Grocers and SNAP recipients face perplexing set of rules restricting 'junk food' purchases

In Idaho, candy is banned, unless it contains flour or requires 
refrigeration. (Photo by Denny Mueller, Unsplash)

States that no longer allow Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program money to pay for "junk food" have left retailers and SNAP recipients confused about which foods are allowed for purchase with SNAP dollars, reports Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. The new rules may disproportionately impact rural residents, who are more likely to participate in SNAP than their urban counterparts.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his supporters have led the charge to keep highly processed foods off of American tables, beginning with the SNAP program. Roubein explains, "They argue federal dollars shouldn’t help people buy products increasingly linked to poor health and obesity. Trump administration officials have pushed states to bar the use of food stamps for soda and candy."

In response, 10 states received federal waivers to restrict SNAP food choices and rolled out their own unique set of restrictions. "In Iowa, anti-hunger advocates recently sought to highlight how some cold sandwiches and granola bars may not qualify," Roubein reports. "In Idaho, legislators had attempted to clarify the state’s candy ban, since it allows KitKats and Twix because they contain flour."

The fact that each state has its own rules "has led to a complicated and at times counterintuitive maze of new restrictions, according to more than two dozen interviews with trade groups for independent grocers and convenience stores, store owners, anti-hunger advocates, SNAP participants and others," the Post reports.

Fearing the loss of their SNAP licenses, some grocers have banned additional products from SNAP purchases to ensure compliance, Roubein explains. But that change has left SNAP-spending customers not just trying to figure out what their state allows, but also what the store they are shopping in allows.

While most anti-hunger activists oppose the restrictions as further marginalizing and punishing people for "being poor, nutritionists and nutrition advocates have mixed opinions," the Post reports. "Others say they have long sought to test SNAP changes, and want to see data showing whether the new rules impact consumer behavior and improve health." States with restriction waivers have two years to pilot their programs.

U.S. sugar farmers take a beating as price per ton tanks

A truck unloads sugar beets. (Red River Valley Sugarbeet 
Growers Association photo)

U.S. soybean and corn farmers aren't the only ones taking a beating in this year's agriculture market. Sugar beet farmers will also see abysmal payments for their record 2025 crop, report Jenny Schlecht and Kjersti Maday of AgWeek.

American Crystal Sugar announced it will pay farmers $43.85 per ton for its record 2025 crop, a "far cry from the $78 it paid last year or the $83.18 it paid for the 2023 crop," Schlecht writes.

The Minnesota-based sugar cooperative explained the lower prices, saying "net sugarbeet payments per ton for 2025 will be far less than payments in recent years due to low sugar prices blamed on sugar dumping by companies that heavily subsidize their sugar crops," AgWeek reports.

Sugar beets are white-rooted.
 (Merriam-Webster drawing)

Sugar beet growers, like other American farmers, have faced high input costs for labor, fertilizer and machinery. They are also grappling with less demand. Demand is down about 4% from a high several years ago, according to the article. Inflation, shifts in the American and even changes in SNAP allowances can all be contributors to less demand.

But Tom Astrup, the president and CEO of American Crystal Sugar, said price worries are the "greatest threat to the sugar industry since Mexican sugar dumping more than a decade ago," Schlecht explains. "The industry has been 'hammered' by the imports of world sugar, which Astrup said the Department of Agriculture has lost control of. That, he said, has led to the highest stocks of sugar in the U.S. in 25 years."

Coca-Cola sweetened with cane sugar could be more expensive; corn farmers worry they'll be hurt by the changes

Soft drink companies use high-fructose corn syrup to
reduce production costs. (Photo by J. Yarema, Unsplash)

If Coca-Cola wants to eliminate high-fructose corn syrup in Coke and replace it with cane sugar, it will need to find cane sugar suppliers outside the U.S. because the country already faces a cane sugar shortage. Since cane sugar is more costly than high-fructose corn syrup, the switch would increase the cost of Coke while simultaneously hurting U.S. corn farmers.

"Each year, America consumes about 12.5 million tons of sugar, but produces only 4 million tons of cane sugar. The rest is made up by imports and sugar sourced from sugar beets," report Patrick Thomas and Laura Cooper for The Wall Street Journal. "The beverage industry relies heavily on high-fructose corn syrup as its sweetener of choice. Each year, more than 7 million tons are produced by mills that grind up corn to make sweeteners and other products."

Due to U.S. sugar production limits, if Coca-Cola shifts to cane sugar on a broader scale, it will have to import sugar "from countries such as Brazil and Mexico — countries that face Trump administration tariffs of 50% and 30%, respectively, on Aug. 1," the Journal reports.

