Print

Print


12.     New Science Supports Old Advice "Eat a Variety of Foods" and
Highlights the Need to Increase Nutrient Density 
September 2005 

Link to this article is:
http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=12


Everyone has heard the advice "Eat a diverse diet," a recommendation
that has been a part of government dietary guidelines for decades. But
few studies have explored the relationship between dietary diversity and
the adequacy of nutrient uptake. The few studies that have been done
have reached different conclusions, in part because there is no standard
definition, or way to measure, "dietary diversity."

With a grant from the USDA, scientists carried out a first-of-its-kind
analysis of the adequacy of nutrient intakes as a function of diversity.
Their study involved daily food consumption data on almost 10,000
healthy adults 19 years or older. Each had participated in the USDA's
"Continuing Survey of Food Intakes for Individuals" (1994-1996). The
study reached three important conclusions.

First, a surprising percent of men and women are not consuming an
adequate intake of 15 key nutrients studied. For men, the probability of
adequacy for five key nutrients was under 50 percent, with vitamin E at
only 14.1 percent and magnesium and folate at 36 and 34 percent
respectively. For women, only 6.8 percent were projected to consume an
adequate amount of vitamin E, 20.9 percent for folate, and just as the
case with men, there were a total of five nutrients under 50 percent. 

Second, variety between and within the dairy and fruit food groups
increased the odds of adequate energy-adjusted intake across the 15
nutrients more so than in the grains and meat food groups.

Third, because of the strong correlation between diversity in the diet
and total caloric intake, advice to increase dietary diversity should be
coupled with recommendations on how to diversify the diet without
increasing, or even while decreasing caloric intake.

Across the fifteen nutrients studied, an average of 67 and 58 percent of
men and women had adequate intakes, and so, on average, 34 and 42
percent had inadequate intakes. At least 15 percent of women had
inadequate intakes of all 15 nutrients studied (15 percent of men had
inadequate intakes of 12 of the 15 nutrients studied). 

Accordingly, the ability to increase the density of vitamins and
minerals in organically produced foods can help bridge the gap between
adequate and inadequate consumption of common nutrients. A review by
Worthington found significantly higher levels in organic crops compared
to conventional crops of eight of the 15 nutrients studied in this
research. In addition, greater nutrient density can increase the percent
of people consuming adequate levels of nutrients without increasing
caloric intake.

Sources: "Dietary Variety Increases the Probability of Nutrient Adequacy
among Adults."
Authors: Janet Foote, Suzanne Murphy, Lynne Wilkens, Peter Basiotis, and
Andrea Carlson.
The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 134, No. 7, July 2004

"Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables,
and Grains."
Author: Virginia Worthington.
Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Volume 7, No. 2, 2001



13.     When the growing season begins, the Crop Advisory Team Alert
follows
 
The Crop Advisory Team (CAT) Alert newsletter has begun publishing its
2008 season. Offering pest management advice from March to September,
the newsletter highlights concerns that may be happening on your farm or
nursery. With five editions available, there is something for everyone.
You can choose from landscape and nursery, fruit, field crops,
vegetables or greenhouse, as well as whether to read a print or Internet
format. 
 
If you have a computer, you can read for free by picking your edition
at: http://www.ipm.msu.edu/aboutcat.htm 
 
If you would rather have a print subscription, it only costs $35 and
includes all issues regardless of when you subscribed in the season. For
more information or a subscription form, please call 517-353-4703 or
visit our web site listed above.\

14. Senate, House Farm Bill Negotiators Reach Compromise

Posted By Keith Good On April 26, 2008 @ 6:14 

Peter Shinn reported on Friday at Brownfield that, "He may not have
liked it, but President Bush Friday morning, without comment, signed
another one-week extension of the 2002 farm law through the end of next
week. On Tuesday, President Bush called on Congress to pass a one-year
extension of the old farm bill."

***

Dan Morgan reported in today's Washington Post that, "House and Senate
negotiators reached tentative agreement yesterday on a new $290 billion,
multiyear farm bill that would add about $10.4 billion for nutrition
programs while continuing to channel billions of dollars to farmers,
even if prices stay at current record levels.

"Key details remain to be worked out, but lawmakers said a final deal
could come next week on the bill. The government would spend $10 billion
more than allocated by congressional budget committees last year. The
Bush administration had proposed an increase of about $5.5 billion." 

Mr. Morgan explained that, "Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom
Harkin (D-Iowa) said the agreement would include a new permanent program
that guarantees aid to farmers and ranchers suffering weather-related
losses, a priority of senators from Western states hit by
drought...[T]he bill would reduce the tax credit for ethanol made from
corn to 45 cents per gallon from 51, but the tax credit would be
extended through 2010."

The Post article also noted that, "Rising food costs gave a strong
impetus to stepped-up funding for programs such as food stamps that help
poor and near-poor families. Farm bill versions passed by the House and
Senate last year proposed modest increases in food stamp benefits and
eased standards of eligibility for the program.

"Last week, Senate negotiators offered a $9.5 billion increase over 10
years. Yesterday, they upped that offer by $800 million to $900 million,
sources indicated."

