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 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
Article
printed from FarmPolicy.com: http://www.farmpolicy.com
URL to article: http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=741