Although the soda giant has agreed to produce some American Coke with cane sugar, the switch will increase its expenses. Ron Sterk, a senior editor at SOSland Publishing, an information provider for the ingredients industry in the U.S., told Reuters, "Food and beverage industries started to use corn syrup in the U.S. in the past because of costs. It is cheaper than sugar."

U.S. corn farmers rely on domestic corn syrup production to drive grain market prices. Reuters reports, "The Corn Refiners Association said the complete elimination of high fructose corn syrup from the U.S. food and beverage supply would cut corn prices by up to $.34 a bushel, resulting in a loss of $5.1 billion in farm revenue."

Wednesday quick hits: Oreo scandal; dead solar panels; photos of the year; the nurse shortage; food inflation dips

Is there less creme filling?
(Wall Street Journal photo)

Sometimes less is more, but sometimes less is just less, especially if you're talking about less filling in your delightfully creamed Oreo. "Oreo fans think there's less filing, but the Snack maker says it hasn't tinkered with creme ratio," reports Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. "But suspicious consumers are on high alert."

Inquiring minds want to know: Where do dead solar panels end up? "The majority end up in landfills," reports Izzy Ross of Grist. "But there are no federal requirements for recycling solar panels, and states have different regulations for what to do with them. Panels can also contain small amounts of heavy metals like lead, which makes getting rid of them more complicated. The vast majority of panels are thrown away in landfills — only about 10 percent are recycled."

Photo by Louie Palu, National Geographic

It's finally time for the National Geographic photos of the year. A diverse and beautiful world awaits. In the photo, left, Finnish and U.S. soldiers train for winter warfare by navigating an obstacle course while on skis. The exercise took place two months before Finland — which shares an 800-mile border with Russia — joined NATO. The training was arranged in response to the war in Ukraine.

Is there a nursing shortage? That depends. "In 2022, the American Hospital Association quoted an estimate that half a million nurses would leave the field by the end of that year, bringing the total shortage to 1.1 million," reports Brittany Trang of STAT. "At the same time, National Nurses United insists there isn't a nurse shortage at all. There are plenty enough nurses for the country, they say — merely a shortage of nurses who want to work under current conditions."

Bill Watterson comic via
Mental Floss

When life gets too heavy, lift yourself up with some comics like Calvin and Hobbes. The wacky duo gets up to all kinds of shenanigans. The cartoon strip's artist was also a bit of a card himself.

After two years of stubborn food inflation, Americans can expect a slow drop in at-home food costs. "According to economists with the Department of Agriculture, while food prices are expected to remain higher in 2024, the rampant inflation rates experienced in 2022 and 2023 are anticipated to return to more 'normal' levels in the upcoming fiscal year, reports Charlsie McKay, RFD-TV News, which covers rural America.

Photo by M. Zilses, Unsplash

As the the holiday season approaches, it's time to consider how to eat all the treats you love without looking like you ate all the things you love. "What if the best way to curb sugar cravings is just to eat as much as you want? That is the core of an idea gaining traction among dietitians," reports Alina Dizik of The Wall Street Journal. "Who say that letting ourselves graze unfettered on a cache of Halloween fun-size Snickers can reduce our sugar lust in the long run."

New federal nutrition guides, which influence school lunches and food stamps, ignore experts' calls for less sugar, alcohol

New federal nutritional guidelines unveiled last week, which influence everything from school lunches and military rations to food stamps, ignored scientific advisers' calls to lower recommended sugar and alcohol intake. Agency officials said there wasn't enough evidence to advise stricter limits on sugar and alcohol, but emphasized that people should cut back on both.

"The updated guidelines are the first to include dietary advice for infants, toddlers and pregnant women," Ryan McCrimmon reports for Politico's Weekly Agriculture. "They also have a broader theme of encouraging consumers to “make every bite count” by choosing nutrient-rich foods and beverages, with five categories — fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy and protein — accounting for 85 percent of daily calories.

The Department of Agriculture and the Department for Health and Human Services have jointly released updated guidelines every five years since 1980. The federal government hired an independent panel of 20 doctors, nutritionists and public-health experts from major academic institutions to assist in creating the new guidelines. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee "suggested the guidelines should take a harder line against added sugars, but USDA and HHS decided to keep the Obama-era advice that individuals try to not consume more than 10 percent of their calories from added sugars," Helena Bottemiller Evich reports for Politico. "The committee had recommended dropping the limit down even further to 6 percent."

The committee also "recommended in June that the guidelines should urge men to cut back on alcohol by reducing the government’s definition of 'moderate drinking' from two drinks per day to one. (At the time, the panel recommended keeping the definition of moderate drinking the same for women, at one drink per day.)," Evich reports. "Government officials ultimately decided to not adopt the stricter alcohol recommendation, which had sparked furious pushback and lobbying from the alcohol industry.

