In February, the USDA proposed that retailers should stock a wider variety of staple foods if they want to be part of the food-stamp program. The goal was to give poor Americans, who often live in areas with few food stores, access to more healthy food choices. Although the “enhanced retailer standards” grew out of a provision in the 2014 farm law, they faced opposition from the start as a burden on small grocers and convenience stores. And now, the House Appropriations Committee has sided with the critics, voting to prohibit the USDA from implementing the new standards.
On a voice vote, committee members added the prohibition to the $147.7 billion fiscal 2017 funding bill for USDA, FDA and related agencies. The bill was cleared for a floor vote at the end of a 5-1/2-hour bill-drafting session. Election-year pressures complicate the outlook for the appropriations bill in a chamber riven by partisanship and demands for spending cuts.
Mississippi Rep. Steven Palazzo, the sponsor of the prohibition, said the USDA proposal “goes far beyond” the language in the farm bill and would “result in tens of thousands of small stores being kicked out of the program.” Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt said the end result would be fewer stores in low-income areas that accept food stamps and longer shopping trips for food-stamp recipients.
“I’ve heard from a number of small retailers about how hard it would be” to comply, said Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop. “We need the full range of stores, from small to large.”
The USDA proposal carries weight because one in seven Americans was enrolled in the food stamp program at latest count. Food stamps, the largest U.S. anti-hunger program, account for more than 10 percent of U.S. grocery spending. During fiscal 2015, an average 45.8 million people received benefits totaling nearly $74 billion.
According to the USDA, “the average small store would need to add an additional 54 staple foods at a cost of around $140 in order to meet the proposed eligibility criteria.” The new inventory “would be a one-time cost, a cost that would be recouped as inventory is sold out,” the agency said earlier this month in extending the comment period on the proposal by 30 days, to May 18. The average benefit was $127 per month per person.
“I suppose we can talk out of both sides of our mouths on this issue,” said Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro. She contrasted complaints of poor diets among low-income Americans with the political resistance to requiring stores to stock healthy foods.
“This is not a huge requirement,” said Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree. “Remember, we’re paying for the benefits.”
Under the USDA proposal, stores would have to stock seven varieties of qualifying foods in the four staple-food groups, with a stocking depth of six units. In three of the four food groups — bread and cereals; meat, poultry and fish; dairy products; and fruits and vegetables — the stock must include one perishable food. Currently, they are required to offer at least three varieties of food in each of the four staple-food categories, including perishable varieties in at least two of the categories.
In other news, on a 26-24 vote that generally followed party lines, the committee adopted a provision that would prevent the USDA from issuing new fair-play rules on treatment of farmers who grow poultry and livestock under contract for processors. The committee has repeatedly blocked the regulations since the USDA began work on them in 2010. “Most people thought the department had given up. Apparently, they haven’t,” said Republican Rep. Andy Harris, who represents a poultry-farming district in eastern Maryland.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last month that the fair-play rules would be a priority for the final year of the Obama administration. The rider in the appropriations bill would let the next administration decide whether to pursue the idea. The small-farm group National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said he rules would prohibit deceptive and abusive business practices such as retaliation against growers who complain about their contracts.
Harris said the new rules would impair broiler chicken production, which is now run through the so-called tournament system. But Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur said the rules would level the playing field for producers, who are at a disadvantage with processors. The rules of the tournament system are opaque and processors are unclear about how payments are calculated, she said, while farmers take the blame for poor performance if they are given a sickly lot of chicks or poor-quality feed by the processors.
Committee members also voted 29-20 to keep a provision giving the FDA $3 million “for consumer outreach to promote understanding and acceptance of agricultural technology and bio-technology-derived food products and animal feed.” The Democratic leader on the committee, Nita Lowey of New York, wanted to excise the provision, arguing that “it’s not the responsibility of FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign” for GMO foods. Aderholt, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees FDA and USDA, responded, “We need to avoid consumer confusion.”
The first-in-the-nation GMO food-labeling law takes effect in Vermont on July 1. Food makers and farm groups oppose labeling as unnecessary and misleading. The government says GMO crops, which have been grown for two decades, are safe; the FDA has a policy of voluntary labeling for GMOs.