Greg Hitt reported in today's Wall Street Journal that, "Lawmakers
dickering over details of the bill zeroed in on a plan to provide for a
big increase in nutrition programs, especially assistance for low-income
families, congressional aides said. The planned $10.4 billion increase
would be paid for by raising Customs user fees. Such fees are assessed
at the border on imports from abroad.

"Negotiators also appear to have reached tentative agreement on a $1.6
billion package of tax cuts, providing a range of incentives to promote
conservation and investment in farm country. The package includes a new
preference to promote development of next-generation biofuels, which
would be made from wood chips, switch grass and agricultural waste,
instead of food grains.

"To pay for the tax cuts, lawmakers are proposing to scale back an
existing tax credit that subsidizes production of corn-based ethanol,
among other things."

Mr. Hitt indicated that, "The additional funds for nutrition are
expected to include new spending for domestic as well as international
assistance, a nod toward concerns world-wide that the rise in food
prices is fueling food shortages in the developing world. Beyond the
spending on nutrition, the bill is expected to provide over $4 billion
in new spending on conservation programs, a major priority of Sen.
Harkin.

"With some pieces of the bill still moving, it was unclear Friday how
far negotiators for the House and Senate would go to reduce subsidies
for production of wheat, corn and other commodities. The White House has
been insisting on deep cuts, but the original House and Senate bills
made only moderate changes in subsidies.

"It is still unclear what the White House will ultimately do. President
Bush has voiced a range of concerns about the farm proposal. Lawmakers
hoped the decision to pay for more nutrition spending with Customs user
fees would help avoid a veto fight."

David M. Herszenhorn reported in today's New York Times that,
"Congressional negotiators said Friday that they had reached a tentative
agreement on a five-year farm bill that would increase spending on food
stamps and other nutrition programs while mostly maintaining existing
farm subsidies at a time of record profits for farmers.

"The bill, which would cost more than $300 billion, includes an increase
of $1 billion a year for food stamps and other nutrition aid, and it
would make a modest cut, of about $40 million a year, to a
much-criticized farm subsidy that is paid based on acreage even if it is
no longer farmed.

"The deal also contains tax cuts of up to $1.8 billion, including
depreciation incentives for racehorse breeders sought by the Senate
Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. And it includes a new
$3.8 billion disaster relief program for farmers, scaled back from the
$5 billion proposed by the Senate."

Mr. Herszenhorn noted that, "Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who was at the center of the
tug of war over how to pay for the bill, said that the tax package was
'basically done.' But other Congressional aides cautioned that given the
unpredictable nature of farm politics nothing would be certain until the
conference committee worked out the final details and approved the
package.

"Among the details still to be worked out were competing proposals to
lower the adjusted gross income limits for recipients of certain farm
subsidies. Negotiators said they were likely to impose tighter limits on
wealthy recipients who did not earn most of their income from farming,
but those who did farm for most of their earnings would mostly likely
not face the lower caps.

"The Bush administration has called for much lower limits that deny
subsidies to anyone with an average adjusted gross income above $200,000
a year. And while some of the last-minute maneuvering was intended to
address White House concerns, it remained unclear if the administration
would support it or will renew veto threats."

The Times article also pointed out that, "Among the most criticized
subsidies are the $5.2 billion a year in 'direct payments,' which are
disbursed to farmers even now when they are reaping unprecedented
earnings from strong harvests and record-high grain prices. And the
proposed cut in those payments - a relatively modest $400 million over
10 years - is unlikely to quiet critics...In a nod to concerns that new
federal mandates for production of corn-based ethanol are contributing
to rising food prices around the world, the bill would reduce a tax
credit for ethanol processors to 45 cents a gallon from 51 cents. It
also includes added incentives to encourage production of cellulosic
ethanol, which is made from plant matter like switchgrass rather than
corn."

Reuters writer Charles Abbott reported yesterday that, "The new U.S.
farm law would reduce the tax credit for corn-based ethanol while giving
nutrition programs such as food stamps a $10.4 billion increase, House
and Senate negotiators said on Friday.

"'A significant increase in nutrition is really required by what is
happening in the market,' said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent
Conrad, one of the negotiators. 'It is ... a reflection of reality.'"

Mr. Abbott explained that, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and New York
Democrat Charles Rangel, chairman of the House tax committee, insisted
on more nutrition funding to offset the $361 million cost of tax breaks
to timber companies and owners of racehorses.

"The 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for corn-based ethanol would drop to 45
cents, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, said in
describing the ongoing discussions. The Minnesota Democrat said a tax
credit would be created for ethanol derived from cellulose, found in
grasses, woody plants and crop debris.

"'This is what the country wants,' Peterson said, referring to
development of cellulosic ethanol. Livestock groups say rapid growth of
the corn-based ethanol industry is driving up feed costs and rippling
through to higher grocery prices."

The Reuters article also stated that, "With approval of the timber and
racehorse tax breaks, negotiators will have to cut about $1 billion from
commodity supports, up from the earlier goal of $730 million.