The dietary guidelines have long been a political football because of their influence over federal nutrition programs, Evich reports.

EPA allows pesticide atrazine and related chemicals to stay on the market — with some new caveats

Widely used herbicide atrazine, along with its cousins propozine and simizine, can stay on the market, but with new restrictions on its use. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the interim decision Friday at a farmer roundtable in Niangua, Missouri, Todd Neeley reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. Atrazine is the second-most widely used herbicide in the U.S., and is mainly used on corn, sugarcane, sorghum, and landscaping.

The new restrictions are intended to reduce potential harm to human health and the environment; the EPA has found in recent years that atrazine exposure can pose developmental risks to children and reproductive risks to wildlife. The new measures include reducing atrazine and simazine use on residential lawns to protect children who play on them, requiring irrigation immediately after applying simazine to residential turf, and requiring workers who spray the herbicides to wear additional personal protective equipment.

"The agency is finalizing label requirements for all three triazines to include mandatory spray drift control measures, to minimize pesticide drift into non-target areas including water bodies, as well as updating label directions to reduce weed resistance to atrazine," Neeley reports.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a left-leaning nonprofit, plans to file suit against the EPA over the decision. The organization argues that allowing use of triazines at all endangers human health and wildlife, and notes that more than 35 countries have banned or are phasing out use of atrazine. The Center also argues that the EPA essentially modified lab test benchmarks to make atrazine seem safer for humans, and that the old benchmarks would have found atrazine unsafe for use on lawns and turf.

Nutrition label now has larger portion sizes and lists added sugars, which can cause problems; here's how to limit it

Nutrition fact labels are the primary source of information about what's in the food we eat, and they recently got their first update in 20 years.

The Food and Drug Administration says it based the changes on "updated scientific information, new nutrition and public health research, more recent dietary recommendations from expert groups, and input from the public."

Manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual sales were required to switch to the new label by Jan. 1, those with less annual food sales have another year to comply.

One of the biggest changes on the labels is that they now show a serving size based on the amount most people eat and drink, instead of a suggested serving size.

This change was made to reflect the larger portions people eat and drink now, compared to those in 1993 when the previous size requirements were published. For example, the new serving size for ice cream is 2/3 cup, compared to 1/2 cup on the old label.

And for products that could be consumed in one sitting, like a 24-ounce bottle of soda or a pint of ice cream, manufacturers must now provide a "dual column" label to show calories and nutrients for both "per serving" and"per package" amounts.

The labels also show the calories and serving size in larger and bolder type. This change was made to address the growing obesity problem in the United States, which is associated with heart disease, stroke, certain cancers and diabetes.

The new labels will no longer include calories from fat, but will instead show the types of fat a product contains. This change was made to reflect research that shows the type of fat you consume is more important than the amount.

The labels now include potassium and Vitamin D, along with calcium and iron. Vitamins A and C have become optional for listing, since most Americans get enough of those nutrients in their diets. They also reflect updated requirements for the amount of nutrients we need, shown in both the actual amount and the percent daily value. An updated footnote explains the meaning of percent daily value.

The FDA added Vitamin D and potassium because research shows these are nutrients that Americans don't always get enough of, and when lacking, are associated with increased risk of chronic disease.

Added sugars have also been added to the label. The most recent dietary guidelines recommends you consume less than 10% of your daily calories from added sugars.

The American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of added sugar per day for women and nine teaspoons for men. The recommended rate for children varies between three and six teaspoons per day, depending on age and caloric need. One teaspoon of sugar equals four grams on the label.

Health risk of added sugar

Most people have no idea how much added sugar they consume, because it's in nearly 70% of packaged foods and is found in breads, health foods, snacks, yogurts, most breakfast foods and sauces. Tara Parker-Pope reports for The New York Times. She says the average American eats about 17 teaspoons of added sugar a day -- not counting the sugars that occur naturally in foods like fruit or dairy products.

A physician who was one of the first to raise the alarm about the health risks of added sugar told Parker-Pope that it's not just about the added calories, but also about the many health risks that come with eating too much added sugar.

“It’s not about being obese, it has to do with metabolic health,” Dr. Robert Lustig, professor of pediatric endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, told Parker-Pope. “Sugar turns on the aging programs in your body. The more sugar you eat, the faster you age.”

A number of health authorities, including the World Health Organization and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, which issues national dietary guidelines for Americans, agree that cutting back on added sugars is a good idea, Parker-Pope reports, adding that these views have come under attack by groups with ties to the food industry.

Parker-Pope writes that while many scientists believe added sugar is the leading culprit in the obesity epidemic, they also say that even people of normal weight can suffer the same health problems associated with eating too much sugar, including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, cancer, stroke and even Alzheimer's disease.

