potentially creates more problems than it solves.”

Despite Peterson's partisan comments, his partnership with Lucas in writing a bill for committee consideration "appeared decisive thus far," reports David Rogers of Politico. "A ticklish political situation over an amendment by Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) to verify the legal status of immigrants receiving food stamp benefits was resolved peacefully. And five Democrats including Peterson joined Republicans on a pivotal 31-15 vote upholding $16.5 billion savings over 10 years from the program."

The bill "has caused intraparty tensions to flare up among both Democrats and Republicans, who are primarily squabbling over how much money should be allotted for food stamps," notes Daniel Newhauser of Roll Call. Liberal Democrats have railed against the cuts. The Senate has passed its own bill, and there is a possibility that House leaders could avoid a floor vote and go straight to House-Senate negotiations.

Lucas said he hopes to complete the markup tonight or early Thursday. Rogers writes, "Set in the blue and gold décor of the old Agriculture Committee rooms, the proceedings have an air of folksy formality. And the one-time Oklahoma rancher — his wife now heads the family’s cow-calf operation at home — is moving his herd along." (Read more)

Experts and observers question growth of food stamps, say it's fueled partly by corporate interests

While members of the U.S. House begin debate about whether or not to cut funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) as part of its version of the 2012 Farm Bill, at least one large and powerful group has a vested interest in its continued growth: corporations that make or sell junk food.

Brad Tuttle of Time reports that corporations including Pepsi, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola and the Corn Refiners of America are likely most interested in continued expansion of SNAP because all have lobbied Congress and/or various states to make sure SNAP recipients have full freedom to decide how to spend SNAP money, including unlimited purchase of soda and junk food. "The idea that the food stamp program is essentially a corporate subsidy sounds like it could have been cooked up by the Tea Party or a libertarian, anti-tax group. But this argument has lately coming from very different quarters," Tuttle reports.

Michelle Simon, a public-health expert and leader of watchdog group Eat Drink Politics, has said "SNAP represents the largest, most overlooked corporate subsidy" in the 2012 Farm Bill. She concluded last month in a report that big bank J.P. Morgan Chase benefits from SNAP just as much as big food corporations because it gets tens of millions a year from states in exchange for operating SNAP electronic benefits transfer cards. New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle told the San Francisco Chronicle that it's "time to consider the idea of limits" for SNAP recipients. USA Today's editorial board has also condemned the growth of SNAP as being politically motivated.

House right wing's focus on food-stamp cuts complicates efforts to pass Farm Bill

A food-stamp fight will complicate efforts to pass a Farm Bill, reports Politico's David Rogers, perhaps the best in the business at explaining the politics of American agriculture and food policy.

To get the bill through the House, Rogers writes, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) "must go to the right of the Democratic-controlled Senate, which took only $4.5 billion from SNAP," or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which the food-stamp program was dubbed in the 1996 welfare reform bill. "But in trying to show some deft and care, Lucas is meeting stiff resistance in his own committee, where nearly two-thirds of the Republicans are freshmen from the large 2010 class so influenced by the rise of the tea party."

Getting little or no help from House GOP leaders, Lucas has abandoned his hope "to build on the decades-old farmer-food stamp coalition, which has helped sustain support for rural agriculture in the more urban House," Rogers reports. "Instead, the path chosen by the GOP is a political dead-end in the Senate and could become a nightmare for farm and crop-insurance interests trying to fend off tighter income limits on subsidies." The bill would eliminate direct cash payments to farmers but create a larger program for crop insurance.

Food stamps are the largest single part of the bill. The right wing wants to repeal "categorical eligibility," which appears to have allowed states to enroll more people in the program, ballooning its costs. Rogers calls it "an administrative shortcut that’s become far more common since the economic downturn in 2008," putting more people in need of food stamps. The impending House approach "could drive at least 1.8 million people off the rolls and has twice been rejected by the Senate." Lucas and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the committee's ranking Democrat, want to raise food-stamp eligibility to 140 percent of the poverty threshold to compensate for repeal of categorical eligibility.