"Still to be decided were tighter rules on crop subsidies and whether to
increase crop subsidy rates for wheat and soybeans.

"A small cut might be made in the so-called direct payments that
guarantee $5.2 billion a year to grain, cotton and soybean growers, a
small-farm advocate said."

DTN writer Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription)
that, "As the national news focused on increased food costs that have
led some stores to ration some commodities such as rice, the lawmakers
focused on the boost in spending and work on nutrition programs.
Lawmakers will be able to tout the bill as a response to rising food
costs and as a way to help ensure fewer Americans go hungry.

"'The one thing that is in this bill that people ought to know about is
we carried a heavy load for nutrition,' said Senate Agriculture
Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. 'Food stamps and groups out
there, we carried a heavy load on this one ... It's not just a farm
bill. It is a farm, and a food and an energy bill.'"

Mr. Clayton noted that, "Most major policies on direct payments,
counter-cyclical programs, loan-deficiency payments and crop insurance
do not change. Minor cuts in direct payments are expected, but it has
not been defined how those cuts will be implemented or who they will
affect."

The DTN article indicated that, "To appease the Bush administration,
Congress also will give the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture disaster
authority to prevent farmers from locking in loan-deficiency payments
during major marketing disasters, such as when prices collapsed in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This still allows farmers, under normal
marketing conditions, to lock in a loan-deficiency payment and hold
their grain to sell at a later date.

"Peterson said he believes there is a general agreement between himself
and southern lawmakers such as Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking
Member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., over capping income eligibility for
commodity program payments. Under the proposal, farmers could have
unlimited farm income and still qualify for commodity program payments,
but non-farm income such as salaries, stock gains or other business
revenue would count against an income cap. Such a cap would also be
phased in rather than a simple, hard cut-off level, Peterson said.

"From Peterson's perspective, an income cap based on non-farm income is
better than focusing on farm revenue, he said, because it doesn't
penalize larger farmers. Peterson said an income cap on larger farmers
would only translate into one more pressure point leading to higher food
prices.

"'The government should not be deciding how big a farm should be,'
Peterson said."

In a separate DTN article from yesterday ("Ethanol Credit Cut as Part of
Farm Bill Tax Deal"- link requires subscription), Chris Clayton reported
that, "As part of the effort to shift from corn-based ethanol to
cellulosic, congressional leaders negotiating tax credits in the farm
bill have agreed to cut the ethanol blenders credit for corn-based
ethanol from 51 cents a gallon to 45 cents, a 6-cent reduction in the
credit, negotiators said Friday."

Later, Mr. Clayton noted that, "[House Agriculture Committee Chairman
Collin Peterson, D-N.D.] said the ethanol provisions will show Congress
wants to shift away from corn-based ethanol and look at spurring
development of cellulosic ethanol production. Those provisions were
supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"'This is a huge win, ironically, for the speaker,' Peterson said. 'This
is what the country wants, to move away from corn.'"

(FarmPolicy.com Note: Recall that Reuters writer Tom Doggett reported on
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 ("Lawmaker says cellulosic ethanol a decade
away") that, "It will be at least a decade before technological
breakthroughs allow ethanol fuel to be produced commercially from farm
and forest waste like wood chips, switchgrass and corn stalks, the
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee said on Tuesday."

Mr. Doggett noted that, "'I think we are 10 years away,' said Peterson,
speaking at the Reuters Global Agriculture and Biofuel Summit.

"'I really think the more I look at this whole cellulosic issue, there
is a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people realize in terms of
the feedstocks. We have a lot of work to do in that regard,' he said.
'I'm not sure cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground.'")

Meanwhile, Philip Brasher
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/BU
SINESS01/80425041/-1/NEWS04>  reported yesterday at The Des Moines
Register Online that, "Grain and cotton growers, however, successfully
fought off a significant cut in the $5 billion in fixed annual payments
that they received. Under the deal, those payments would be cut by just
$400 million over a 10-year period.

"Iowa farmers and landowners receive nearly $500 million annually in
fixed payments."

Mr. Brasher noted that, "Harkin preserved $1.1 billion in funding for
the Conservation Security Program, which would expand the program from
16 million to 80 million acres.

"The program provides payments to farmers for practices that reduce
erosion."

Associated Press writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported yesterday that,
"The tentative deal includes a $3.8 billion disaster package, trimmed
from the $4 billion farm-state lawmakers had initially sought.

"'It's just a trim ... just a nick, we feel,' said Sen. Max Baucus,
D-Mont., 'The program is there, and that's the important thing.'" 

Keith Good 

 

 

Vicki Morrone

Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist

Michigan State University

C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems

303 Natural Resources Bldg.

East Lansing, MI 48824

517-353-3542

517-282-3557 (cell)

517-353-3834 (fax)

For information on organic agriculture production please visit:
http://www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu/

P Please consider the environment before printing this email

 

 


If you would like to access previous postings to the Mich-Organic listserv you can copy and paste the following URL into your browser address bar
 http://list.msu.edu/archives/mich-organic.html