Too much added sugar can also damage your liver, similarly to the way that alcohol does, leading to a condition that is called "sugar belly," in which your waist is bigger than your hips.

Parker-Pope points to the difference between the sugar, or fructose, found naturally in foods, which are good to eat, and those that have been added to foods.

She writes that our bodies can handle fructose when it's eaten as a whole fruit because it comes with a number of micronutrients plus fiber, which slows the rate at which the sugar enters your bloodstream. But when we eat the fructose found in ultra-processed foods and beverages, it doesn't have the fiber to slow it down and "your body gets a big dose of fructose that can wreak havoc," she writes.

Further, she reports that high consumption of processed fructose can result in a dulled response to a hormone called leptin, which is a natural appetitie suppressant, leading to weight gain and that it can create changes in the brain similar to those found in people who are addicted to cocaine and alcohol.

Gary Taubes, author of The Case Against Sugar and an advocate of low-carbohydrate eating, doesn't agree with the food industry's recommendation that added sugars be consumed in moderation.

“If I start to allow sugars into my life, there is a slippery slope,” Taubes told Parker-Pope “I think for many people, getting control of their sugar habit is the most important thing they can do for their health. If they can’t do it through abstinence, then mostly-abstinence is a good thing to achieve.”

The New York Times has offered a 7-Day Sugar Challenge to help people reduce the added sugar in their diet. For example, the first day in the challenge offers tips on how to cut out sugar from your breakfast. Parker-Pope stresses that it's not easy, and the cravings for sweets will be worse in the first five days -- but the payoff is worth it.

Lustig recommends three weeks of no added sugar to get your brain’s dopamine system back to normal. “Then you can introduce something back in,” he told Parker-Pope. “But it’s got to be under your control, not the food industry’s control.”

EPA proposes new rules on weedkiller atrazine, and environmentalists object; OKs 10 pesticides for hemp

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed new restrictions on the herbicide atrazine Dec. 19. U.S. farmers use about 72 million pounds of it annually, mostly on corn, sorghum and sugar cane.

"In a proposed interim final rule, EPA said it would impose new requirements to minimize workers' exposure to atrazine, including limiting applications on sod and reducing the amount combined with fertilizer," Marc Heller reports for Energy & Environment News. The agency also said it would bar atrazine from being sprayed in liquid form by airplane, which it says would reduce the risk of atrazine hitting waterways or wildlife.

"Environmentalists say EPA's plan weakens protections and would allow 50 percent more of the endocrine-disrupting herbicide linked to birth defects and cancer to end up in waterways," Heller reports. "Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity have pointed to bans on atrazine use in Europe and said EPA hasn't properly consulted with other federal agencies regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act."

EPA also approved 10 pesticides for use on hemp, Heller reports.

Agriculture appropriations bill moves to the House; one amendment would, in effect, ban horse slaughter

The House Appropriations Committee approved a $24.3 billion agriculture appropriations bill today on a 29-21 party-line vote. Of interest:

• Instead of slashing the budget by 15 percent as President Trump requested, it adds $1 billion to current discretionary spending levels.
• The bill provides nearly $4 billion for rural development programs, including $680 million for rural broadband.
• It may include an amendment that would, in effect, ban horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. Since the National Thoroughbred Racing Association has come out in support of such a measure, it may be more likely to gain traction in the Senate version of the bill.
• Another amendment would block the Department of Agriculture from using funds to provide controversial "harvest boxes" to SNAP recipients.
• The bill would ban use of funds for any costs associated with relocating the USDA's Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The USDA recently announced it would move those agencies from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City.
• Amendments from Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., would freeze funding for some food and nutrition programs until Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue can verify to Congress that every recipient has provided an identification card and passed a drug test before receiving services.
• Amendments from Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., would limit USDA support programs for the sugar industry and restrict marketing assistance loans for raw cane sugar and refined beet sugar.
• An amendment from Rep. Cindy Axne, D-Iowa, asks for an ERS report on the impact of the tariff war on U.S. farmers "in light of Russian efforts to expand agricultural exports to China."

Analysis: NAFTA replacement would produce slight net positive for U.S. economy; several ag sectors would benefit

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement would produce a slight net positive for the U.S. economy, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission's analysis. "The report found that the agreement would increase gross domestic product by 0.35 percent after inflation, or $68.2 billion, and create 175,700 jobs — fewer than the economy has recently produced in a single month, on average," Ana Swanson reports for The New York Times. "It would increase United States trade with Canada and Mexico by about 5 percent, as well as provide a modest lift to agriculture, services and manufacturing activity."