Rogers sums up: "Seldom have the haves and have-nots had so much common stake in one bill. Consider that for a family of three, the distinction between 130 percent of poverty and 140 percent . . . comes down to those earning $24,817 vs. $26,726 a year — about $37 more a week. That’s less than the annual direct cash subsidies for two acres of corn today. And this in the context of a debate where it was considered a major breakthrough for the Senate to trim the rate of crop insurance subsides for producers with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $750,000." (Read more)

Growers of cranberries, which need sugar for sales, fear possible exclusion from schools

The federal government is expected to propose new nutrition standards soon that worry cranberry growers from Massachusetts to Wisconsin and into Canada. The effort, urged on by first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative, is the Department of Agriculture's likely new guidelines for what can be sold in school vending machines, stores and cafeteria lines. Sugar is the target, writes Larry Bivins of USA Today, and sweetened beverages like cranberry juice cocktail could be deemed unhealthy because the berry is not popular without some sort of sweetener added. That would be unfortunate and unfair, cranberry industry officials say, because the tart, deep-red fruit is loaded with nutrients and health benefits. But for consumers to avail themselves of those benefits, cranberries must be palatable. "Cranberries can be sweetened with anything," said Linda Prehn, a cranberry grower in Tomah, Wis., citing apple juice as an example. (Associated Press photo of Massachusetts cranberry worker Miguel Sandel)

Prehn, chairman of United Cranberry Growers Cooperative, a collective of 85 growers in Massachusetts, Oregon and Wisconsin in the U.S. and the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, was among cranberry honchos attending the recent inaugural meeting of the Congressional Cranberry Caucus on Capitol Hill. Prehn and others are hoping the bipartisan caucus led by Reps. Reid Ribble, R-Wis., and Bill Keating, D-Mass., and Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., can help persuade agriculture officials to make an exception for cranberry products in its nutrition standards for added-sugar products.

"Given the beneficial and scientifically proven health properties of cranberries, we believe there is a need to establish clear standards that recognize cranberries as a part of a healthy diet," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The lawmakers sent a similar letter to the first lady, pointing out cranberries "contribute to whole body health, particularly urinary-tract health and the potential to fight cancer and other diseases." At stake is exclusion from an estimated $2.3 billion school vending-machine business and an image that could have a negative impact on the marketing of cranberry products worldwide, particularly cranberry juice cocktail, industry officials say.

Senate passes bipartisan Farm Bill; House faces split between Midwestern and Southern farmers

The Senate approved a wide-ranging, bipartisan-pleasing Farm Bill Thursday that would expand crop insurance, eliminate direct payments to farmers -- the backbone of farm subsidies since the mid-90s," notes David Rogers of Politico -- and make other cuts for a projected savings of more than $23 billion over its five-year lifespan. The bill passed on an unusual bipartisan vote of 64-35, after senators defeated most of the 73 amendments on a list agreed to by party leaders. The deal was brokered largely by Sens. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, top Republican and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, right (Associated Press photo).

One amendment that didn't make the list would have prevented meatpackers from owning livestock, reversing the trend in the industry. It was worth a vote, the Daily Yonder opines. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee blocked "implementation of regulations meant to bring a little market fairness into the lives of poultry and hog producers," the Yonder says. "What a lively week for the nation's livestock raisers!"

"In the final hours Thursday, exhausted Democrats only narrowly beat back two anti-regulatory proposals — each of which got a solid majority but fell short of a 60-vote threshold," reports Rogers. "On a 56-43 vote, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) came surprisingly close to winning a flat ban" on aerial surveillance of agricultural operations by the Environmental Protection Agency and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) "came even closer, 58-41, on his proposal" to let rural water companies forgo mailing annual reports to customers if no violations had been found.