The USMCA is the proposed replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement; President Trump ordered the renegotiation soon after taking office because he blamed NAFTA for increasing the U.S. trade deficit, Swanson reports. Most of the USMCA consists of updates to NAFTA's framework; others were drawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pending trade agreement from which Trump withdrew immediately after taking office.

Several agricultural sectors would benefit from the agreement, Ryan McCrimmon reports for Politico:

• "Dairy exports from the U.S. to Canada would increase by $227 million annually, a jump of 43.8 percent. U.S. imports of Canadian dairy products would also rise, with $161.7 million more in goods entering the country.
• Poultry raised in the U.S. would get expanded access to the Canadian market. Poultry meat exports in particular would increase by $183.5 million, or 49.3 percent, while shipments of live birds and eggs for incubation would rise by 11.2 percent and exports of eggs for consumption would jump by 27.9 percent.
• Sugar would be traded between Canada and the U.S. at higher rates: Imports from Canada would increase by $16 million, or 1.4 percent, and exports from the U.S. would rise by $21.1 million, or 2.3 percent.
• U.S. wheat producers are likely to get a small increase in access to the Canadian market, as well."

Maple season is arriving in New England; demand for natural syrup has turned cottage industry into a big business

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Vermont Gov. Phil
Scott, flanked by Vermont "Maple Ambassadors" Mark Turco
Jr. and Michelle Poulin, tap a maple. It's still too cold to tap
trees for sap in northern New England. (Maple News)

The business of tapping maple trees for their sap, and using it to make a sugary syrup, has become big business, thanks to increasing demand for natural syrup. Not long ago, "sugaring" was "largely a sideline for dairy and small-scale farmers that fell at a nice spot on the calendar. Now it's become virtually industrialized" with state-of-the-art technology and continues expansion, reports former New Hampshire agriculture commissioner Steve Taylor, who was long among the tree-tappers.

"Operations that once had 2,500 taps may now have 35,000; Somerset County in northwestern Maine has recently seen new operations spring up with 100,000 or more taps, often run by Quebecers who want to get around the provincial quota system," Taylor writes in an email to The Rural Blog. "So the industry is now headed in the same direction as dairy, with production outstripping demand and brokers and other bulk purchasers carrying over inventory from last season and imposing limits on what producers can bring them. The bulk price five years ago hovered close to $3 per pound, now it has settled at below $2." A gallon weighs 11 pounds.

Perdue listens as Kevin Harrison of Georgia Mountain Maples
 explains the workings of his processing system. (Maple News)

Another indication of the industry's size may have been last week's visit by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to "160,000-tap Georgia Mountain Maples, tapping the ceremonial first tree of the 2019 maple season with Vermont Gov. Phil Scott and a group of second graders from a nearby school. It was the first known visit of a sugarhouse by a U.S. agriculture secretary in modern history," Peter Gregg reports for Maple News, a trade journal he started a few years ago – itself another indication of the industry's growth.

Bruce Bascom of Bascom Maple Farms, New Hampshire's top producer, also sells supplies and equipment, and told The Rural Blog that part of the business has reached "a soft spot" due to low prices. "People invested in maple for a lot of emotional and irrational reasons," he said, but the number of taps keeps growing 7 to 10 percent a year as consumption is goes up about 7 percent annually, and he voiced confidence: "In the next 12 to 15 years, the industry's gonna double again." He said it has been boosted by heavy promotion from the Quebec industry and a growing desire of U.S. consumers for natural syrup rather than the "chemical concoctions" sold under popular brands.

Farm Bill on House floor this week; Republican leaders scramble to find the votes to pass it

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled vote this week on a Republican-created Farm Bill that includes several controversial amendments, such as deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, once known as food stamps. Agriculture Committee Chair Mike Conaway told Melanie Zanona ofThe Hill that the bill is still short of the 218 votes it needs but "He expressed confidence that he can flip enough members by working the phones over the weekend, clearing up any questions and concerns and pointing out that some amendments will get a floor vote."

"Democrats walked away from the normally bipartisan Farm Bill process when Republicans decided to include the SNAP revamp, which they say is unnecessarily cruel and would prevent 1 million people from receiving food stamps," Zanona reports. "Even the GOP conference is divided over the changes, with some moderate Republicans worried the requirements are too tough and others worried the changes don’t go far enough."

Changes to sugar subsidies are also a divisive issue, and one that regularly cuts across party lines. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., has proposed an amendment to ensure taxpayers don't have to pay for federal bailouts of the sugar industry. But far-right Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., says the amendment would be a "poison pill" that would put the farm bill in jeopardy if it gets to a vote, Zanona reports.

Another controversial provision: stricter work requirements on some food stamp recipients. "All able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 59 have to be working or enrolled in a training program for at least 20 hours per week in order to qualify for food stamps," Zanona reports. "People who are elderly, disabled or pregnant would be exempt from the requirements."

Dairy farmers, who have been facing hard times lately, will get some attention in the farm bill too with changes to the Dairy Margin Protection Program. The program has been criticized for not adequately reimbursing farmers hurt by falling milk prices. The farm bill proposal "the amount of milk that can qualify for coverage from four to six million pounds and made the payout monthly," Whitney Bashaw reports for The Daily Star in Oneonta, New York. It will also "strike 'margin protection' to replace it with 'dairy risk management.' The Dairy Margin Protection Program will be renamed Dairy Risk Management. Additionally, dairy producers will now be eligible to participate in the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance Plan for Dairy Cattle, which legislators said can provide flexibility for farmers."

House's Farm Bill would cut food stamps drastically, allows agriculture secretary to declare rural health emergency

"The House version of a new Farm Bill released Thursday would allow the secretary of agriculture to declare a rural health emergency, making it easier to award grants and loans to community health facilities and telehealth programs," Bryce Oates and Tim Marema report for The Daily Yonder.

The bill doesn't name specific types of health emergencies, but prioritizes loans for facilities providing "recovery services," which could refer to the opioid epidemic. The emergency provision affects Title VI of the farm bill, which covers "rural utilities like electricity, phone, and broadband; community facilities; small business development; waste water and water treatment; and similar programs," Oates and Marema report. Trump proposed big cuts in those programs in 2017, but Congress hasn't followed through. 

The bill would also add more work requirements for an estimated 4 million to 5 million participants in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and cut the program by about $93 billion over 10 years. Republicans have tried that before and failed. SNAP and other nutrition programs account for about 80 percent of Farm Bill spending.

Other facets of the bill include:

• Reauthorization of the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority at reduced funding levels.
• Significant changes to conservation programs: the Conservation Reserve Program acreage cap would be increased from 20 million acres to 29 million acres over the next five years, and per-acre rental payments would be decreased. No new sign-ups would be permitted in the Conservation Stewardship Program. Funding would be increased for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
• $255 million per year to develop international agricultural trade.

USDA releases parts of long-term farm projections

Yesterday the U.S. Department of Agriculture released selected parts of its projections of production, consumption, and prices for major U.S. crops and livestock for the coming decade. It stressed in a press release that the figures are not forecasts, but a "conditional long-run scenario" that assumes normal weather and yields with no change in U.S. farm policy. The complete report will be released in February 2018.

Some highlights from the report:

• Overall corn acres are projected to fall from 94 million in 2016-2017 to 87.5 million planted in 2027-28, but the yield and price per bushel is expected to rise from 174.6 bushels per acre at $3.36 in 2016-2017 to 191.5 bushels per acre at $3.60 in 2027-2028. Net returns are projected to rise from $253 per acre in 2016-17 to $320 per acre in 2027-28.
• Soybean acres are projected to increase from 83.4 million in 2016-17 to 91.5 million in 2027-28. Net returns may increase from $320 per acre in 2016-17 to $326 in 2027-28.
• Wheat acreage is expected to fall from 50.1 million acres in 2016-17 to 48 million in 2027-28, with decreasing yields: from 52.7 bushels per acre in 2016-17 to 50.9 bushels per acre in 2027-28. The price for wheat is predicted to rise from $3.89 per bushel in 2016-17 to $5.20 per bushel in 2027-28. Net returns are projected to rise from $89 per acre in 2016-17 to $132 per acre in 2027-28.
• Rice acres could fall from 3.1 million in 2016-17 to 2.9 million in 2027-28, but yields are projected to rise from 7,237 pounds per acre in 2016-17 to 7,996 pounds per acre in 2027-28, with average price per hundredweight rising from $10.40 in 2016-17 to $13.10 in 2027-28. Net returns are projected to rise from $186 per acre in 2016-17 to $408 per acre in 2027-28.
• Barley may become less profitable, with projected net returns falling from $216 per acre in 2016-2017 to $210 in 2027-2028.
• Sorghum may also become less profitable, with projected net returns falling from $82 per acre in 2016-17 to $79 in 2027-28.
• Upland cotton plantings are projected to rise from 9.9 million acres in 2016-17 to 11.4 million in 2027-28, while the yield may rise from 855 pounds per acre in 2016-17 to 899 in 2027-28. The price per pound is projected to rise from 68 cents in 2016-2017 to 72 cents in 2027-28. Net return per acre is projected to rise from $180 in 2016-17 to $206 in 2027-28.
• Sugar projections were made for both sugar beets and sugar cane. Sugar-beet acres may decrease from 1.16 million in 2016-17 to 1.09 million in 2027-28, with a slightly increasing yield per acre during that time frame. Sugar-cane acres may increase from 853,000 in 2016-17 to 916,000 in 2027-28.
• Total meat consumption by Americans is projected to rise from 214.6 pounds per person in 2016 to 221.5 pounds in 2027. Within that total, red-meat consumption is expected to rise slightly more than poultry consumption. 
• Total dairy cows are projected to rise from 9.3 million in 2016 to 9.5 million in 2027, with pounds of milk produced per cow expected to rise from 22,775 pounds in 2016 to 26,205 pounds in 2027.