The new emphasis on crop insurance created "a real and lasting split" between corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest and "Southern rice, peanuts and wheat growers," Rogers notes, pointing to the roll call (which is available from the Yonder). Bridging that split will be high on the agenda in the House, where Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) "is open to keeping some target price supports" to help Southern farmers, "a heavier government hand than some tea party Republicans may want," Rogers writes. "At the same time, Lucas is shooting for greater savings than the Senate, meaning he will have to cut more from food stamps, straining his bipartisan coalition with farm state Democrats." The bill passed Thursday would cut about $4.5 billion from food stamps. The House Republican budget introduced earlier this year by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would turn the nutrition program into block grants for the states.

The House is scheduled to start work on its own Farm Bill July 11, but before then it will consider an agriculture appropriations bill. "The fact that the Agriculture and Appropriations committees should be thrown together on the floor next week has its own irony," Rogers writes. "Both committees have a tradition of bipartisanship, which has earned them the scorn of many in the House Republican leadership. But that same history of working together is what the Senate was celebrating Thursday in Stabenow and Roberts’ performance." (Read more)

Senate votes mandatory funding for some Rural Development programs in Farm Bill

The U.S. Senate voted this afternoon to amend the 2012-17 Farm Bill to include $150 million mandatory funding for certain Rural Development programs in the Department of Agriculture, rather than leave them at the mercy of appropriators and administration officials.

The amendment would secure funding for non-farm microenterprise development, which advocates said is in danger, guarantee funding for water and sewer projects for which applications have already been filed; and avoid cuts in programs for beginning and minority farmers.

The vote, 55-44, was almost entirely along party lines, with Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri voting no and Republican Susan Collins of Maine voting yes. Collins' seatmate, Republican Olympia Snowe, voted no. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, another moderate Republican, switched from no to yes near the end of the vote.

Debate was limited to one minute on each side by the agreement governing consideration of 73 amendments to the bill. Democrats Sherrod Brown of Ohio, left, who sponsored the amendment, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, chair of the Agriculture Committee, spoke for it. She implicitly defended her committee's decision to leave the usual Rural Development title out of the bill, saying the move eliminated 16 specific spending authorizations. For Brown's press release on the amendment, click here.

Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas opposed the amendment, saying it reduces the five-year savings in the bill to an estimated $23.2 billion, and "If we're going to achieve savings we've got to hold the line."

Final Senate approval of the bill is expected next week. UPDATE, June 20: Agri-Pulse reports that it could pass this week. The early consideration of the Rural Development amendment, because of its financial implications, may have helped secure its passage.

Meredith Shiner of Roll Call reported that "Sources were cautiously optimistic that the Senate will approve a bill that received a bipartisan 16-5 vote out of committee. But it is also clear that certain regional disputes will be tougher to bridge and that even if the Senate does pass the bill, the road to the president’s desk likely will be difficult, if not impossible, with a Republican-controlled House."

Shiner wrote that the agreement on the amendments was a "massive" deal that was passed by unanimous consent and includes some measures that are not germane to the bill Reuters reports several of the amendments, including those about debt reduction, subsidies and soil erosion, "are meant to put lawmakers on the record on hot-button spending issues."

David Rogers of Politico reports that crop insurance, sugar price supports and food stamps "will all likely be subject to multiple challenges testing their political support." Rogers also reports that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was promised a vote on his RAISE Act, which amends labor laws to give employers more ability to reward performance bonuses. The Associated Press notes the bill, which financially is mainly about nutrition, will provide $80 billion a year for the food-stamp program.

The Rural Development amendment was "hanging by a thread," Chuck Hassebrook of the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs wrote earlier for the Daily Yonder. He asked, "Why is the political system unresponsive to the more than 95 percent of rural people who do not farm but need jobs, opportunity and community development?" He offered these answers: "Rural Development gains little mention in the news media. It’s not on the list of concerns that pundits say must be resolved before the Farm Bill can muster enough support to pass the Senate. Rather, all eyes are on the dispute between Midwestern and Southern agriculture interests on how commodity payments are structured. Rural development scarcely prompts a mention. . . . Our organizations are not presumed, individually or collectively, to represent the rural masses. And there is little fear that ignoring our pleas will prompt dire electoral consequences with rural voters generally."