Wall Street Journal says latest sugar deal with Mexico is good for producers, bad for consumers

The business-friendly Wall Street Journal editorial page thinks the Trump administration was too friendly to sugar producers last week when it cut a new trade deal with Mexico "to guarantee that sugar prices in both countries will remain well above the world market price. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross framed the deal as a big win—and it is, for the few sugar producers on both sides of the border. The losers are millions of consumers," the editorial says.

The deal continues a trend, the editorial says: "No industry has enjoyed as much protection under the North American Free Trade Agreement as sugar producers and refiners. . . . While most of the U.S. economy had to adapt to competition from Canada and Mexico starting in 1994, the U.S. market remained heavily protected from Mexican sugar until 2008. Even when the market opened, U.S. sugar interests refused to adapt and filed anti-dumping and countervailing duty suits against Mexican exports. In 2014 the Commerce Department ruled in their favor. Mexico could have fought that ruling at a NAFTA arbitration panel, but its sugar lobby also likes high prices. So instead it agreed to comply with a U.S.-stipulated minimum price and quota, and to restrict the amount of refined sugar it ships. In other words, both sides conspired to run a sugar cartel."
 
The latest deal is an attempt to keep it going, the editorial says: "In March Mexico voluntarily suspended permits for exporting sugar to the U.S. as a precaution against the possibility that the U.S. would cancel the 2014 agreement and impose tariffs. Last week’s deal is an attempt to avoid those new duties in exchange for further limits on Mexican sugar exports to the U.S. The new minimum price for raw sugar will be 23 cents per pound, up from 22.5 cents. The world market price is about 14 cents. Refined sugar will now be set at 28 cents per pound, up from 26 cents. Mexico sugar exports to the U.S. will now be 70 percent raw and 30 percent refined, up from 53 percent raw and 47 percent refined."

The editorial concludes, "If this is a glimpse into Team Trump’s trade policy, it isn’t pretty. The deal suggests the strategy is to use government power to enforce cartels that protect politically powerful producers, and Mexico’s decision to roll over may encourage White House protectionists to ask for more. So much for the little guy."

Soft drinks are by far the No. 1 item purchased by households with food stamps, USDA finds

Households that use the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – formerly known as food stamps – are a fifth more likely to have more sweetened beverages in their homes than households not in SNAP. A study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture revealed that the top items bought with food stamps are soft drinks, which are high in sugar and have been blamed for increasing childhood obesity, which is more prevalent among rural children.

This is the first Agriculture Department study to reveal "purchasing habits under the program in detail," Jen Fifield reports for Stateline. "The report, along with the election of President Donald Trump, who may be more inclined to tighten welfare rules, has reignited a long-standing debate on whether the government should allow people to use food stamps to buy unhealthy food."

The study found no huge differences between households with or without SNAP when it came to purchasing most food products like fluid milk, ground beef and bagged snacks. But "expenditure proportions on soft drinks were slightly higher for SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households," making it the No. 1 purchase for SNAP holders. Soft-drink packages of 12 to 18 cans ranked $164.6 million, followed by 2-liter bottles ($70.9 million), and 20-24 pack cans ($39.7 million). Those categories plus two others for soft drinks added up to 38.6 percent of SNAP expenditures; in non-SNAP households, the soft-drink total was 31.7 percent.

The study report said the data came from "a leading grocery retailer" during the 2011 fiscal year. The study analyzed the spending habits of about 3 million SNAP households; the report notes that purchases made at other SNAP-authorized stores were not included.

Studies have suggested that the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages lead not only to tooth decay and weight gain, but also to type 2 diabetes, elevated cholesterol and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children. Nutrition educators want to ban the purchase of junk food through the SNAP program, but advocates such as the Food Research and Action Center say banning certain products from SNAP would be too complicated and costly, Fifeild writes. "FRAC and similar groups that fight to end hunger, along with organizations representing merchants, are fervently opposed to restrictions, saying that along with being burdensome to implement, they are also unlikely to change eating habits."

Nearly two-thirds of children drink at least one sugary drink per day, CDC study finds

Nearly two-thirds of children ages 2-19 consume at least one sugary drink per day, says a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. "Studies have suggested a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries, weight gain, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children." Obesity is more prevalent among rural children.

The CDC study, which used data from 2011-14 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, found that 62.9 percent of youth consumed at least one sugar-sweetened beverage on a given day. Among boys, 32.7 percent consumed one sugary drink, 20.2 percent two and 11.5 percent at least three. For girls, 33.7 percent had one, 18.1 percent two and 9.5 percent three. (CDC graphic: Percentage of youth who consumed sugary beverages from 2011-14)

Despite efforts to decrease sugar intake, CDC found that children "are consuming roughly the same number of calories from soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages now as they did in 2009-2010, the last time the CDC published comparable data," Caitlin Dewey reports for The Washington Post. Rachel Johnson, a professor of nutrition at the University of Vermont and a spokeswoman for the American Heart Association, told her, “The amount of sugar that children in particular consume is still astounding. We recommend that children drink soda once a week or less."

Asher Rosinger, epidemic intelligence service officer at the CDC and lead author of the study, said "on average, drinking two or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day provided more than 10 percent of the total daily calories among the children," Jacqueline Howard reports for CNN. "2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend reducing added sugars consumption to less than 10 percent of calories per day and, specifically, to choose beverages with no added sugars."

20% sugar tax would decrease soda consumption, lead to lower obesity rates, says WHO report

Nutrition facts in a can of Coke

A 20 percent tax on sugary drinks would decrease obesity by 20 percent, says a report by the World Health Organization. The report also said reducing prices for fruits and vegetables would increase consumption of those products.

WHO officials say "drinking fewer calorific sweet drinks is the best way to curb excessive weight and prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, although fat and salt in processed foods are also at fault," Stephanie Nebehay writes for Reuters. WHO states that obesity rates "more than doubled worldwide between 1980 and 2014, with 11 percent of men and 15 percent of women classified as obese—more than 500 million people."

Michael Bloomberg, former New York mayor and a WHO ambassador for noncommunicable diseases, said in a statement: "Smart policies can help to turn the tides on this deadly epidemic, especially those aimed at reducing consumption of sugary drinks, which is fueling obesity rates."

Francesco Branca, director of WHO's nutrition and health department, said an estimated 42 million children under age 5 were overweight or obese in 2015, an increase of about 11 million over the past 15 years, Nebehay writes.

Study finds soft-drink giants spend $9 million a year to sponsor 96 national health organizations

Ingredients in a can of Coke 

Nearly 100 national health organizations accepted money from the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo from 2011-15, says a study by researchers from Boston University published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. During that same time period Coke and Pepsi "lobbied against at least 28 public health bills intended to reduce soda consumption or improve nutrition." Soda, which is often high in sugar content, has been partly blamed for a rise in obesity in the U.S., and obesity is more prevalent in rural areas.

Coke spent more than $6 million annually on lobbying from 2011-14, while Pepsi spent $3 million per year. Of the 96 organizations that accepted money, 12 accepted money from both companies, 83 from Coke and one from only Pepsi. Among those companies was the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Lead author Daniel Aaron, a medical student at BU, said the companies "used relationships with health organizations to develop positive associations for their brands. The soda companies can neutralize potential legislative opposition by invoking reciprocity and financial dependence from national health organizations. Rather than supporting public health, organizations may become unwitting partners in a corporate marketing strategy that undermines public health."

Some of the companies that accepted money released statements defending their actions, Kerry Lauerman reports for The Washington Post. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation said the “fundraisers in question were individual local initiatives” and not national sponsorships.

"The American Heart Association released a statement saying it "is leading efforts to reduce consumption of sugary drinks. To achieve our goals, we must engage a wide variety of food and beverage companies to be part of the solution. As clearly evidenced by our work, under no circumstances does such occasional funding have any influence on our science and the public policy positions we advocate for."

Study: Meat contributes to obesity at same rate as sugar; excess protein becomes fat

Meat is just as likely to contribute to obesity—a greater problem in rural areas than elsewhere—as sugar, says an international study by researchers at Australia's University of Adelaide, published in the Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences.

Professor Maciej Henneberg said: "In the analysis of obesity prevalence across 170 countries, we have found that sugar availability in a nation explains 50 percent of obesity variation, while meat availability another 50 percent. After correcting for differences in nations' wealth (gross domestic product), calorie consumption, levels of urbanization and of physical inactivity, which are all major contributors to obesity, sugar availability remained an important factor, contributing independently 13 percent, while meat contributed another 13 percent to obesity."

Lead researcher Wenpeng You, a Ph.D. student, said, "Whether we like it or not, fats and carbohydrates in modern diets are supplying enough energy to meet our daily needs. Because meat protein is digested later than fats and carbohydrates, this makes the energy we receive from protein a surplus, which is then converted and stored as fat in the human body." (Read more)